How fast would Oscar Pistorius be with healthy legs?

i kinda like running wrote:

Yes. Oscar has superior power/weight ratio due to the ultra light carbon-fiber legs.

He also has an advantage due to the fact that those blades don't get tired. Another poster mentioned that most of your propulsion power comes from the hips/thighs/glutes, and while that's true, you do get SOME power from your lower legs. Try jumping up in the air without using your calves. Clearly Oscar has an advantage in the fact that his lower legs are incapable of fatigue.

So then would he not be able to jump in the air because he doesn't have calves? Obviously he has a disadvantage because he doesn't have calf muscles...

You guys saying that calves have more spring than his blades are morons.

If you jumped down off a height and landed on your feet you would collapse on landing. If Oscar did the same thing he would bounce for a week.

He's geting the same amount of free energy that a Kangaro gets.

'No, he's actually at an advantage with his prostheses'

This could only be accurately researched by taking the legs off healthy athletes then timing them

They are also not taking into account the trun of the track and a 100 different variables which are likely not to benefit him

I say he would go faster, I've seen him stuggling to maitain speed round the turns

You can't compare a wheelchair its a completely different dynamic + the main thing the ACTUAL w/c WR's are faster.

100 scientists said there was no water on the moon. They had all the stats and research to back it up + we've even been there! Few years ago, oh by they there is an ice cap! Hm sounds like water somewhere. They had proved there could be no water supposedly. You will never see any research or comments on how they fecked it up so badly, just a load of BS & excuses. Its all BS by people who are slightly more intelligent than us but act like they are 100 x more so

He would go faster just common sense dictates that. What time is the 2nd best guy with blades doing?

conky wrote:

So then would he not be able to jump in the air because he doesn't have calves? Obviously he has a disadvantage because he doesn't have calf muscles...[/quote]

Just an FYI: The propulsion in a vertical jump is provided almost entirely by the quads. (We studied this in phys ed grad school.) The calves can't fire fast enough to keep up with the rise of the center of gravity in a vertical jump.

One person spoke of "longer muscle bellies"--note that many, if not most, top sprinters have very high and short gastrocnemius muscles (e.g. Tommie Smith:

).

In any case, longer-legged people, on average, do take longer strides, whether walking, running, or sprinting--though I do agree that "pop" off the ground with the driving foot is also a major factor--and it's reasonable to think that Pistorius would take longer strides if he had longer blades. Whether he could maintain the same stride *rate* (or close to it) is the salient question.

I hope this gives an idea that a curved spring on the lower leg gives just a litle advantage over our own legs.

As we speak, Jeremy Wariner is undergoing a double amputation in order to salvage his career.

Those bare no relation to Oscar Pistorius's legs.

Get yourself tested for mental handicap before you post again, please.

Look:

It's irrelevant wether or not his legs do or do not give him an advantage against able-bodied people. The amazing thing about Oscar is that he has stood up for people with "disabilities" and has decided to fight for their right to compete alongside everyone else. He proves that it is possible to so such a thing, and will likely inspire millions of children all over the world with what he's doing.

Let the times of those children he inspires determine if the blades do in fact give him an advantage. If future blade-runners run obscenely fast by any standard, then ok, there is an advantage.

Until then, everyone should really back off their small arguments about power-to weight-ratio and let time tell.

I am in favor of letting him compete, and hope he does really well. His story is compelling and he has been very persistent.

That said, I think it is obvious the blades give him an advantage, without even having to look at the science. His body looks a lot more like mine than Wariner's. He doesn't have a body that looks like a world class 400M runner's without legs.

roadlesstraveled wrote:

It's irrelevant [whether] or not his legs do or do not give him an advantage against able-bodied people.

No, it's not irrelevant. If he has an advantage (like many others, I'm convinced he does) and another athlete loses a place in a final, or on a podium, as a result, then an injustice has been done.

I give him considerable props for what he's accomplished. I give the same to a wheelchair racer. Neither belongs in a race with whole-bodied runners.

He should get some bouncier legs and high jump 9 feet.

It's irrelevant in my book because I believe what he's doing is very important. I don't think I'm the only one who believes that either.

That would be nice if he had a couple of competotors to measure against.

He runs against single leg guys. They drop like flies in the last hundred, or end up running in circles.

He's a good average athlete, who'd probably run 49's if he had two good legs.

Calf mucles are all the go in the last 150. They get tired, and heavy, and its tough to keep your hips high to maintain stride length.

Just look at his second 2300. The guy negative splits his race. He's running faster in the last 100 than the first.

Its a shame he's disabled, but in this case it gets him more attention than the B Grade 400.

His calves a light as a feather, springy as hell, and weigh nothing. All he has to do is keep his quads going and riude the bounce. The quads are not the problem in a sub 46 seconds 400m. (I've run them)

roadlesstraveled wrote:

It's irrelevant in my book because I believe what he's doing is very important. I don't think I'm the only one who believes that either.

I won't dispute you about "what he's doing is very important."

But what he's doing has the potential, in races with the able-bodied, to hurt (at least slightly) the performances/careers? of other people unfairly.

The potential to hurt other people (through no fault of theirs) is not irrelevant, ever. It's something that should always be taken into account.

Guy would be slow as hell if he had to carry two healthy legs with him. That would be mighty heavy, not to mention it would cause havoc with his armswing.

I think it's an advantage, but the real answer is that it's unknowable because you can't identify all of the factors you would have to consider and you can assign an objective comparative value to each factor.

Which is why he shouldn't be able to compete at least in international competition (as opposed to an exhibition like the Diamond League), because if he wins no one really knows whether it was a fair victory or if he had an unfair advantage.

roadlesstraveled wrote:

It's irrelevant in my book because I believe what he's doing is very important. I don't think I'm the only one who believes that either.

Well, clearly your book is irrelevant also. Dunce.

What about the cardiovascular side of things?

He has less muscle mass that his CV system has to supply blood/oxygen to. And it's the part of the body that is lowest to the ground, so he is not having to deal with his CV system pulling against that extra bit of gravity to circulate blood from the lowest extremity back to the heart and lungs.

Also, the most common running injuries occur in the foot, achilles, and calf. He has half the organic material to worry about getting injured while training.

I applaud him for inspiring people and overcoming adversity but I just doubt that he should be allowed to run in WC and Olympics.