What about guys that wear contacts or had LASIK? What about players with surgically repaired knees, or the guy with a pin holding his wrist together?
Very good point. Yes, when I’ve walked, I’ve carried my own clubs, and I agree that this probably makes a huge difference. I’ve never had a caddy in my life.
He hasn’t got robotic terminator legs! He has unpowered, carbon-fibre prosthetics replacing his lower legs. He runs using only the muscles in his upper legs, a significant disadvantage. He has no calves to pivot the foot and push off the ground with each stride. No feet to adapt to the surface as he runs, changing angle as he accelerates. You bet he has leg problems!
Whether these disadvantages are outweighed by the extra length, low weight and streamline nature of his prosthetics is debatable. There might be a way to measure it, I lack the expertise to answer. But claiming it’s easy to run in those things is incorrect.
In fact, if you click on the “Multimedia Interactive Graphic” in Bricker’s original link, it analyses the differences in sprinting styles for Pistorius and an able bodied runner. I recommend taking a look.
A summary:
- He has to run upright immediately coming off the blocks, whereas an able-bodied sprinter can keep low to accelerate.
- His hip must generate almost twice the energy of an able-bodied sprinter.
- Only 80% of the energy stored in the spring when the foot struck down is available for the next stride. In an able-bodied sprinter, the lower leg generates more than twice the energy that was stored when the foot struck down.
Good point. And, as with the Martin example, it is hard to draw a line.
ISTM to need the line drawn at the point where artificial aids remove a handicap without offering an edge over others, and do not directly affect the play. And there aren’t that many clear-cut cases.
Even Martin, it could be argued, is getting a break because he does not experience the fatigue of walking the course, and thus his golf is arguably better than it would be if he were “normal” and had to walk. But I have heard of people having LASIK to improve their sight beyond 20/20. Is this fair? Dunno.
Regards,
Shodan
That doesn’t mean much. Wheelchairs are unpowered, and wheelchair users can only use their arms, a significant disadvantage. Yet the winning time for a marathon is typically much better for wheelchairs than for runners (e.g. these results).
So his way of getting to the finish line is an entirely different process, like if he was running on his hands- all runners should have the same set of problems to deal with for a level playing field. He may have to work certain parts of his body more, but he has no leg problems to deal with which is 99% of running.
I’m guessing his inability to start the race like other runners puts him at a second or two slower than if he could crouch like they do, so if the prosthetics are improved to where he can do exactly as the others do, he be setting world records.
Its only an issue because the current technology has him close in time to able bodied runners- what if the technology improves to where he can do the 100 in six seconds- would you think he should be able to compete? If you say no, then you should say no now as well. If you say yes, that would be like allowing the wheelchair and running marathon competitors to merge, as said upthread.
OK, semi-related question:
Consider a high-school wrestler weighing in at 103 pounds – a weight that determines he’ll wrestle others in a similar weight class. But this guy has no legs – he’s born without them. An opponent might claim the match is unfair because he is forced to face a competitor with the biceps and upper-arm strength of a guy that weighs in at 180 pounds, even though he’s wrestling a far lower weight class. And because he has no legs, it can force opponents into an unfamilar approach, and not one they are able to practice beforehand; he, of course, can easily practice wrestling against people with two legs.
Here, then, there are no prosthetics at all. Is there anyone who feels such a wrestler should be forbidden from competing?
How about changing that from “high school” to “Olympics?”
I would not object to this because he was born with the advantage not gifted it by science.
I don’t think it would be fair for someone with the chest and upper body of Ah-nold to compete in wrestling against Max from Rushmore just because the weight he would’ve had from his legs is missing and now puts him in Max’s weight class, no. He should be allowed to compete against those who he would have a similar weight if he had legs.
I believe there was some kid like this who wrestled in HS. Can’t remember his name.
Anyway, we needn’t have the same rules for HS sports that we have for the Olympics. And I’d be very surprised if an Olympic wrestler would have any trouble against someone with no legs. Afterall, we don’t see Olympic wrestles letting the legs atrophy so they can drop down a weight class or two. I suspect your hypothetical is moot, but I wouldn’t have any problem letting the guy wrestle.
Ok, thinking about that situation again, that’s not even going to be an advantage. How would the guy apply any leverage? It might be hard to pin the guy, but I bet he loses on points ever match.
That’s not the point though is it? We’re supposed to imagine a situation where not having legs (or another body part) is an advantage, and would we be ok with that? I am. Isn’t Lance Armstrong’s one testicle supposed to be an advantage, something with how it tweaked his hormones?
Kyle Maynard - Legless (past the knee), armless (past the elbow) wrestler.
http://www.videovat.com/videos/2331/arm-and-legless-high-school-wrestler.aspx
Video plays with sound when you go to the link.
No, LA became a much better cyclist by building up his body without much upper body strength after he lost all his strength due to cancer/chemo/radiation. Before cancer he was carrying around too much weight on his upper body (he was a triathlete) to compete at the top level.
He basically was a bare bones after cancer, and got the chance as an adult to build the perfect cycling body. I wouldn’t make the tradeoff.
I would have hated to wrestle him when I was in high school. If I win then I get to satisfaction of knowing I bested a crippled kid. If I lose then I get the humiliation of being beaten by a crippled kid.
Marc
Come closer to golf. They are having their eyes enhanced. Lasik that gives them better than 20/20. That is legal.
But that’s also perfectly “normal” (well, not for most people) vision. Now, if they were all going for 20/2 vision (hawk vision), that would be an advantage in sports in which visual acuity is a plus.
20/20 is average vision, I thought, and Lasik can certainly give you better than 20/20 vision.
Bah! I can’t edit and I re-read gonzomax’s post. ::smack:: You said better than 20/20 vision. 20/10 is certainly possible for not just lasik patients, but for anyone who wears prescription eyewear. I can’t find anything that says you can achieve better than 20/10 vision with lasik, so I don’t know if that’s performance enhancing.
I’d challenge whether 20/20 is still “average” in today’s society, while it might have been at one time, I think it’s not so much anymore. Granted, very small sample, but I know of very few adults who have 20/20 unenhanced vision.