Reply With Quote
Not 1936.
Not 1936.
Who thinks............... if ..................asked in 1936 just how fast us humans can run a 100m in the science world is saying....9.58?
What we had above was a 9.48 as a prediction, why? It's because we've seen a 9.58. In 1936 science would have said...10.1 maybe 10.0 because the then world record was 10.2. If asked in 1964 they say 9.96 because the then WR was 10.06.
Science totally unable to work outside limits already established.
this wouldn't be a stretch knowing that we'd land on the moon
Human limits a lot different than landing on the moon.
If science would have been told that someday someone will run a 9.58 after watching Owens run a 10.2 (which is a 10.44 electric) they'd laugh at you.
Then....if told..."high school kids will be running faster than Jesse"....they'd had you committed.
Isn't it EVOLUTION especially when you are comparing 1936 to the present with records such as these.......Oh, and the OP is a nerd.
nah. I'd probably have plotted the times on a chart and compared Jesse's times to those of runners in the 1800's. If anything, I'd be like...9.58...that all?
I can see why you're here little guy.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94413
You could have taken Jesse Owens put him in 2014 and he'd be running with these guys today. It wasn't about him it was about the tracks back then, the training methods and nutrition.
Usain Bolt being the exception to alll the rules.
The advantage of science is science doesn't get butthurt when it's wrong.
It doesn't make up stories and say its son did it.
It adjusts and moves on.
The first 100m WR was a 10.8 in 1891, or...11.04 electric.
In 36.....10.44 electric
In 68...9.95 electric
In 96...9.84 electric
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
