D3 blade runner runs 44.7 (relay) - Wins open 400 as well. How is this fair?

Are there any mid distance blade runners? It seems that a guy will come along and run 1:40 soon splitting an even 50-50.

So pudgy! ?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cq0cBO-WIAASAcY.jpg

Cottonshirt wrote:

the evidence that prosthetics offer an advantage is inconclusive, at best...

cheers.

False. Only someone who doesn't understand track would say that. These guys negative split a 400 - no one else in the world does that. And you think the legs don't provide an advantage?

I suggest you read these articles.

Storm4orce wrote:

Digby ran 53 in high school...and now runs 44! His fastest 100 in that quarter was the last one! Are you fing serious?! His advantage is ridiculous...he's a big pudgy kid that can go fast BECAUSE of his blades. Have you seen him? He practically has a beer gut.

This is the only post you have to read. If you can't be intellectually honest with yourself and see that this guy 1) runs just fast enough to win and 2) accelerated over the course of a 44.7 400m (which even WVN could not do) then you aren't worth a spot in the conversation.

This pudgy white guy literally changes his form and "goes to" his blades when he gets tired. I'd do the same thing, but I'd also have the sportsmanship to run against people like me.

D3 girls wrote:

Observerer wrote:

I am sure he did work hard. But that doesn't negate a technical advantage he gains from his prostheses. I can't imagine what he has overcome in life, and I'm sure he is a great, resilient person. Doesn't mean he isn't getting an unfair advantage.

What about the rest of the competition who has the unfair advantage of having feet? I'm sure plenty of them worked hard (and partied hard too!), but that doesn't negate the technical advantage they gain from their ankle joints.

Are suggesting that people with feet, party too much?

rojo wrote:

Cottonshirt wrote:

the evidence that prosthetics offer an advantage is inconclusive, at best...

cheers.

False. Only someone who doesn't understand track would say that. These guys negative split a 400 - no one else in the world does that. And you think the legs don't provide an advantage?

I suggest you read these articles.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/olympics/2012/writers/david_epstein/08/03/oscar-pistorius-london-olympics/index.htmlhttp://sportsscientists.com/2012/08/london-2012-pistorius-and-unfair-advantage/

Perhaps you should consider the fact that they can't get out as hard as an able bodied 400m runner given that they can't put down power or produce force like a man with legs can.

Instead it takes them longer to get up to speed and then keep that up, leading to a slower overall time and a negative split.

If your top NCAA D1 guys went out in 22.5s they could also easily run 45.07 like Pistorious. And they'd destroy this kid we are talking about even going through 200m all at the same pace.

Pistorious cannot run faster than 21.3 in the 200m because of the aforementioned inability to put down power. Look at how slow the 100m and 200m IPC T44 WRs are and tell me they have any sort of advantage over able bodied athletes.

There is nothing to suggest that with legs Pistorious wouldn't have been a 20 flat 43 runner. We simply don't know. He was clearly very fast, much faster than the other Paralympic 400m runners.

And that sports scientist guy is full of crap. He loves to push his own controversial agenda to get some time on TV as an 'expert'. In his big article about Pistorious he compares Oscar to able bodied female athletes because they have 'similar' 200m times (ONLY 0.9s difference he cites lol) but women and men are entirely different when it comes to athletics, particularly in events such as the 400m and 800m where even average highschool boys could decimate an elite women's field. He barely knows what he's talking about.

TLDR: T44 athletes can't get out as fast and so end up with a negative split but overall slower time.

People trying to argue its fairness are a special case of stupid. Sure, it's a free country and you can argue pretty much whatever you want (within reason), but this is one time that it makes you a total f'ing moron.

Last year at the state meet in Utah, a blade runner dude destroyed the state record by like 2 full seconds. He's apparently 5'9 or something normally, but with his blades, he's 6'5 easy. It wasn't even close. Literally no one had any chance at all as he continued to accelerate the last 200 meters.

But you are arguing that it is fair? How's that one work. There's like one blade runner in the state and several hundred 400 runners, and he just happens to be magnitudes more talented than all of them? Oh piss off idiot... of course it gives him an unfair advantage. Just like having male 800m runners compete against female 800m runners is completely idiotic. "Inspiring" my a$$. Get em off the track.

Why are blade runners even allowed to race? They should be in their own category with other blade runners. No one is dumb enough to think marathoner runners should have to compete with wheelchair athletes.

Might as well allow affixing blades on the bottom of able bodied running shoes and see how that goes. Oh right, that would be against the rules...

+1000000. The mind games going on to justify the blades as a disadvantage are unreal.

I have seen this runner at a few national meets. I certainly admire him as an athlete and someone what has found success and enjoyment in the sport. The thing is each time i watched him run he was doing something that just looked different. It looked like his legs were spring loaded. While others seemed to be turning over their legs his turnover was slower and stride length much longer. This happened very obviously in the last 1/4 of the race.

I am sure he is a talented athlete-absolutely no doubt. He isnt breaking any rules. It just looks like his prosthetics allow him to do something i have never seen.

Seems to me when a 400m runner fights fatigue over last 100m they lose the spring in their stride. This guy doesn't. I think a true study would focus on the last 100m - turnover, stride lengtg, etc.

I dint think my eyes are deceiving me - it looks like an advantage

Two full seconds? You lost all credibility with that statement. Significant improvement in the state record, but .76 is not quite two full seconds. He did have some advantages: 1. training year-round due to his competing in the World and Rio Paralympics; 2. training at the U.S. Olympic Center where he learned a great deal about how to lift, eat, etc.; 3. trained by an Olympic Gold Medalist in the 800 meters- may have helped with his strength at the end of the 400; 4. drive to excel- not measurable, but obvious to anyone that followed him closely through his high school career.

There is a little difference in his height with and without the blades. But from 5'9' to 6'5"? That's about as accurate as the "two full seconds" he chopped off the Utah State Record. Athletes like him that compete internationally have their blades measured and they are limited in length and energy return- they must be proportional to their natural limb length.

The final verdict as to the advantage/disadvantage that blade runners have is probably a long ways off. My guess is that they will negate each other in the 400. But like many posters on this thread, it is just a guess

The differences probably about cancel out if you have a runner race a cyclist over a certain terrain or distance, but that doesn't mean that they're playing the same sport

Dude is ripped:

https://www.gettyimages.com/event/division-iii-mens-and-womens-outdoor-track-field-championship-775157765?esource=SEO_GIS_CDN_Redirect#/runners-passed-the-grandstands-during-the-mens-5000-meters-at-the-picture-id962826144

This one might work:

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/digby-of-mount-union-crossed-the-finish-line-to-win-the-4x100-mens-picture-id962829456

The world record on blades for 100m is something like 10.9 and for 200 it's 21.3 and 400 is 45.07.

These athletes cannot put power down to accelerate out of blocks like a sprinter with legs.

As the distance increases the advantages start to outweigh the disadvantages, but clearly 400m is not that distance or else we'd already have a guy running 42 on blades. Instead, Pistorious was far and away the best in the world and even he was simply an also ran at the Olympics, last in his semi.

ex-runner wrote:

rare wrote:

+1000000. The mind games going on to justify the blades as a disadvantage are unreal.

The world record on blades for 100m is something like 10.9 and for 200 it's 21.3 and 400 is 45.07.

These athletes cannot put power down to accelerate out of blocks like a sprinter with legs.

As the distance increases the advantages start to outweigh the disadvantages, but clearly 400m is not that distance or else we'd already have a guy running 42 on blades. Instead, Pistorious was far and away the best in the world and even he was simply an also ran at the Olympics, last in his semi.

Pistorius had to modify his blades to mimic the shin length of an able bodied athlete. Its why he was pissed when he got cleaned up at the disabled worlds. He had a mechanical disadvantage to those athletes in his class who didn't have to switch.

Its a different sport. I ran 46 40 + years ago. When men were men. If I had my legs removed next week, I'd be getting ready for the next Olympics. I am pretty sure I'd run a PR at 65 years old.

Thisi san old story. Wheel chair athletes blow away the fastest marathoners. Blade double amputees have a huge advantage over able bodied athletes in all but the shortest races. Yes its tough to get out quicker, but when you're up and running you'd likely tun a world 600 record no matter who you are. Had pistorius time trialled an 800 likely he'd have broken 1:40. r

While I think it may be a disadvantage to untrained, untalented sprinters, the advantages for these blade runners are next to little. If they're such an advantage, why is the WR for T44 only 45.07? Not even one sub 44 in the history of the classification but somehow it's an advantage when that wouldn't even place you in the top 5 at USAs, let alone D1 NCAAs.

If this were the case, we'd be seeing more of Hunter Woodhall at Arkansas and Blake Leeper on the worldstage (even though Blake Leeper holds the current WR). Other than not having the battle back lactic acid and fatigue, they have no power and often have horrible starts, ie Hunter Woodhall only has one leg on the block pedal instead of both. They have slow starts but make it up when the hit their top speed in the latter parts of the race.

Just watch the final for the 400m at last years USA outdoors where Blake Leeper went against Fred Kerly, Michael Norman, Gil Roberts, Tony McQuay and even Tyreese Cooper, but only came in 7th and beat Cooper.

The advantages really don't equal up with the disadvantages.