Trindon "the bullet" Holliday

Cadillac...buddy...did you watch the videos Khoumba put up? If so...then please explain "football speed" to us. If not, then allow the videos to explain "football speed" to you.:thumb:

 

What the hell is your point here? You seem to be primarily interested in reminding us how good and fast Bob Hayes was. That's great. Too bad it has nothing to do with whether Trindon is faster. If you have a Hayes time that beat's Trindon's share it with us. And please don't give me that "football speed" nonsense as though you have some calculation at the ready to show us how a uni and grass slow down Trindon more than Hayes or Green.

 

Maurice Greene was faster than Bob Hayes. Greene never played a down in the NFL. I'll now sit back and let you tell me why this means he wasn't faster.

Your posts here are nothing but one irrelevancy after another.

 

What's ludicrous is the implication that the disparate environments of track and football have a disproportionate effect on two players with no point of reference from which to make the suggestion. Everyone is slower when playing football than when on a track. Everyone includes Bob Hayes. Was Hayes slowed down less by all those pads than Holliday? So football speed is not track speed and it doesn't matter.

Football potential? Everyone here is discussing simple speed. You find something disquieting in this talk and want to head us off at an imagined pass? It's an elementary distinction.

 

here's my point for those that couldn't seem to get it.

If you want to claim that TH is the fastest track athlete alive, fine .... then use his track times to compare him to other track athletes.

If you want to claim that TH is the fastest football player in college today, I'd probably buy that too, but compare him to his peers to build a reasonably credible arguement. (which I believe is entirely possible to support.)

But if you want to claim, "Holliday is the fastest football player in CFB history," then a simple video coupled with his time on a track won't credibly support the argument. It's circular logic, at best.

Most of you already know my opinion is that LSU has superb talent and a solid football program, and that opinion is not limited to this board.

IMO, it's not necessary to make bodacious "historical" claims about TH when it's already acknowledged that he one of the fastest players in the game today. It's just looks foolish to anyone not gulping the koolaid. Just my $0.02 .... don't take it personally.

 

Do we know what Trindon's fastest 40 yard time or 60 meter time is?

 

Sure it will. It's far more credible that nonsensical statements about football potential and the number of people born since Bob Hayes played football. There can't be better evidence than the meticulously timed arena of track. Comparing him to his peers doesn't make him any slower. Indeed, being faster than your peers is likely to indicate a superiority to past athletes given the obvious evolution in football and all sports. If you win the WC in the 100m in 2007, there's very little chance that you wouldn't have done it in 1960.

You're confusing a circular argument with one that simply has supremely clear and direct support. Fastest is an adjective. A track time is an achievement. We don't use the adjective to justify the adjective, we use the achievement. You're taking what is actuality a fairly modest superlative and reacting as though people are claiming TH to be the greatest player in the NCAA.

 

Then why don't you share with us the criteria for measuring the fastest player in college football history. If official track times and evidence that he is indeed uncatchable on the football field isn't enough, what do you want.

I do agree that comparing athletes in any sport from different era's is not even worth the time. Any argument of this type would be circular logic, at best.