Commitment #16!!

by **HFvictory** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:56 am

westexSMU wrote:Arthur Londy 6' 0" 175, 4.4 speed, has several schools recruiting him and also has an offer from Tulsa, which considering their recent records, I really like beating them for recruits....WELCOME TO SMU ! ARTHUR !

2nd team all-district in 2008, ran a best of 11.58 in the 100m in the spring. Originally from Nawlins, LA before moving to Spring.

by **Alaric** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:31 am

HFvictory wrote:
westexSMU wrote:Arthur Londy 6' 0" 175, 4.4 speed, has several schools recruiting him and also has an offer from Tulsa, which considering their recent records, I really like beating them for recruits....WELCOME TO SMU ! ARTHUR !

2nd team all-district in 2008, ran a best of 11.58 in the 100m in the spring. Originally from Nawlins, LA before moving to Spring.

I hope he ran the 11.58 on sand. If someone can run a legit 4.4, he's gotta be faster than that

by **SMU 86** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:03 pm

HFvictory wrote:
westexSMU wrote:Arthur Londy 6' 0" 175, 4.4 speed, has several schools recruiting him and also has an offer from Tulsa, which considering their recent records, I really like beating them for recruits....WELCOME TO SMU ! ARTHUR !

2nd team all-district in 2008, ran a best of 11.58 in the 100m in the spring. Originally from Nawlins, LA before moving to Spring.

Where are you getting your info from? That has got to be a typing error. I could see 10.58, but women run 11.58. Source or link please.

by **HFvictory** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:10 pm

SMU 86 wrote:
HFvictory wrote:
westexSMU wrote:Arthur Londy 6' 0" 175, 4.4 speed, has several schools recruiting him and also has an offer from Tulsa, which considering their recent records, I really like beating them for recruits....WELCOME TO SMU ! ARTHUR !

2nd team all-district in 2008, ran a best of 11.58 in the 100m in the spring. Originally from Nawlins, LA before moving to Spring.

Where are you getting your info from? That has got to be a typing error. I could see 10.58, but women run 11.58. Source or link please.

http://www.directathletics.com/athletes ... 04110.html

by **SMU 86** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:54 pm

Like I said it had to be a typing error. I would have to see the entire results of the race. That is unless he pulled up in the race due to injury. A 2nd team all district 5A sprinter does not run 11.58 in the 100m. Heck, he would not even be on the track team with an 11:58, especially not in the Houston area.

by **HFvictory** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:26 pm

SMU 86 wrote:Like I said it had to be a typing error. I would have to see the entire results of the race. That is unless he pulled up in the race due to injury. A 2nd team all district 5A sprinter does not run 11.58 in the 100m. Heck, he would not even be on the track team with an 11:58, especially not in the Houston area.

http://tx.milesplit.us/teams/SPR/performances

by **HFvictory** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:50 pm

SMU 86 wrote:
Where are you getting your info from? That has got to be a typing error. I could see 10.58, but women run 11.58. Source or link please.

10.58????? The school (Spring) record is 10.83 set in 2007.

If you look at his 200 time the 100 doesn't appear to be incorrect and meets were a month apart.

by **SMU 86** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:50 pm

With all those guys running over 11 something must have been wrong or high winds. Whatever the case, I heard he looked very good at 7 on 7's this past weekend. I am glad we got him instead of Tulsa.

by **giacfsp** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:07 pm

where did you see him play 7 on 7?

by **SMU 86** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:48 pm

giacfsp wrote:where did you see him play 7 on 7?

College Station. A friend of mine went and said that he looked good.

by **HFvictory** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:35 am

SMU 86 wrote:With all those guys running over 11 something must have been wrong or high winds. Whatever the case, I heard he looked very good at 7 on 7's this past weekend. I am glad we got him instead of Tulsa.

A lot of people don't understand just how fast a true 4.4 really is. Kid is good, but like a lot of names in Rivals & Scout the time in the 40 is not correct. He has good speed and good hands, runs routes well and that is more important than pure speed. Sure it would be great to have a 4.4 kid doing all of the above, but if that were the case a lot more programs would be all over him.

by **Ponymon** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:33 pm

HFvictory wrote:
SMU 86 wrote:With all those guys running over 11 something must have been wrong or high winds. Whatever the case, I heard he looked very good at 7 on 7's this past weekend. I am glad we got him instead of Tulsa.

A lot of people don't understand just how fast a true 4.4 really is. Kid is good, but like a lot of names in Rivals & Scout the time in the 40 is not correct. He has good speed and good hands, runs routes well and that is more important than pure speed. Sure it would be great to have a 4.4 kid doing all of the above, but if that were the case a lot more programs would be all over him.

Given that there were only a few college kids at the NFL Combine that could run a 4.4 forty, you have to question the accuracy of the times put out by these services.

by **SMU 86** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:07 pm

One thing that is consistent that I keep hearing about Londy is that he is a good player. Welcome to SMU Arthur!

by **PerunaPunch** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:04 pm

Just a couple of thoughts regarding 4.4 speed.

There's a world of difference between 4.40 and 4.49, but my guess is that any coach who times his kid at sub 4.50 is going to talk about him as a 4.4 athlete. Usually when you see a combine number reported, they're substantially higher than what is initially reported by the kid or coach via the recruiting services.

4.40 is world class speed. Fastest verified 40 I've ever heard of was Terrance Newman at 4.38. That kinda speed will win you a roster spot whether you can catch or not (see frmr Cowboy Alexander Wright).

From Wikipedia: Justin Gatlin, who ran 9.85 s for a gold medal at the 2004 Olympic 100 metres, has a verified 40-yard dash best of 4.42 s.

So anyway, that might be one explanation of why Londy, running a 4.4-something ran a 11.58 100m.

Another is that the 40 is more a measure of explosiveness rather than top end speed. I think the 100m would generally favor taller sprinters with longer strides whereas the 40 favors smaller runners who can hit full speed faster. The 40 has become such a popular measure because in football because players only occasionally have the opportunity to hit full speed, whereas that burst of acceleration is important on almost every play.

In any event, the tendency for kids and coaches to exaggerate speed (or leave off the 100th s numeral) is probably as common as adding a few inches to linemen.

But as a senior in HS, I don't care if he has 4.4999999 speed, if Londy is 6'0 and can catch, that's plenty fast.

by **SMU 86** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:07 pm

True, he might be quicker than fast as they say. Glad we got him.

Commitment #16!!

Who is online