Who is faster?

Who wins the foot race, Taylor Martinez or Dennard Robinson?

  • Martinez

    Votes: 64 60.4%

  • Robinson

    Votes: 42 39.6%
  • Total voters
    106
:bang :bang :bang :bang :bang :bang

I seriously don't know if I can take four weeks and four days of recycled threads. It can't get here fast enough!!!!!

Ok, I could handle rehashing the Chewry Chip Ahoy deal or the Big Suprise??? thread. Those were straight epicness. This "stuff" not so much

 
The Dude said:
A foot race I'd love to see. I don't agree with the comment about Robinson having the quicker burst. I don't know if I've ever seen anyone reach top speed as fast as Taylor Martinez.
Click to expand...
I agree. Tmart's gap speed is bloody unreal.

On a perfect track field with sprinter stance & blocks, wearing only shorts and track shoes there might be several players faster. But on a real football field wearing all the usual gear and running from a random standing position......oh boy, that's a totally different deal and those two dudes are something else.

I'll go with Tmart for the initial ten yds...after that I don't know. Nobody is going to catch either of them from behind anyway.

 
It's just hard to take a man in Velcro shoes seriously...

All I'm hoping is that Martinez can keep his health throughout the year. All we can speculate about is what we've seen. Even though it was on tv, I haven't seen a guy run past the entire field like I did with Martinez against K-State.

 
Haspula said:
Martinez put on some pounds this summer. Anyone know if he got slower?slower
Click to expand...
Hopefully not... It seems like a fair number of our skill position players who have worked with Dobson have actually gotten faster as they put on weight. Roy Helu comes to mind.

If Martinez really is up to 220 or 225, hopefully he uses it. Defenders aren't going to like tackling him if he lowers his shoulder with that weight at his top speed.

 
Hercules said:
If Martinez really is up to 220 or 225
Click to expand...
I find this rumor incredibly unlikely, considering he's missing half of his left arm.

"It seems that the average arm weighs around 5% to 6% of total body weight."

If he'd managed to get up to 220 before the samurai de-elbowed him
lightsaber-red.gif
, he's at 213-214 now. I think a more important question is, can he run as fast when he doesn't have a left hand to paddle the air behind him? I suppose he could use his left bicep to carry the ball though. So many variables to consider.

Also, I can't believe I didn't consider this before. Will he be able to run in a straight line with only one arm?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Full football gear changes speed radically ("Football speed") because generally of added resistance to flexibility! The arm movement is far more restricted in pads then without. I would also imagine the pants, inserts and pads would add more resistance than sprinters spandex, but something tells me Nike is trying to close the gap. Now how does this translate to football speed vs. track speed. Lets say guy A is slower than guy B in the 40 m on the track but guy A is faster than guy B on the football field. How can we explain this? Guy B may have a greater Range of Movement through his shoulders, arms, and legs which compared to guy B may explain why he was slower in pads (yes arm/shoulder/core movement is crucial to speed, don't believe me? Try both ends of the spectrum, arms straight and shoulders perpendicular to track vs. full range of movement). Or we could say that both guy A and guy B are identical in size, weight, range of movement in sprint, etc. but vary psychologically. Guy A has a tough-man psyche, he embraces the extra resistance while guy B sees the pads as hindering his speed, complaining about it to himself, until the imagined difference becomes a real difference and completely believes he can not run as fast in pads and thus runs slower. Also another way to look at it is the difference in shoes, beyond the obvious difference in weight, sprinters spikes tend to force a person to run on their toes and the spikes are far more flexible thus less resistance(you can fold them in half without much effort). A football cleat has a much more rigid structure and has to be for obvious reasons and thus can not match the weight nor the flexibility of a track spike. The same biomechanics are in play with the foot just as with the legs, shoulders, and arms. In fact there are even more variables at play, and I really could go on for days about it but yes football speed is a reality, deal with it!

Now for who is faster on the field, T-magic or D-Rob? Most likely no one will ever know because the difference is so minute. T-magic has an unbelievable burst and great top end and likewise with D-rob but it seems like it takes D-rob a few more steps to get up to top speed. When evaluating speed look at the time it takes between 10's or 5's, don't look at the leg speed! D-rob may appear to be running faster when looking at the legs but that is only due to his shorter stature (must cycle his step faster and no there is no way D-rob is 6' definitely closer to 5'10" than 6') In the end this discussion is pointless and silly but yet entertaining.

 
I almost flagged that post as spam before I took a closer look past the first line! I thought it was random keywords for a football gear site at first ;)

Good info there, rsx4now.

 
BlueInTheFace said:
This doesn't really have anything to do with who is faster, but I thought this was pretty damn funny.

Click to expand...
It is funny. Funny in the fact that the idiot that made that video doesn't understand that it is a NBC broadcast and a Notre Dame opponent scoring. THAT is why there wasn't much enthusiasm. Find a video of Notre Dame scoring from there and I bet the reaction would be different.

Also a radio broadcast like he put on there is going to be more enthusiastic because it is usually biased one way, whereas TV announcers are to be unbiased and not get too excited. Granted sometimes they lose that ability in the big play. However, I bet you wouldn't hear a Nebraska announcer go all apesh#t when Missouri scored on a long play.

All is relative.

 
It's true though. American football commentary is boring, on TV especially. A lot of times they're just chit chatting and barely paying attention to the game. Then some play happens and afterwards the announcer goes "...as ____ runs the ball here for ___ yards. Anyway, {back to side conversation with other announcer}" Frequently, huge plays or scores are not announced with much enthusiasm. Foreign soccer announcers seem to match the flow of the game with their tone of voice much better and it makes for an awesome watching experience. Could just be a language thing. I'm not sure english broadcasts of soccer games typically feature very excitable announcers.

 
zoogies said:
It's true though. American football commentary is boring, on TV especially. A lot of times they're just chit chatting and barely paying attention to the game. Then some play happens and afterwards the announcer goes "...as ____ runs the ball here for ___ yards. Anyway, {back to side conversation with other announcer}" Frequently, huge plays or scores are not announced with much enthusiasm. Foreign soccer announcers seem to match the flow of the game with their tone of voice much better and it makes for an awesome watching experience. Could just be a language thing. I'm not sure english broadcasts of soccer games typically feature very excitable announcers.
Click to expand...
Television broadcasts are to be unbiased so not to upset the allegiances of the fans watching. They are not supposed to have a "rooting interest" and several announcers have been dismissed for this reason. So it is a marketing reason, but I see your point entirely. This is why we used to mute the TV and listen to Lyle Bremser/Kent Pavelka back in the day before the 3 second delay, much more excited for awesome Husker plays.

I wish radio would match the delay so I could watch the game and listen to Husker play-by-play. I can never get the DVR quite right.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top