I think many are overlooking the fact that, if in full uniform, the hockey player is handicapped by having to lug that stick with him, whereas the football player - especially wide receivers - wear extremely light equipment to maximize their speed on the field.
This is why I say that in full gear, it’s too close to call, but in the attire of the athlete’s choice, the hockey player should win.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Gimme a break. The Sprinter runs better than a biker, but the biker can do a 100 meter sprint faster. I think it’s been done in around 3 seconds on a bike. If the football player and hockey player were both on foot, the football player would certainly win.[/quote]
Dude - there is no biker anywhere that can go 100M from a standing start in less than 5 seconds - unless said bike has an alcohol fueled internal combustion engine mounted on it.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think many are overlooking the fact that, if in full uniform, the hockey player is handicapped by having to lug that stick with him, whereas the football player - especially wide receivers - wear extremely light equipment to maximize their speed on the field.
This is why I say that in full gear, it’s too close to call, but in the attire of the athlete’s choice, the hockey player should win. [/quote]
hockey players are used to the stick. i’ve seen some who need it to skate properly even. it won’t get in the way of their sprinting style.
it would be interesting though, to see the differences in times between 40 yard sprints for each athlete with and without their gear.
are NFL Combine runs done without gear?
[quote]Mujina wrote:
are NFL Combine runs done without gear?
[/quote]
Yes.
My point is that the extra weight carried by the fully uniformed hockey player is significantly higher than than that of an NFL wide-out.
Whether one is comfortable with the equipment or not - extra weight is extra weight. And that has to affect one’s ability to accelerate, be it on ice, or turf.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Gimme a break. The Sprinter runs better than a biker, but the biker can do a 100 meter sprint faster. I think it’s been done in around 3 seconds on a bike. If the football player and hockey player were both on foot, the football player would certainly win.
Dude - there is no biker anywhere that can go 100M from a standing start in less than 5 seconds - unless said bike has an alcohol fueled internal combustion engine mounted on it. [/quote]
Yes. You are probably right. Still ALMOST twice as fast at the 100m world record.
Don’t we have any hockey players here who could easily settle this? We already know what top 40 times are for football players.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
derek wrote:
Given that the skater has some time to develop his abilities fairly equally in both events (sprint mechanics, start etc.)
I think there in lies the fundamental problem. And something that I stated earlier. I’ll state it a bit differently this time:
Who could put more weight over their head a world class powerlifter or an olympic lifter?
Who could hit a baseball with more regularity, a basketball player or a baseball player?
And who could sprint…on grass (or turf) faster a hockey player or a football player?
I think the answer is obvious. While I give mad props to the hockey player as being a tremendous athlete, it’s the football player who has trained “sports specific” on a regular basis for this particular activity.
Again, I take nothing away from the great speed and also coordination of the hockey player, or any of the other athletes trying to perform in someone else’s domain.[/quote]
Ummm… dude. Did you even read the thread? The hockey player is on skates on ice.
I could do a test with skis? 
cross country skis on loose snow 
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Yes. You are probably right. Still ALMOST twice as fast at the 100m world record.
[/quote]
The point of the argument is not whether a biker, or a skater is faster than a runner over distance, while already having achieved top speed. Everyone knows that the biker and the skater can maintain much higher top speeds.
The argument is - from a cold start, who is faster in the 40? A hockey guy on ice, or a football guy on turf?
im givin it to the hockey player. but it would be close. id personally like to see paul kariya or joe sakic vs. L.T. that would be cool to watch.
and whoever is saying that pro football players are more athletically gifted than professional hockey players, you’ve obviously never played hockey and know nothing about the sport.
yes hockey is something that the player must begin playing at a very young age because it is a highly skilled sport that cant just be taken on as a freshman in high school because youre big and strong and fast.
you can be the biggest, fastest, strongest guy in your entire city but if you think youre gonna hop on the ice for the first time at 14 years old ill tell you right now, those kids that have been playin since they were four years old are going to teach you a very hard and humbling lesson.
NHL player wins.
You can talk about starting times etc. but keep in mind they are both elite atlete in their profession. NHL players have quickness too plus they glide between strides something the NFL player does not.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Yes. You are probably right. Still ALMOST twice as fast at the 100m world record.
The point of the argument is not whether a biker, or a skater is faster than a runner over distance, while already having achieved top speed. Everyone knows that the biker and the skater can maintain much higher top speeds.
The argument is - from a cold start, who is faster in the 40? A hockey guy on ice, or a football guy on turf?
[/quote]
I understand that. And I think the advantage of the start is not enough of one to overcome the much greater speeds a biker and skater can go over an elite athlete on foot.
Moreso the skater than the biker. A skater can accelerate damn quickly. My point with the biking analogy–with your numbers–was that over 100 meters a biker finishes almost twice as fast as a runner. I would still expect them to finish 40 meters faster as well.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
It seems to me that skater only picks up great speed after several yards. Even if the race were 100 meters it seems that the runner would still have a slight advantage.
Here’s an article that might shed some (and only some) light on the subject. It’s about female speed skaters. Certainly if you matched this particular female speed skater against her equal in track and field the skater would lose in the 100 meters.
http://robots.cnnsi.com/olympics/2002/speed_skating/news/2002/02/13/womens_500_ap/
And while it seems close at 100 meters, 40yds would probably be no question, the runner wins.
“She skated the opening 100 meters in 10.22. She declined to speak to reporters afterward.”
[/quote]
The world record for speed skating 100m is:
100 M
9,43
Hiroyasu Shimizu
JPN Salt Lake City
13.12.2003
for sprinters the record is 9.77 if I recall correct. So, it WOULD be a close call, neither of the athletes would get their top speed in 40 yards, but the guy on foot would be closer… but then again, the skater would have a higher top speed.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Moreso the skater than the biker. A skater can accelerate damn quickly. My point with the biking analogy–with your numbers–was that over 100 meters a biker finishes almost twice as fast as a runner. I would still expect them to finish 40 meters faster as well.[/quote]
I never said a bike could cover 100M in 5 seconds from a cold start. In fact - from a cold start - the biker would have the greatest disadvantage of the three in a short distance. Think about it.
Just try to go from as cold start, and see how long it takes you to cover the straight on any 400M track.
40M - the bike isn’t even close to the skater or the sprinter.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
The world record for speed skating 100m is:
100 M
9,43
Hiroyasu Shimizu
JPN Salt Lake City
13.12.2003
for sprinters the record is 9.77 if I recall correct. So, it WOULD be a close call, neither of the athletes would get their top speed in 40 yards, but the guy on foot would be closer… but then again, the skater would have a higher top speed. [/quote]
Where are you getting that from? Not doubting it, but when I was looking up times they seemed much much faster.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
It seems to me that skater only picks up great speed after several yards. Even if the race were 100 meters it seems that the runner would still have a slight advantage.
Here’s an article that might shed some (and only some) light on the subject. It’s about female speed skaters. Certainly if you matched this particular female speed skater against her equal in track and field the skater would lose in the 100 meters.
http://robots.cnnsi.com/olympics/2002/speed_skating/news/2002/02/13/womens_500_ap/
And while it seems close at 100 meters, 40yds would probably be no question, the runner wins.
“She skated the opening 100 meters in 10.22. She declined to speak to reporters afterward.”
[/quote]
I agree that this would be evidence in favour of the runner at 40m but not at 100m as you say. 10.22 is faster than the women’s world record for 100m (and considerably faster than any woman has run in the last 10 years).
But over 40m, I’m guessing the runner would win based on that time. I imagine that the skater would gain a lot of ground in the final 50m of a 100m race.
Why no mlb?
I don’t think there are many nfl guys who can take down jose reyes or ichiro. I’m sure there are some though
[quote]Politico wrote:
Why no mlb?
I don’t think there are many nfl guys who can take down jose reyes or ichiro. I’m sure there are some though[/quote]
The radio morning show I listen to (WAAF Boston) is really big on NHL Hockey. One of the morning crew Linden Byers is an-ex Boston Bruin.