Interesting comments about Bill Russell and Dwight Howard

TJ,

It may not have been you, but one person mentioned media people who have estimated that Russ might have made something like 4 blocks a game. Actually, there were media people who kept their own stats in that day (in selected games), the reported number was more between 8 and 10. Wilt was certainly not a better blocker of shots than Russell, and the media reported that Wilt made 17 blocks in his inaugural game in the league.

On the rebounding front, this year (his sixth), Howard is averaging 13.3 RPG. In his 6th year, Russ averaged 23.6 RPG. No way is that discrepancy due mainly to the higher number of rebounds availalbe. And that's not even the amazing part.

The amazing part is that, this season, only one of Howard's teammates is averaging a significant number of rebounds per game (5.5 by Matt Barned—a great pickup by the Magic this season). In Russell's sixth year, in addition to his 23.6, Heinsohn and Sanders averaged 9.5 RPG apiece; Sam Jones averaged 5.9, and Frank Ramsey averaged 4.9. It would appear to me that rebounding among the old Celtics was spread around, whereas the Magic system sets up Howard to be the principal rebounder (perhaps with others boxing out, etc.)

Here are four Youtube references that may offer some insights into Russ's blocking and rebounding ability (the first two) and the general superiority of the Celtics at both ends of the floor (the last two). Watch for indications of Russell's smooth, flowing speed, even dribbling upcourt, passing off and receiving the give-and-go pass for a bucket. Watch for Cousy's steal and long running left-handed hook and some of the fast-breaking passing sequences. At the very end of one of the videos is a picture of Russ and Wilt much like the one I described.

Sorry for the lack of quality. Must have been due to the smoke haze in those days. (lol) The presence of all that smoke makes the pace of those games all the more incredible (along with their longevity today).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nrURU9-Mmg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWFsL4Y8RVA&NR=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzoQ2YcmFOU&NR=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xJGsYkcE9w&feature=related

Enjoy

Sam

Sam,

I will watch the videos when I get home. I need to leave the office in a few minutes.
I would like to mention one thing about quoting Bill Russell's stats. You and some others dismiss Russell's low FG% and lack of scoring to the time he played in. I am ok with not comparing players stats from 50 years ago to today because it is a very inacurate comparison, but we should be consistent across the board. I don't think Russell's rebounding stats should be compared to Howard's just as we don't compare Shaq's FG% and PPG to Russell's.

TJ

Beat

Can you site a link for your statement that you could knock 3 seconds off Russ's time in the 400 yard dash if it was run on a artificial surface rather than a cinder track?

swish

TJ,

I agree with you, which is why I don't refer to the gross numerical difference between Russ and Howard as evidence of who is/was the superior rebounder. Frankly, I base my opinions mainly on personal observation; but unfortunately (for me), that doesn't go very far with a lot of people.

But Goukas' "argument" in favor of Howard lacks both observational factors and statistical factors. Heck, I could claim black is white if I wished to. But most people would appreciate a shred of evidence. Goukas gives none. Absolutely none, except to offer some caveats about why it's not appropriate to compare stats across eras.

Goukas played against Russell but he offers not a whit of evidence about how Bill was inferior to Howard. He watches every game of Howard but offers not a whit of evidence about Howard is superior to Russ. He offers only an opinion. Anyone can offer an opinion, so the issue of credibility is important.

Undermining Goukas' credibility is the fact that the only "evidence" he points to is the usual garbage about athleticism. You can't compare weights over eras any more than FG stats over eras; and Russ played against (and dominated) a package of physique and talent that was arguably superior to anything Howard faces today. In today's world, Russ would have a very different physique—but presumably the same strategic mind; and I agree with your assessment of Howard's mentality. Goukas is just dead wrong when he says Howard runs faster and jumps higher than Russ did. Exactly the opposite is true. Howard runs slower and jumps lower than Russ did.

I have never once dismissed Russ's "low" FG% (if 46%, tying Sam Jones for the team lead, can be considered "low" for the sixth career year I've been using for comparison purposes) on the basis of the time in which he played. Scoring was not Russ's forte, which might make it somewhat embarrassing for Matt Goukas to discover that, in the sixth year of each player, Bill Russell scored more PPG than Howard. And, once again, there's that "competing with one's teammates" factor to contend with. Russ had five teammates in double figures with whom to "compete" for the generally higher number of points scored. Howard has three.

The intent of the article is interesting. I just don't detect any real substance of evidence supporting the contention.

Sam

No swish just a judment call.

Locally a very good kid from our track team in the 70's set a school record in the 400 at i believe 51+ seconds. (on our cinder track) 2 weeks later at the sectionals he was 49+ (record still stands today) I rememeber (as I was an assistant coach at the time) our coach and many others there attributed his -2 seconds to the track itself.

Todays tracks are a tarten rubberized surface that rebound and spring a bit with each step. I would compare it somewhat to a fung bat vs a regular baseball bat. (rebound effect) Plus the grip on that surface is so much better. They are softer and much more comfortable to run on.

I'll research it a bit and see if I can find something but doubt I would be able too.

I think anyone who ran track in both the "cinder" era and all weather era will agree.

beat

http://www.bobschul.net/

One of the best runners of the time, Bob Schul claims that you could easily gain 2 seconds per 400m run on a artificial track vs an old school cinder track...maybe more if the cinder track was poorly maintained.

Swish here is one link

http://www.livestrong.com/article/89533-running-track-surfaces/

and another



August 16, 1984 - Owens Ran Cinder Track


August 16, 1984

by Andy Rooney

Could Carl Lewis beat Jesse Owens in a 100-meter race? You’d think so if you looked at nothing but their times, but look again.

Jesse Owens ran 100 meters in 10.2 seconds. Carl Lewis won the Olympics in 9.99. What you have to look at again is the surface they each ran on. Owens ran on a cinder track. The final layer on all tracks of that era was made of the brittle, pebbly, porous residue of the iron smelting process. Carl Lewis won the Olympic 100-meter on a surface made of rubber and polyurethane.

Jesse Owens dug tow holes in the cinder track behind the starting line and planted the toes of his spiked track shoes in those holes as a brace for his feet in the starting position. Carl Lewis used carefully designed starting blocks planted on the surface of the track. We’ll never know how fast Jesse Owens could have run on a rubber track with starting blocks.

Swish

a bit more




The Greatest 100m Runner of All Time, by Justin Clouder


Quite a subject heading, and a considerable claim to make about any athlete, especially in an event with as great a history of remarkable athletes and characters as the men's 100m.

However, among track & field historians, writers and statisticians there is remarkable agreement about the greatest male 100m runners of all time. Two names always seem to come to the top of the pile - Carl Lewis and Bob Hayes. In my view, although Lewis would rack up more "points" in terms on titles won, times run, longevity etc, there is no doubt that Bob Hayes is the most awesome sprinting force of modern times. This piece is a summary of his career highlights.

Hayes was born on 20th December 1942. He was a massive man - a fraction under 6'0" tall and over 190 lbs. He was not a classic stylist by any means - it was once written of him that "he doesn't so much run a race as beat it to death." His first sport was US Football - he won a scholarship to Florida A&M University on the back of his football prowess and after retiring from T&F went on to an equally glorious career playing for the Dallas Cowboys. Most of Hayes' sprinting was done while at college, and it was all fitted in around the college football season!

He first burst to the fore with a 100y time of 9.3 in a heat of the NAIA in Sioux Falls on 2nd June 1961, aged 18 years 5 months. This equalled the World Record but was never ratified as 22 days later Frank Budd ran the first ever 9.2, and Hayes' mark was forgotten.

Early in 1962 (on 17th February) Hayes equalled Budd's mark with a 9.2 of his own at Coral Gables. This mark was not ratified as the starting gun was of the wrong calibre (!). On 12th May that year he ran 9.3, at the SIAC champs, a meeting for black college athletes. It was reported that the timekeepers all recorded times in the 9.0-9.1 range, but the time was rounded off to a less "inflamatory" 9.3 (the same time he had run in both heat and semi). Hayes was told by his coach that because all the timekeepers, judges and athletes were black, no-one would have believed a 9.0 or 9.1 mark and they would have been a laughing stock. Hayes went on to win the AAU title from a strong field including Harry Jerome, Paul Drayton, Ira Murchison and Frank Budd.

Also in 1962, Hayes lost the only races he would ever lose at 100m (he never lost at 100y). He ran 10.1 during a European visit in the summer of '62 but also lost very narrowly to Jerome, although some observers claimed the judges had given it to the wrong man. Hayes was also beaten earlier in the year, by Roger Sayers in the NAIA 100m final, having missed three weeks of training recovering from a virus.

1963 started with two blistering long sprint WRs - 20.5 for 200m in Pointe a Pitre on 10 February to equal the World Record, and a 20.5 for 220y (worth 20.4 for 200m) at Coral Gables on 2nd March. Following this came two landmark short sprint times. First, on 27th April, Hayes became the first man to run 100m in under 10.0, with a wind assisted 9.9 at the MSR in Walnut (beating Henry Carr and John Gilbert, both of whom ran 10.0w). Then, at the AAU in St Louis on 21st June he ran 9.1 for 100y in his semi final, the first such time ever. He repeated the time to win the final, albeit wind assisted.

1964 started with a bang, with a 9.1 for 100y and a blistering 20.1 for 220y in Coral Gables on New Year's Day. Neither was ratified as a WR because there was no wind guage. He then went indoors and ran a WR equalling 6.0 for 60y five times. Among these was a performance in New York auto timed at 5.99. It is still uncertain if this is a reliable auto time, but if it is, it has never been beaten to this day, at 55m or at 60y. Second on that day was rising star Charlie Greene, who would go on to a bronze in the 1968 OG.

Moving outdoors again, Hayes twice more ran 9.1 for 100y, at Orangeburg on 18th April and at Nashville on 2nd May. Neither was ratified as a WR - a recurring theme during Hayes career. He then won the Olympic trials 100m in 10.1 and placed third in the 200m (he gave his spot up for WR holder Henry Carr, who went on to win in Tokyo).

On to Tokyo in October, the zenith and the final act of Hayes' brief career. He breezed through the heats and quarters in 10.4 and 10.3 respectively on 14th October. The next day, at 10am, he produced an amazing semi final run of 9.91 with a 5.3m/s wind behind him. This was the first time anyone had beaten 10.00 with auto timing, and it remainded the fastest ever run until William Snoddy got on the end of an 11.2m/s wind in Dallas in 1977 and ran 9.87. No one ran faster in the Olympics (aside from Ben Johnson) until, incredibly, the three medallists in Atlanta, 32 years later!

If it is hard to fathom the quality of this run, what he achieved in the final is even more staggering. Hayes drew the inside lane for the final, and the last event before the race was the finish of the 20km walk. Remember, this was a cinder track, and the inside lane was so chewed up it had to be raked! Nevertheless, Hayes won in 10.06. He had a 0.19 gap over Cuba's Enrique Figuerola, who equalled the previous best ever auto time of 10.25 (Hary in 1960). Third was Harry Jerome, joint world record holder! This victory margin was not exceeded until Lewis won by 0.20 in 1984. The winning time was ratified as a WR equalling 10.0, which somewhat understated it.

And yet, Hayes greatest performance was yet to come. Running the last leg of the 4x100m, by the time Hayes got the baton, after Paul Drayton, Gerald Ashworth and Richard Stebbins, the USA were some 3-4m down on the field. Hayes, in the words of one observer, "exploded down the track in an eruption of speed never witnessed before or since." He blew past the field in 30-40m and went on to cross the line some 3m clear in a new WR of 39.0. He had taken 6-8m out of some of the finest sprinters in the world. Various times have been given for his last leg, the slowest estimate being 8.9 but most being around 8.6-8.7.

Jocelyn Delecour, France's last leg runner, famously said to Paul Drayton before the relay final that "you can't win, all you have is Bob Hayes." Drayton was able to reply, after the race "all you need..."

That was Hayes' last race. He signed for the Dallas Cowboys on his return, commencing a career in US Football which was just as impressive.

One amusing aside to Hayes' 100m victory. During some messing around in the village between Hayes, Ralph Boston and Joe Frazier, one of Hayes' spikes was kicked under a bed. He didn't realise this until he got to the stadium, and he had to run in borrowed spikes!

It is always fun to wonder what champions of the past would achieve given today's training methods, nutrition, financial rewards, competition etc. Hayes achieved all of the above before his 22nd Birthday, running in the football off-season, on mostly cinder tracks. He estimated that had he carried on he could have brought his 100m time down by "a couple of tenths." My personal view is that if Hayes had trained full time to his mid twenties, run on today's tracks and had today's social, nutritional and training benefits, he would be running 100m in at least the low 9.70s and maybe even under 9.70.

The greatest? In my view, no contest.

And what if he had run on?

I wonder if it might be interesting to consider what would have happened had Hayes decided to continue after 1964 to defend his title in Mexico City, rather than what would happen if he was transported to modern TrackWorld.

Consider the advantages Hayes would have had in '68 vs '64. Top competition for a start. A synthetic track. Altitude. 4 more years training. He had already run 9.9w (in '63) and 9.91w (in '64). The hand timing in Tokyo was 9.9 - 9.9 - 9.8. So it's fair to assume that we would have had a 9.9 WR well before Jim Hines managed the feat in the '68 AAU. Considering Hines ran 10.03 in the '68 AAU, just 3/100ths faster than Hayes had run on a cinder track in Tokyo, it's probably fair to assume that at least one auto-timer would have caught Hayes in under 10.00 before Mexico City. So already we've re-written the history of 100m running, with Hayes the first man under 10 seconds with hand-timing (windy and legal) and auto timing (windy and legal) all at sea level. Now, we get to Mexico City. Hines ran 0.08 faster in MC than his sea-level best (9.95 vs 10.03). Assuming Hayes would already have been down to around 9.95 - 9.99 it's easy to imagine him running 9.90 or faster. In fact, I consider that an extremely conservative estimate because I'm ascribing Hayes likely improvements from Tokyo to Mexico City to the track, competition and altitude, without wondering if he might actually have got FASTER with time (not unreasonable, although also not certain).

So, an altitude-assisted Bob Hayes WR of under 9.90? It's not hard to imagine this being well below 9.90. It might have stood for 30 years. It might even stand now. Sub 10.00 without altitude? It was 1983 before anyone managed that.
Justin Clouder

What the heck was Matt Goukas smoking when he made that wonderful statement????? Coming from a former
Philadelphia 76er who hated the Celtics, we are supposed to put stock in what he says. The only thing Howard is
better at is smiling at the ref's. These guys are sickening.

Beat

Checked out some Olympic Gold Medal times for the 100 meters.


1948-10.30, 1952-10.40, 1956-10.50, 1960-10.20, 1964-10.00, (1968-9.95,) 1972-10.14, 1976-10.06. The 1968 olympics were held in Mexico City and because of the high altitude most of the records set there have been generally discredited. 1968 was the first year that the running events were held on a synthetic surface. Didn't seem to have much effect on the times.

swish

Swish

Look who the sprinters were then.
72 was terrible as was 76. 1980 was a boycott year as was 1984.

Also take into account the number of preliminaries there are in the olympics. Many sprinters doubled 100/200/ relays comparied to more recent times. Also weather condtions head winds ect all must be taken into account too.

Having run on both but not a sprinter I can attest a synthtic track is faster but for me it made little difference when your best mile is around 4:45.
(on a cinder track it was 5:01 the previous year)

beat




beat

Beat

How about some 400 meter olympic gold medal times.
1960-44.9, 1964-45.1, 1972-44.6, 1976-44.26. Not much difference there either.

swish

swish

One last thing

All big races now are virtually FAT
(fully automated timing)
the starters gun is hooked up to the timing system.

back a while ago (not sure when) hand helds stopwatches and they watched for the puff of smoke from the starter gun, not the best for acuracy.

Also to note the reason 72 olympics 100 should not count the best 2 US runners missed there heat as there coach had the wrong schedule and they missed their races. Hart was the name of one of them. He was in his room watching TV of the races when he saw HIS race and an empty lane. (his)

beat

Beat

You must remember the 1976 Olympics. That was the year that the great Cuban runner Alberto Juantorena set World records in both the 400 and 800 meters. As I recall, he was a big runner and extremely fluid. He sure made running look easy.

swish

Sam,

I watched those 4 videos that you posted. The 3rd and 4th ones were very clear. There was very little to learn about Russell other then his shot blocking abilities. Here are some of my observations about the overall play from the videos: Before anybody goes off on me, please watch the videos that Sam posted. These observations are from the 3rd and 4th videos, not from Russell's highlight clips.
1) It was amazingly unathletic basketball. It didn't even remind me of college basketball of today but closer to the way they play in the WNBA.
2) There was very little physical contact between the players.
3) It was a very slow pace, with the point guards often walking the ball from the baseline through halfcourt.
4) It was a much more of a passing and moving game with very little, if any 1 on 1 isolations.
5) The way players shot back then should have led to many blocked shots during the game. Many shot lay ups from their hip and not from above their shoulders.
6) The point guards almost exclusively dribbled with one hand.
7) The defensive guards put very little pressure on the ball until well after the PG came past half court.

I am now intrigued to find some more videos from the 50's and 60's...

tjmakz wrote:1) It was amazingly unathletic basketball. It didn't even remind me of college basketball of today but closer to the way they play in the WNBA.
2) There was very little physical contact between the players.

I couldn't stop laughing long enough to read the rest of your post.

TJ,

I thought Russell and his rebounding and defense was the subject of this thread. Yes, the first two videos did emphasize Russell's shot-blocking abilities and some rebounding abilities. That was the point of my posting them.

I posted the third one mainly because of the Cousy hook shot that I mentioned. Over time, I have claimed that one reason for Cousy's 37.5% lifetime shooting percentage was that he took a lot of outlandish shots which were successful enough of the time to keep opponents guessing. That's one example of such shots—both lefty and righty.

Another reason for including the last two videos was because I have also talked about how teams of the day played "volume basketball," and I thought these videos were good examples. Shoot early in the shot clock before the other team's offense gets set, and go for the offensive rebound if the initial shot misses. The Celtics were the best in the league at that because they had several fine rebounders to start the break and to hit the offensive boards. The last two videos illustrate that philosophy, as well as some of the fastest breaks you'll ever see.

As for athleticism, there was certainly less verticality, although a few above-the-rim putbacks are in evidence in these videos. With exceptions such as Russell and Sam Jones, the foot speed, on average, was probably a little slower than today, but the game pace was much faster. The reason for that apparent paradox was passing. As Heinsohn likes to say, the thrown ball travels a lot faster than a dribbled ball. There's some great open-court passing in these videos.

I believe all of the action in the last two videos involves the Celtics and Lakers. Celtics-Lakers games largely featured finesse, so you don't see a lot of contact in these videos. But that was primarily because you didn't see Tom Heinsohn and Rudy LaRusso on the court together. They'd simply swing at one another, and it got pretty rough. Celtics legendary broadcaster Johnny Most nicknamed LaRusso "Roughhouse Rudy."

When the Celtics played the 76ers, the games were also very rough. And one of the roughest games of all-time occurred in the 1963 playoffs, Celtics vs. Syracuse, 4 overtimes. A major fight broke out in the first quarter, and two players were ejected. The entire game was filled with bruising action, and each team wound up with only three or four eligible players due to fouls. (A fifth was allowed to remain, with a technical being assessed each time another one "fouled out.")

A major difference between those days and these was that the old players didn't play to be fouled. They didn't drive into crowds. They didn't flop (until a Celtics named Frank Ramsey perfected the art). They played to score. So, yes, there was probably less contact in general in those days, but not as much less as these videos would lead one to believe.

The fact was that the Celtics were equipped to win with virtually any style—physical play, fast-breaking, what Sam Jones referred to as "pitty pat ball," half-court, perimeter shooting, whatever.

In those last two videos, there were 14 possessions, and the ball was walked up precisely three times (only once by the Celtics)—and after a made basket each time. I don't really call that "often." Virtually every time the Celtics got the ball (on the first two videos as well), they were off to the races.

You only saw one point guard—Cousy—because the guy bringing the ball up for the Lakers was Jerry West. And Cousy did NOT exclusively dribble with one hand. He was highly ambidextrous, as that long left-handed hook would attest if anyone chose to acknowledge it. He was still amidextrous entering his 60s:

http://videos.apnicommunity.com/Video,Item,1847569981.html

Most defensive guards of today put on very little pressure until the PG passes half court. It's one thing that makes Rondo different, although it's mainly used today as a little irritant to slow the other team down (as if today's game needed more slowing down). In those days, if pressure was to be put on, the entire team frequently did it in the the form of a full-court press—and with the purpose of disrupting the other team and stealing the ball a lot. Combined with the constantly uptempo pace of the game, it took a lot of endurance to apply that press for an extended period, but they did it—"unathletic" though they may have been. If you hear Heinsohn calling a game, he'll often bemoan the fact that a press isn't called for to interrupt an opponent's momentum. That's because he was weaned on the value of the full-court press.

Layups from the hip are called "underhanded" layups, and they're not uncommon today. Rondo does it a lot. They were seldom used for contested shots, so they weren't usually a factor in blocked shots.

You're absolutely right about the lack of 1-on-1 isolations. You might have seen more of that in a game featuring Wilt Chamberlain. Occasionally, the Celtics would isolate Sam Jones, and the Lakers sometimes isolated both West and Baylor in crunch time—but the isolations weren't usually as exaggerated as they are today, with eight players often on the weak side.

Here’s one final video on Cousy. It will show some of his passing skills. But the main reason I’m including it is that I finally found video of his “air dribble,” which I’ve talked about for years. Although it’s only a fleeting glimpse at roughly the 3:35 mark of the video, it’s very exciting for me to find it on film. The situation for its use didn’t come up often, which is what makes this pretty rare footage. You can see a player on the upper part of the screen throw a pass to Cooz…the defender goes for it…and Cooz just taps it over his head to himself and keeps going. I once saw him do two consecutive taps over two different defenders, as he personally covered at least 20-25 feet without the ball touching the floor. I think I saw Rondo do it once, but I can’t recall any other instance in recent years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QCP6mMMH2Q

Enjoy,

Sam

swish

I am not going to find a statement to say what you would like. You keep throwing WORLD CLASS elite runners out there ON a syntetic track with no way to compare what they would have run on cinders.

Russell ran a "good" time on a cinder track.

Most anyone who has knowledge of the sport a Runner of Russ's ability 50+ seconds could easily drop his time by 2-3 seconde with lightweight shoes and a synthetic track. I have been involved with HS track and field since HS 40 years ago so I have a little knowledge from which I speak.

Of course the great runners woudl have little window for improvement as they are faster anyway.

We are speaking about a very good time not world class. Thus the ability to improve on it is much greater.

beat

Beat

Thanks for your opinion.

Swish

Swish

Thanks

If cinder tracks were better they would still use um.
And if I do ever stumble across something difinative i'll post it.

I know when I ran we had 3/4 inch spikes to dig into the cinders plus the shoes were quite heavy compaired to the molded shoes even high schoolers wear now.

beat

The running shoes I used for track had removeable spikes so that you only had to buy one pair of shoes. I had sets of screw-in spikes with different lengths for the various conditions found from track to track. This was in the mid 1970's.

Many of the high schools still had cinder tracks, some of them were even 1/5 mile tracks instead of the standard 1/4 mile track. That meant that for milers, they had to go around five times instead of four in order to complete their race.

At the time, only the colleges had the rubber tracks. Bowdoin College's track was pink. That is where we had our States. The rubber track was enough to throw me off my game. We only saw one once a year and usually ran on cinder or worse.

BTW, I was a hurdler. I still may have a cinder or two in my left knee. I had really bad crashes in Portsmouth one year and at MCI the next. Both times it was a relay race and those hurdles are made to go over only in one direction. My heat was the backwards one both times. AOTK!!!

Now, the town just north of me has replaced the 1/5 mile cinder track with a state of the art rubberized 1/4 mile one. Tha track in my town has been abandoned and it's use is relegated to gym class. My high school has its "home" meets in the town just south of us. They were a rival team back in the day and it seems wierd to have our track meets there.

gyso

GYSO

Our old cinder track had a long 220 yd straigt on one side and you used the same straight and the one curve to run the 440 around 1 turn.

I suppose you know hurdles should only be hurtled in one direction!

Now we have a state of the art 8 lane beauty rightfully named after the HS track coach of many years since retired. Really the main reason we were able to get it back about 20+ years ago one of our schools the old Adams Center High School which was turned into an elementary school blew up due to a natural gas leak. it happened on a Sat night and thank goodness no one got hurt. Leveled about 1/2 the school. The lawsuit that followed enable among other things the new track.

beat

Some of our school records are pretty darn goos for a relatively small school

9.9 100
22.2 200
49,3 400
1:55.1 800
4:24.2 1600
9:03 3200

Also have a 24+ foot long jumper who also has the Triple jump 48+ and the 110 hurdles 15+sec

We have had some really good kids over the years but now with the Lacrosse program growing the numbers for track are getting smaller.

gyso & Beat

In 1950 my school hosted the league track meet. Hell we had the only track in the league. Of coarse it was a cinder track and the shoe for the day was sneakers. Only events were the 100 & 200 yard dash, the mile run, high & broad jump (long jump) & the shot put. There was no regular season league. Now that was track & field at its "Mickey Mouse" worse. My how sports have changed in the last 60 years.

swish

beat wrote:GYSO

Our old cinder track had a long 220 yd straigt on one side and you used the same straight and the one curve to run the 440 around 1 turn.

I suppose you know hurdles should only be hurtled in one direction!

Now we have a state of the art 8 lane beauty rightfully named after the HS track coach of many years since retired. Really the main reason we were able to get it back about 20+ years ago one of our schools the old Adams Center High School which was turned into an elementary school blew up due to a natural gas leak. it happened on a Sat night and thank goodness no one got hurt. Leveled about 1/2 the school. The lawsuit that followed enable among other things the new track.

beat

Some of our school records are pretty darn goos for a relatively small school

9.9 100
22.2 200
49,3 400
1:55.1 800
4:24.2 1600
9:03 3200

Also have a 24+ foot long jumper who also has the Triple jump 48+ and the 110 hurdles 15+sec

We have had some really good kids over the years but now with the Lacrosse program growing the numbers for track are getting smaller.

beat,

Yeah, who wants to just run when you can run and poke and slash at another kid with a stick. Boys will be boys.

bob

.