Watching Ben Johnson run the 100 in 9.79 seconds in '92 remains the single most electrifying athletic event I've ever seen.
Hmm. Michael Johnson's 19.32 in the 200 beats it for me, though Ben J's run is also seared in my mind.
I dunno, ogged. In 2931 years, someone will finish in no time at all, both breaking the 100m record and, by unhappy accident, traveling backward in time and killing his infant self.
Oh yeah. You pick the guy with guy with gold lame sneakers, and I'm teh gay.
Was curious how fast Harold Abrahams ran it in 1924, and just looked it up: 10.6.
traveling backward in time and killing his infant self
After fucking his great-grandmother, in another classic by Robert Heinlein.
Abrahams almost certainly ran the 100 yard dash, not the 100 meter dash.
Wow, those Jews are slow. But they sure can hold a grudge. * +
I'm just going by internet sources, which seem to describe it as 100m:
After dominating the national long jump and sprint events, Abrahams was an outsider for the medals at the 1924 Olympics in Paris, France. He won the 100 m, beating all the American favourites.
Here.
But he hired a private coach, which was outre for the anglos.
And he dated an actress of some sort. And his buddy, the aristocratic hurdler, hurdled over champaign glasses, then drank from said glasses.
You know, this is my second reference to Chariots of Fire here. Probably revealing of something.
I now think you're right. I stand corrected, ac. I just assumed everyone converted at once, and I knew we ran the 100 yard dash here post 1924
I bought them nike shoes that make you run as though on barefoot.
Haven't injured myself yet.
and when I run in them, I feel His pleasure.
I know a simple way to experience bare feet even when not running.
Wow, those Jews are slow. But they sure can hold a grudge.
By coincidence, I missed out on the glorious Yodel-Yodel Mockery thread yesterday because I was trying, at great length, to get an otherwise decent person to abandon hir theory that, to the extent that Jews exhibit outgroup-excluding behaviors in Jewish-majority contexts, that this was a property of Jews in particular, and not of majority groups in general.
So much for not using awkward pronouns, eh?
I stand corrected, ac.
ooh. Tim was schooled! By a girl!!
I like them lots. You have to ease into them, though. I have flat feet, and always wore bulky shoes. But I could never train for long with them without injuring myself somehow. Then I decided: no, you have simply let your feet get weak. That is because marketing told me so.
You have to just walk in them at first, but my feet actually are stronger now, and when I run in them, because there is so little support, it requires that I stride more efficiently, which leads to less impact on my joints and such.
But then, I might injure myself soon.
So much for not using awkward pronouns, eh?
Take that back, or I'll get all Jew on your ass.
as another alternative, you could just buy racing flats and run in those. That is what people did for a hundred years or so, before they started building running shoes up in the back and putting all that crap in them.
Before that, they ran with small animals strapped to their feet.
text, I'd like to know how it goes. My feet are flattish, and I've gone from Asics to the Adidas Supernova Control, which has plenty of support, but is kinda bulky--clunk clunk clunk. I've been intrigued by the Free, but figured it wasn't for me. Really, it feels like less impact?
I'd like to know, too. I think I'm a fairly unclunky runner anyways, and those commercials just make me think "you're going to break your effing foot!!", but I'm intrigued nonetheless.
I think it is quite good for the flat-footed. But since you aren't used to using the muscles in your foot and ankle, you have to ease into them extra slow.
No reason why low arches should be such a bad thing -- my flat-footed ancestors had to run away from beast and into battle as all others did.
I'll let you know if, after a while, I have broken off a toe or something.
What's the difference between the Nike Free and running in, say, Chuck Taylors? (Which I used to do, and then stopped, figuring that I'd be so embarrassed if it turned out that despite the fact that they felt fine, I was doing myself long-term damage?)
But I'm coming at this from the other end -- high arches doesn't begin to describe my feet. They're wildly overengineered for feet that are only supposed to hold up one medium-sized person. Really, my bothering with shoes at all is simply reaction to social pressure; they don't serve much of a function.
probably not much difference, except that the nike frees invested in the chariots of fire commercial, and feel cushy.
in the olden days of the mid 20th century, pretty much all athletes ran in chuck taylors, or some variation thereof, and yet there was not widespread foot-breaking.
Well, the key question is "long-term." We could all run barefoot, but would we be able to walk when we're fifty? I thought you weren't supposed to run in the Free all the time anyway, just for variety.
And they're nice and light. And come in all sorts of colors.
Maybe I'll go back to them once I've worn out my current Sauconys.
I actually did a fair amount of nut-job internet research before deciding to run in the frees. Various sorts suggest running in them all the time, or for variety. Nike suggests that you do either (it sells more that way) but never says that one shouldn't run in them full time. I wouldn't go straight from not wearing them at all to running in them every day, though.
As per longevity: the potential harm for running in the shoes involves injuries to the muscles around the foot and ankle. This would be shin splints or stress fractures in the lower leg, at worst. Those are not long term injuries.
long term injuries, such as to the knee and achilles tendon, result when stress that normally is absorbed by the foot and ankle is instead transmitted higher. That is my theory, having no medical background whatsoever.
So I would guess, if you run in less shoe, and you can do it comfortably, you have less chance of long term injury. If you are sensitive to the way your feet are landing, you will naturally run with less impact, using hip flexors and hamstrings.
next week, after I have suffered serious injury, I will tell you my new theory.
"I thought you weren't supposed to run in the Free all the time anyway, just for variety."
So now kids are going to be killing each other for Sunday shoes? (I suppose that will make one or two old church going grandmothers happy.) Or are they still after the Air LeBrons?
These guys claim shoes encourage you to land on your heel with your leg extended, which delivers lots of poorly cushioned force to your joints and ligaments. They advocate barefoot running because it forces you to land on the ball of your foot and use your muscles as the shock absorbers, which does sound healthy.
I trained with some ultramarathoners for a while who would finish up a trail run with a mile or two of barefoot running to improve their biomechanics.
But ultramarathoners should not be imitated in anything.
that's the sort of stuff I am converted to. It follows that, where one cannot/ is too afraid to go barefoot (Chicago city streets), a flimsy shoe with a low heel is best.
This goes to show that the no one knows how fast a man can run.
That kinda reminds me of the world's oldest dirty joke:
(Adam to Eve): Stand back! We don't know how big this thing is gonna get!
I wonder why the world record for shot put hasn't been beaten in 15 years?
Because shot put is lame.
Compared to what, Ben, your precious rhythmic gymnastics?
I wonder why the world record for shot put hasn't been beaten in 15 years?
Do you really?
I wonder if the world market for steroids suffered from a supply overhang after East Germany was lost off the map.
But in re barefoot running. Anyone remember Zola Budd?
Austro,
Yes. I don't think it was a lack of supply, I think the testing for doping improved. My point is that I think there is a limit for some athletics but doping can move that bar.
Personally I think instead of the cat and mouse game of doping/testing they should simply allow any doping the athlete wants to use.
I once interviewed the widow of Tommy Hampson (UK gold medal winner, 1932 Olympics in LA, 800m). Just before the race he had bacon and eggs, then a cup of tea, then a cigarette. (But I forgot to ask what shoes he wore).