Ronnie Brown does not equal Bo Jackson | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Ronnie Brown does not equal Bo Jackson

JJ777 said:
I had been reading the forums and everyone saying how fast Brown is for his size and that he is the second coming of Bo Jackson. So I did some research and...

On the ESPN website it states that Bo Jackson at 6'1", 230 lbs, ran a 4.12 40 yard dash. If I recall correctly, this was run at the NFL combine after his senior year of college. Reportedly this is the best 40 yard dash in the history of the combine and beating out Neon Deion Sanders who at 6'1", 180 lbs ran a 4.15.

Their height and weight seem about right and Im guessing similiar builds but...Ronnie Brown ran a 4.4+...Bo Jackson ran a FRIGGIN 4.12!!! DANG!!!

Not that Im down on RB...but he aint no BJ.
Click to expand...

- Gawd , I'm with you. I just read a thread where Crowder could be better than Zach in a few years...

- I think everyone needs to calm down on this stuff. If Ronnie Brown is great than he will be...Ronnie Brown , great RB.

- People , if you did not see Bo play or have forgotten how good Bo was...let me say this..

- A Pox on your cap lock key if you compare anyone else to Bo!!! Does anyone remember who Bo was compared to? NO ONE.

- Oh , and if anyone wants to compare someone to Deion , feel free. There are lots of overrated , overhyped egomaniacs that can be compared to him.
 
Bo was a specimen and as much as i love Ronnie B. he isnt as GREAT an athlete Bo was. Keep in mind that aside from football Ronnie was also a Baseball player(not as good as BO obviously) So he is a Terrific athlete nonetheless. I think that right now just in measurables Matt Jones is the most amazing athlete i've seen in awhile. He can turn out to be just an average player but he has the measurables of a SUPERHERO or something....6'6" ,4.37 40 yard dash time, 40 inch vertical, Basketball player(basketball helps catching in the pros i.e. Tony Gonzalez,Antonio Gates,etc.)...he is an amzing athlete as well. No one has ever had that height to speed ratio in the history of the combine since BO .
 
JJ777 said:
I had been reading the forums and everyone saying how fast Brown is for his size and that he is the second coming of Bo Jackson. So I did some research and...

On the ESPN website it states that Bo Jackson at 6'1", 230 lbs, ran a 4.12 40 yard dash. If I recall correctly, this was run at the NFL combine after his senior year of college. Reportedly this is the best 40 yard dash in the history of the combine and beating out Neon Deion Sanders who at 6'1", 180 lbs ran a 4.15.

Their height and weight seem about right and Im guessing similiar builds but...Ronnie Brown ran a 4.4+...Bo Jackson ran a FRIGGIN 4.12!!! DANG!!!

Not that Im down on RB...but he aint no BJ.
Click to expand...

Well, I like Brown a lot, but comparisons to Bo will have to wait about 10-15 years...after he has proven it..
 
I've always been intrigued by this subject of why football players seem to time faster than Olympic track stars. I'm glad someone raised the issue.

But hey guys, remember that at the combine they time the runs electronically, just like they do at the olympics; no room for human error. So if you belive one, you would have to believe the other, no?

Here's my theory: the reason you have football players that are/might be faster than olympic runners is money. Bottom line - track stars don't get $20M bonuses. The kids that have that kind of athletic ability will choose the sport that will benefit them the most, provided they enjoy playing it; my thought is that those who choose track do so because they don't like football, or are afraid of the contact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TarHeelFinFan said:
No, that time was an unofficial hand-timing. The official electronically timed run was something like a 4.45 still fast as hell, but not a 4.32.
Click to expand...

well when bo jackson was running he didn't use an electrical timer, they had hand timing, and on a hand timer ronnie ran a 4.3 something.. and no way he ran a 4.12 be serious, its just as time goes on **** gets exaggerated...
 
NaboCane said:
I've always been intrigued by this subject of why football players seem to time faster than Olympic track stars. I'm glad someone raised the issue.

But hey guys, remember that at the combine they time the runs electronically, just like they do at the olympics; no room for human error. So if you belive one, you would have to believe the other, no?

Here's my theory: the reason you have football players that are/might be faster than olympic runners is money. Bottom line - track stars don't get $20M bonuses. The kids that have that kind of athletic ability will choose the sport that will benefit them the most, provided they enjoy playing it; my thought is that those who choose track do so because they don't like football, or are afraid of the contact.
Click to expand...

Biggest difference is that Olympic Sprinters run off a gun. The electronic measurement at Indy starts on player movement. It takes .15 - .25 to get off the line after hearing the gun so you can add that to the official time at Indy (which not coincidentally is always higher than the hand times - so use Pro day times from personal workouts how you like).
 
caneaddict said:
Biggest difference is that Olympic Sprinters run off a gun. The electronic measurement at Indy starts on player movement. It takes .15 - .25 to get off the line after hearing the gun so you can add that to the official time at Indy (which not coincidentally is always higher than the hand times - so use Pro day times from personal workouts how you like).
Click to expand...

- That's quailty info. Thanks
 
NaboCane said:
I've always been intrigued by this subject of why football players seem to time faster than Olympic track stars. I'm glad someone raised the issue.

But hey guys, remember that at the combine they time the runs electronically, just like they do at the olympics; no room for human error. So if you belive one, you would have to believe the other, no?

Here's my theory: the reason you have football players that are/might be faster than olympic runners is money. Bottom line - track stars don't get $20M bonuses. The kids that have that kind of athletic ability will choose the sport that will benefit them the most, provided they enjoy playing it; my thought is that those who choose track do so because they don't like football, or are afraid of the contact.
Click to expand...

I don't know... you also have the counterpoint that football players train for a lot more than speed. I'm sure Michael Bennett could be faster, but he'd have to lose weight and wouldn't have the bulk in the normal football-muscle places.

The 'electronic timing' point is a good one, and I'll buy it. You do, however, notice that players' times are ALWAYS slower at the combine. 80% of players call it an "off day" or guarantee a lower time than they hit. I'm not sure how NFL players begin their sprint, though, as compared to olympic sprinters. Is it off blocks?

This year, Fabian Washington’s 40 time was the fastest at the combine since 1989, when Deion Sanders was clocked between 4.23 and 4.30. Assuming that 1) it was timed electronically and 2) it is exactly the same physical setup as the olympic sprints, I guess I have to buy that they're faster.

You also have to consider, though, olympic sprinters train ALL year, ALL day, for ONE thing and ONE thing only, being trained by guys who only care about ONE thing. Football players lift weights and practice... these guys RUN. Maybe you're right and it's the money, but it's hard to believe that if an NFL player can casually step out on the combine field and register a world record 50 yard dash he wouldn't just show up for the Olympics and win the gold for our country.


EDIT: caneaddict may have solved the problem for us
 
Good points, infiltrate & Yu; here's something I found:

Now looking at Ben's time, there is also the facts that he was coming out of the blocks, coming from a four point stance, running in spikes on a hard track surface, and going off the gun. These are not situations that a football player would encounter, so maybe some of the guys would have had faster recorded times. Either way, it is the perhaps the fastest recorded over that distance from a start ever.
Click to expand...


http://www.parisischool.com/Question.do?category=2001

It's from the Parisi Speed School, and it addresses a point you both made. Interesting stuff.

The track runners do start their clock on the ghun, which adds the fractions of seconds that it takes the muscles to react and take off; but wouldn't that be countered by the fact that they're starting from a four-point stance, and off blocks, which help them?
 
infiltrateib said:
...You do, however, notice that players' times are ALWAYS slower at the combine. 80% of players call it an "off day" or guarantee a lower time than they hit. ...
Click to expand...


No doubt in my mind that the fact that they are electronically timed at the combines raises their times versus hand-timing by inherently self-interested coaches, or overly hopeful scouts. I think that's a huge part of the difference.
 
ih8brady said:
I'm confused. Just because Johnson is the fastest at 100 m, he's the fastest at 40 m automatically? That logic is flawed because some people are better at longer distances.
Click to expand...

Ben Johnson was known for his incredibly quick starts. He would leave Carl Lewis in the blocks then the long striding Lewis would gain late in the race. If anything, Johnson's time would be skewed toward the most amazing numbers being early in the race. Football 40 times have always been somewhat phony.
 
Another thing that has to be taken into account is that the track runners are running on hard track, in spikes as mentioned in the Parisi quote. Football players are running on grass or turf - I think that's right - which would represent a significant disadvantage in a comparison with track stars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom