Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Yep, big socks..............................

[quote="gmaWeird article in the papers last weekend said that he was 'selected'for swimming (how very teutonic!) as he has long top heavy bodyshape, short powerful legs and size 14 feet!! So I guess the answer to your question is Size 14 feet![/quote]

According to reports circulating over 20 years ago the Russians were "selecting" track and field competitors based on certain physical attributes long before they were ten. They allegedly then had continuous training until they were ready to compete.

There was an item on tv this evening about Michael Phelps and how with 10 medals is the greatest olympian...an interesting debate ensued. Whilst it is an amazing achievement can he really be credited with it they argued. One arguement from Michael Johnson was that in the pool with so many events and variations e.g 100m freestyle, 100m front crawl, 200m free, 200m frront crawl etc multiple medals are readily availble. However take the track events...there is only 100m sprint, 200m sprint etc no 100m forwards.....100m backwards (Johnsons example) Then take Sir Steve Redgrave who acieheved 5 gold medals over 20years-he only did the one type of race.

I can appreciate this arguement-the swimming competitions given the number of races per distance and style that multiple medals are potentially more likely. But i still think its pretty damn impressive to do that number of heats. semifinal's and finals in such a short space of time.

CHAZ wrote:CRIPES! Size 14 feet...you know what they say about guys and big feet

At what size do feet become flippers?
Wasn't Ian Thorpe known as "Flipper" His feet were size 17

I think he was more commonly known as the Thorpedo but Size 17 is certainly gargantuan!

blondie95 wrote:There was an item on tv this evening about Michael Phelps and how with 10 medals is the greatest olympian...an interesting debate ensued. Whilst it is an amazing achievement can he really be credited with it they argued. One arguement from Michael Johnson was that in the pool with so many events and variations e.g 100m freestyle, 100m front crawl, 200m free, 200m frront crawl etc multiple medals are readily availble. However take the track events...there is only 100m sprint, 200m sprint etc no 100m forwards.....100m backwards (Johnsons example) Then take Sir Steve Redgrave who acieheved 5 gold medals over 20years-he only did the one type of race.

I can appreciate this arguement-the swimming competitions given the number of races per distance and style that multiple medals are potentially more likely. But i still think its pretty damn impressive to do that number of heats. semifinal's and finals in such a short space of time.

Michael Johnson was certainly a phenomenal athlete and still holds the WR on 200 and 400m. Equally there are Heats, Semis and Finals in track events also in a short space of time, so there is a similarity to the swimmers. Johnson was also in the 4*400 relay squad too so ran quite a bit at the Olympics...

The amazing thing about Phelps is that he is good at all sorts of strokes and ove the long distances. Interestingly enough he does not compete in the 50 or 100m freestyle events...Also one shoudl add that he gets a few medals thanks to a great relay team so all his achievements are not always on an individual basis.

I know this is rather a daft thought, but... will there ever be a limit to the speeds a human can accomplish? Will athletes forever get bigger, grow stronger and go faster?

Humans have built machines that break the sound barrier but nothing that breaks speed of light.

Man now runs 100m in 9.72s...in 1912 the same distance took 10.4s. It takes time to knock of the seconds in track.

Here's another thought on speed:

But Michael Johnsons 200m world record is 19.32s which means that he is actually faster than the Jamaican Bolt for 100m
as he would be at 9.66 for 100m...

Interesting...

Fastest laps are taken during a spin on the track, not from the start.
Nevertheless, he must have been flying to keep up that average speed.

OOPS...Federe's out leaving the way for the colourful Nadal to perhaps win gold...what a summer he is having...
French Open, Wimbledon and now a shot at Gold: He's a worthy Number 1

So Nadal wrapped up gold, the brits are kicking everybody in cycling and the world's fastest man is truly a lightening BOLT!!

Following Marty's post on the Dwain Chambers thread, we have gone ahead of the Aussies again. Michael Phelps is in 7th position.

Incidentally China has a population four times the size of the USA and 20 times our size. Just keep quiet about the population of Oz.

CHAZ wrote:Humans have built machines that break the sound barrier but nothing that breaks speed of light.

Man now runs 100m in 9.72s...in 1912 the same distance took 10.4s. It takes time to knock of the seconds in track.

Here's another thought on speed:

But Michael Johnsons 200m world record is 19.32s which means that he is actually faster than the Jamaican Bolt for 100m
as he would be at 9.66 for 100m...

Interesting...

Athletes have undoubtedly got bigger, stronger, fitter and faster either chemically or via hard training but the effect of synthetic tracks and shoe technology as opposed to the grass or cinder tracks of the past should not be underestimated. An athletics coach friend of mine told me that he estimated the difference over 100 metres could be between 0.5 seconds to 1 second which is a massive amount.

That said I cannot recall any athlete dominating a world class field in the way Bolt did. Michael Johnson's record could be in danger in the 200 if he chooses to go for it. He might prefer to earn $100k dollars on the Grand prix circuit for breaking the record though says he cynically.

blondie95 wrote:There was an item on tv this evening about Michael Phelps and how with 10 medals is the greatest olympian...an interesting debate ensued. Whilst it is an amazing achievement can he really be credited with it they argued. One arguement from Michael Johnson was that in the pool with so many events and variations e.g 100m freestyle, 100m front crawl, 200m free, 200m frront crawl etc multiple medals are readily availble. However take the track events...there is only 100m sprint, 200m sprint etc no 100m forwards.....100m backwards (Johnsons example) Then take Sir Steve Redgrave who acieheved 5 gold medals over 20years-he only did the one type of race.
I can appreciate this arguement-the swimming competitions given the number of races per distance and style that multiple medals are potentially more likely. But i still think its pretty damn impressive to do that number of heats. semifinal's and finals in such a short space of time.

Redgrave won the pairs (Andy Holmes once Matthew Pinsent twice) in his first 3 Olympics and the coxless 4s in the last 2 I believe.

Mid A 15 wrote:

CHAZ wrote:Humans have built machines that break the sound barrier but nothing that breaks speed of light.

Man now runs 100m in 9.72s...in 1912 the same distance took 10.4s. It takes time to knock of the seconds in track.

Here's another thought on speed:

But Michael Johnsons 200m world record is 19.32s which means that he is actually faster than the Jamaican Bolt for 100m
as he would be at 9.66 for 100m...

Interesting...

Athletes have undoubtedly got bigger, stronger, fitter and faster either chemically or via hard training but the effect of synthetic tracks and shoe technology as opposed to the grass or cinder tracks of the past should not be underestimated. An athletics coach friend of mine told me that he estimated the difference over 100 metres could be between 0.5 seconds to 1 second which is a massive amount.

That said I cannot recall any athlete dominating a world class field in the way Bolt did. Michael Johnson's record could be in danger in the 200 if he chooses to go for it. He might prefer to earn $100k dollars on the Grand prix circuit for breaking the record though says he cynically.

Why do you think he eased up over the last 15m in the 100 m final?