Shawn Crawford
For anybody thats interested. He does 3 lower body days in the gym, and 2 upper body days. He is self trained. Weighed about 195 pounds at the begenning of this season, does about 1000 reps of ab exercises, low intensity, every training day. This picture here is a little older, I beleive he’s put on a little more muscle since. Great shape. Has one of the best 60m indoor times yet this season.
Here is linford christie. Noted for bulking up to about 225 pounds in the off-season and squatting over 700 for reps, may be hard to beleive, I read it over at charliefrancis.com from a guy who seen it.
Ben Johnson. Ben could bench 450X2, and 2X6X600 for back squats.
And finally, the most successful 100m sprinter in history Mo Greene. This picture is from this season, his first race, where he actually fell off the start and walked to the finish line.
[quote]T.J. wrote:
Ben Johnson. Ben could bench 450X2, and 2X6X600 for back squats.[/quote]
Those bench numbers are a bit inflated. The highest I’ve read he could bench was 350 for a single and I saw a clip of him benching 315 4 or 5 times then failing.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
T.J. wrote:
Ben Johnson. Ben could bench 450X2, and 2X6X600 for back squats.
Those bench numbers are a bit inflated. The highest I’ve read he could bench was 350 for a single and I saw a clip of him benching 315 4 or 5 times then failing.
[/quote]
I have no reason to inflate Ben Johnson’s lifting numbers, he’s pretty much known as the strongest sprinter ever. Here is the link to the post where Charlie Francis himself says Ben did a 445 bench at 173 pounds in 1988. Charlie Francis was Ben Johnson’s coach if you did not know that either. If you look hard enough through that message board, Ben’s numbers are stated many times over.
charliefrancis.com/community/showthread.
php?p=125182&highlight=ben+bench#post125182
[quote]k.elkouhen wrote:
Your first child will be known as Curly Bracket.
I’ll call mine “<”
[/quote]
You do realize your naming your kid “Less Than”, hopefully you make his middle name “No Man” or thats just plain cruel
I got dibs on “&”, Ampersand. Nickname Sandy
[quote]
I couldn’t agree more. I must also add, I plan to name my first kid “Apostrophe”.[/quote]
that almost sounds kinda good. its gota ring to it like aristotle. haha
like aristotle he could write about “the knowledge of being” through philosophy.
Only his would be the “practical mechanics of literature” through grammar.
and i’m gonna name my first 12 kids F1-F12.
Whoever said sprinting was 90% genetics needs to shut up. I’m so sick and tired of genetic copouts. I ran track in high school as a skinnyfat irish kid, with a 4.38 mind you.
Yes, most olympic level athletes do have good genetics, but olympic athletes only make up about 1% of all the athletes populating this small planet.
I’ve seen plenty of competitive sprinters without awesome hip placement and hamstring strength.
I’d say it’s 90% training and 10% genetics. But that 10% is normally what people base their decision to stay in the game or not off of. That’s probably what the moron who made that statement did. “Well I’m not a tall, ripped african with great genetics, so I give up on sprinting.”
[quote]Roy wrote:
Whoever said sprinting was 90% genetics needs to shut up. I’m so sick and tired of genetic copouts. I ran track in high school as a skinnyfat irish kid, with a 4.38 mind you.
Yes, most olympic level athletes do have good genetics, but olympic athletes only make up about 1% of all the athletes populating this small planet.
I’ve seen plenty of competitive sprinters without awesome hip placement and hamstring strength.
I’d say it’s 90% training and 10% genetics. But that 10% is normally what people base their decision to stay in the game or not off of. That’s probably what the moron who made that statement did. “Well I’m not a tall, ripped african with great genetics, so I give up on sprinting.” [/quote]
Maybe it’s genetics, maybe it’s ethnic background. Maybe it’s both. Here’s an interesting article:
[quote]Roy wrote:
Whoever said sprinting was 90% genetics needs to shut up. I’m so sick and tired of genetic copouts. I ran track in high school as a skinnyfat irish kid, with a 4.38 mind you.
Yes, most olympic level athletes do have good genetics, but olympic athletes only make up about 1% of all the athletes populating this small planet.
I’ve seen plenty of competitive sprinters without awesome hip placement and hamstring strength.
I’d say it’s 90% training and 10% genetics. But that 10% is normally what people base their decision to stay in the game or not off of. That’s probably what the moron who made that statement did. “Well I’m not a tall, ripped african with great genetics, so I give up on sprinting.” [/quote]
Wow, so Bauer is NOT a tall, ripped African with great genetics. This is going to come as quite a blow to him.
Roy, however was a high school track star of Irish descent. So he has more credibility, I guess.
To Bauer’s point, the range of improvement through training in sprinting seems pretty narrow to me as well. Strength, technique, etc are of course trainable. But even at lower levels of competition, I don’t see domination by people through hard work as much as kids who either have it or don’t.
[quote]T.J. wrote:
Here is linford christie. Noted for bulking up to about 225 pounds in the off-season and squatting over 700 for reps, may be hard to beleive, I read it over at charliefrancis.com from a guy who seen it.[/quote]
Great picture of the great man
Is eay to believe the weights, he also believed in the value of the goodmorning.
[quote]Roy wrote:
Whoever said sprinting was 90% genetics needs to shut up. I’m so sick and tired of genetic copouts. I ran track in high school as a skinnyfat irish kid, with a 4.38 mind you.
Yes, most olympic level athletes do have good genetics, but olympic athletes only make up about 1% of all the athletes populating this small planet.
I’ve seen plenty of competitive sprinters without awesome hip placement and hamstring strength.
I’d say it’s 90% training and 10% genetics. But that 10% is normally what people base their decision to stay in the game or not off of. That’s probably what the moron who made that statement did. “Well I’m not a tall, ripped african with great genetics, so I give up on sprinting.” [/quote]
Bullshit on your 4.38 (40 I assume) and bullshit on your theory.
Sprinters are born, not made. Training results in minor improvement in speed.
Slow parents do not have fast kids.
[quote]Roy wrote:
Whoever said sprinting was 90% genetics needs to shut up. I’m so sick and tired of genetic copouts. I ran track in high school as a skinnyfat irish kid, with a 4.38 mind you.
Yes, most olympic level athletes do have good genetics, but olympic athletes only make up about 1% of all the athletes populating this small planet.
I’ve seen plenty of competitive sprinters without awesome hip placement and hamstring strength.
I’d say it’s 90% training and 10% genetics. But that 10% is normally what people base their decision to stay in the game or not off of. That’s probably what the moron who made that statement did. “Well I’m not a tall, ripped african with great genetics, so I give up on sprinting.” [/quote]
You’d be adding something to the thread if you stated you were a 4.68 in HS and trained it up to a 4.38 in two years. He said it was genetic not a black thing, you’re genetically predisposed to being fast.
I played with many guys who would glide down the field with little to no percieved effort smoking everyone else on the turf. They never trained and I did, I trained my ass off and I got faster but still could never touch the untrained guys. I could blow them away now but that’s because they gained 40 lbs of fat and I’ve gained 40 lbs of muscle since. Then again, maybe not.
Fast twitch is fast twitch, you can change it a little but you’ve got what you’ve got. Being overwhelmingly fast twitch will trump hip placement any day, I think that’s a part of the equation you’ve forgot.
why would he lie
[quote]Hawkson101 wrote:
why would he lie[/quote]
It’s the internet.
[quote]Roy wrote:
Whoever said sprinting was 90% genetics needs to shut up. I’m so sick and tired of genetic copouts. I ran track in high school as a skinnyfat irish kid, with a 4.38 mind you.
Yes, most olympic level athletes do have good genetics, but olympic athletes only make up about 1% of all the athletes populating this small planet.
I’ve seen plenty of competitive sprinters without awesome hip placement and hamstring strength.
I’d say it’s 90% training and 10% genetics. But that 10% is normally what people base their decision to stay in the game or not off of. That’s probably what the moron who made that statement did. “Well I’m not a tall, ripped african with great genetics, so I give up on sprinting.” [/quote]
Baloney.
Sprinting Speed is almost entirely genetic. It’s one of the few things in athletics that IS almost entirely genetics.
You can’t coach speed. Either you got it or you don’t.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Sprinting Speed is almost entirely genetic. It’s one of the few things in athletics that IS almost entirely genetics.
You can’t coach speed. Either you got it or you don’t.[/quote]
This is a ridiculous statement. You damn sure can coach speed. Most people just have no clue how to do it.
There’s obviously a huge genetic component, but there are plenty of people have trained themselves to be significantly faster and plenty of genetic freaks who have never reached great levels of success due to poor coaching or laziness.
Most people just don’t train for speed or don’t train properly… so of course they’re not going to be fast!
It’s like a skinny guy who hardly lifts weights saying that bodybuilding is all genetics because he’s smaller than naturally muscular guy who doesn’t lift.
I guarantee 90% of the male population under 25 could run a 4.7 (football-timed) if they devoted the proper time to training for it.
Adding absolutely nothing to this thread… I am naming my first kid: <===3