Mark McGuire
Important Note:
Be Sure To See Why
Show-Tech TM
Is The Best Choice For
Alternative Steroid Supplements Ever!
When the smoke cleared at the end of the 1998 season, after the most
explosive home run race in the history of major league baseball, Mark McGuire
emerged as the all-time single season leader with 70 home runs. The previous
record of 61, held for 37 years by Roger Maris, was also surpassed by Sammy
Sosa who finished the 1998 season with 66 home runs. Was Mark McGwire's
70 home runs the greatest home run season of all time? For the record books,
the answer is yes. But in terms of dominating his peers, the answer would
be an emphatic no.
In 1927, the year Babe Ruth hit sixty home runs, the average starter
hit about six home runs. In 1961, when Roger Maris hit 61 home runs, followed
by Mickey Mantle with 54 home runs, the average starter hit about 14 home
runs. During 1998, the average starter hit about 17 home runs.
By comparing a player's statistics to the statistics of his contemporaries,
it is possible to get a much better idea of the extent to which a player
dominated a statistical category during a given year. A strong argument
can be made that the greatest home run season in the history of major league
baseball was Babe Ruth's 54 home runs in 1920. The year before, Ruth had
set a new home run record with 29 home runs, surpassing Ned Williamson's
1884 total of 27. In 1920, millions of fans showed up to watch him dominate
the home run race as no player had before as has since. At the end of the
1920 season, George Sisler was second to Ruth with 19 home runs. That same
year, Gavvy Cravath won his sixth National League home run crown with 12
home runs. Ruth's dominance over the other power hitters of his day was
mind boggling.
Additional support for Ruth's 1920 season being the greatest of all
time can be found in the table below which provides a z-score analysis
of the greatest home run seasons in major league history. To get a z-score,
the average number of home runs for a given year (e.g., 6.01 in 1927) is
subtracted from a player's home run total for a given year (e.g., 60 for
Ruth in 1927). The remainder (e.g., 60 - 6.01 = 53.99) is then divided
by the standard deviation for home runs for a given year (e.g., 8.49 in
1927). This produces a z-score of 6.36 for Ruth's 60 home runs in 1927.
While Ruth's 60 home run season was a great season, the following table
indicates that 1920 was the greatest season of all time.
Player Z-Score Home Runs Year
1. Babe Ruth 8.30 54 1920
2. Babe Ruth 7.48 29 1919
3. Babe Ruth 7.20 59 1921
4. Ned Williamson 6.80 27 1884
5. Babe Ruth 6.77 47 1926
6. Gavvy Cravath 6.67 24 1915
7. Buck Freeman 6.63 25 1899
8. Babe Ruth 6.36 60 1927
9. Fred Pfeffer 6.25 25 1884
10. Babe Ruth 6.00 54 1928
Ruth's home run feats certainly stick out when a z-score analysis is performed.
In comparison to the z-scores listed in the table above, Mark McGwire's
1998 z-score was 4.36 [(70-16.69)/12.23]. While this is a great accomplishment,
it is nowhere near the dominating performances listed in the above table.
To obtain a z-score of 8.30 in 1998, a player would have had to hit 118
home runs, almost doubling the previous record of 61. That is basically
what Ruth did in 1920. If one player hit 118 home runs, while the next
best player remained in the 50 or 60 home run range, he would become a
mythical figure. That was the impact that Ruth had on the game of baseball
with his dominating home run performances which began in 1919.
The table below provides a list of the greatest home run seasons of
all time. The fact that seven of the top thirteen occurred during the past
three seasons demonstrates that we are currently in an unprecedented home
run era. Some of the possible causes for the proliferation of home runs
that have been entertained are a dilution of pitching talent due to league
expansion and a declining minor league; and stronger players due to nutrition,
weight training and performance enhancing drugs. Whatever the reason for
the home runs, Mark McGwire is not alone in conquering old home run records.
Sammy Sosa, Ken Griffey Jr. and many other players have also been having
Ruthian years lately.
Player Home Runs Year
1. Mark McGwire 70 1998
2. Sammy Sosa 66 1998
3. Mark McGwire 65 1999
4. Sammy Sosa 63 1999
5. Roger Maris 61 1961
6. Babe Ruth 60 1927
7. Babe Ruth 59 1921
8. Jimmie Foxx 58 1932
8. Hank Greenberg 58 1938
8. Mark McGwire 58 1997
11. Ken Griffey Jr. 56 1997
11. Ken Griffey Jr. 56 1998
11. Hank Wilson 56 1930
The purpose of this article is not to diminish the great performances of
Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Ken Griffey, Jr. over the past three years,
but to put them in perspective. One of the great things about the 1998
season was that it sparked an interest in baseball history. Fans were reminded
of the many insults Roger Maris had to endure during the 1961 season as
he threatened Babe Ruth's record. They also remembered the commissioner
of baseball, Ford Frick, placing an asterisk next to Maris' record because
he took 162 games to get the record, while Babe had done it in 154 games.
The asterisk was eventually removed, but only a few years after Maris'
death in 1985.
While Maris was made to endure an asterisk next to his record (sic),
Josh Gibson never had a chance to be in the record books because of the
color of his skin. In 1936, he hit 84 home runs in 170 games. Some of those
home runs came in Negro National League games where the pitching was of
major league quality, but some of the home runs came against semi-pro teams,
so comparisons are difficult. Nonetheless, those who saw both players perform
claim that Gibson was equal to Ruth as a home run hitter. McGwire and Sosa's
1998 competition help remind us of the great players of the past.
In James A. Riley's article, "Don't Forget Gibson's Power," he recalls
the night McGwire hit his 62nd home run against the Chicago Cubs, breaking
Maris' 37 year old record. After breaking the record, "he (McGwire) graciously
embraced Sammy Sosa, including him in the spotlight as America celebrated."
Then Riley asks, "Wouldn't it have been great if Ruth and Gibson could
have been afforded the same opportunity to chase the home run record together?"
Let us celebrate McGwire's new record and the enjoyable 1998 season, but
before we begin the next century, let us also remember Maris' great season,
and the dominance of Gibson and Ruth in their respective leagues during
the first half of this century.
In one of the most dramatic revelations in the arena of sports supplementation, high-profile slugger and current American sports icon Mark McGuire reported on Wednesday August 4, 1999 that he had discontinued taking the dietary supplement Androstenedione since May,1999.
"I don’t like the way it was portrayed like I was the endorser of the product, which I wasn’t. I don’t like how it’s portrayed, but young kids take it because of me. I don’t like that," the St. Louis slugger said.
McGuire is quickly becoming one of the most recognizable and marketable sports personalities in the world. Sidestepping any potential controversy, he is cleaning up his act and taking a hard stance against the substance. He said, "I discourage young people from taking it. If you’re old enough and you have your own mind, you can do whatever you want."
Even though it is allowed in major league baseball, Andro has become the poster child of banned substances. It has been banned by the NFL, Olympic Games, NCAA and both men’s and women’s tennis. Al Thurston and his NABF was the first natural bodybuilding sanction to ban the precursors and the NGA, according to a statement from President Andrew Bostinto, will ban Andro and other precursors that convert to steroid hormone in the liver, on January 1, 2000.
Many continue to debate the actual benefits of andro, some citing that there are none. And in yet another report, medical studies indicate that prolonged use of andro may lead to enlarged male breasts. Despite the controversy, Andro and related products are allowed by the FDA to be sold over the counter at health food stores and gyms. At least for now.
This article used by permission from Steele Jungle Publications. Subscribe now. Only ten dollars for four super issues. Check out our ad in Natural Strength Resources Section for subscription information.
About The New
"CreaBlast™" Creatine
You Will Be Stronger.
High Grade Creatine Is Here
As you may know Sharp Labs Inc. who is one of the leaders in alternative supplement research and development has finally released their mega potent high grade own creatine formula. Folks please browse our site and see why we think our creatine will outperform any other creatine product out there. There is so much nonsense talked about in this modern day creatine world and the bottom line is this!
CREATINE IS
BASICALLY ALL THE SAME
All Creatines Are Yes Pretty Much The Same Except For The Grade Of The Strain. Some Companies Mix Other Ingredients To Try To Be Unique And Others Try Liquid Formulas But The Bottom Line Is You Are Paying For The Potency Of Your Supplement, Well You Should Be!
CREATINE DOES COME
IN SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT GRADES
There Are Many Grades Of Creatine On The Market. We Could Easily Make Our CreBlast With Cheaper Grade Creatine And Sell It For $10-$15 Per Bottle And That Is A Fact. We Can Send You Proof!
THE HIGHER THE STRAIN
THE MORE EFFECTIVE THE CREATINE
Our Creatine Is Made By Our Own Private Manufacturer And With Sharp Labs Being Their Leading Supplement Formulation Team You Should Know You Are Getting Top Grade In Any One Of Our Supplements!
USE CREATINE ALONE:ie. Not With Other Ingredients Mixed Into Your Creatine Capsule. This Does Not Mean Don't Use Any Other Supplements Just Use A Base Creatine Supplement For Your Supplement. Other Add In Ingredients Only Take Away From The Potency And Effectiveness And May Actually Break Down The Structure Of The Creatine!
YES ALL CREATINE IS IMPORTED
Sharp Labs Inc. Imports The Absolute Top Grade Creatine Available And Each Bottle Is Checked For Potency, Purity, Quality, And Utmost Freshness!
"CreaBlast™"
There is overwhelming evidence which shows that creatine supplementation does cause an increase in the amount of creatine phosphate in muscles. Harris et al (1992) conducted a study examining creatine content in the quadriceps femoris muscle in 17 subjects after supplementation of 5 g of creative monohydrate 4-6 times a day for two days. The results found a significant increase in the total creatine level in all subjects but the results were especially noticeable in those with the lowest muscle creatine store at the start of the study. To determine whether exercise could affect the amount of creatine absorbed by muscles, some of the participants followed a unique training program. During supplementation, they pedaled a bicycle ergometer for one hour each day while using only one leg to supply the pedaling force. With supplementation, the unexercised legs increased their creatine levels by about 25 percent, but the exercised legs increased their creatine levels by 37 percent. It is hypothesized that exercise increases the flow of blood to the muscles or changes the rate at which muscles absorb creative from the blood, thus improving the creatine loading effect. Another study conducted by Febbraio replicated the results obtained by Harris.
Several studies also show that creatine supplementation does cause an increase in muscle strength. Earnest et al (1995) conducted a study investigating the influence of creatine monohydrate supplementation on muscular power and strength in 10 experienced weight trained male subjects. Three series of high intensity, anaerobic type muscular workouts were used. The first series consisted of three consecutive 30 second Wingate bike tests, followed by five minuets of rest. Peak anaerobic power was defined as the greatest power achieved in a given five second work interval. Anaerobic work was defined as the total amount of work performed in a 30 second period. The second series used a one repetition maximum (lRM) free weight bench press as a test of muscular strength. The third series utilized complete lifting repetitions at 70% of the bench press IRM until fatigue. Fatigue was defined as the inability to complete one lifting repetition or the inability to maintain a lifting cadence of one second eccentric and one second concentric (lifting and lowering the weight). Total lifting volume was calculated as 70% of pre-test IRM multiplied by the number of complete lifting repetitions. Subjects received either a glucose placebo or creatine monohydrate supplement in a double blind fashion. (After 14 days of supplementation, each subject was re-tested on the Wingate bike tests. Re-testing for the weight lifting trials was done after 28 days of supplementation.
Within the creatine group, total anaerobic work from the Wingate tests was significantly higher during all post-test trials. The increases were 13% for series one, 18% for series two and 18% for series three. No changes were noted in the placebo group. Greater total anaerobic work resulted from the creatine subject's ability to achieve and maintain higher levels of anaerobic power consistently over- each five second time interval. Bench press IRM increased 6% in the creatine group. Total lifting volume was significantly higher within the creatine group, whether expressed in absolute terms (26%) or relative terms (29%). Increases in the total lifting volume were associated with the ability of the creatine group to perform 26% more lifting repetitions. The authors conclude that the ability of the creatine group to perform a greater total lifting volume demonstrates the effectiveness of creatine as an ergogenic aid.
In Hultman's study (cited in Anderson, 1974) these results were replicated. Each day, creatine was given in six separate doses of five grams a day. During the six-day period, five other Estonian runners of comparable ability received a glucose placebo instead. All runners were unaware of the actual composition of their supplements. Before and after the six-day supplementation, the athletes ran four 300-meter and (on a separate day) four 1000-meter intervals, with three minutes of rest between the 300-meter intervals and four minutes of rest between the 1000-meter intervals. Improvement on the final 300-meter interval (from pre-to-post supplementation) was more than twice as great for creatine users, and improvement was more than three times as great for creatine supplements in the final 1000-meter interval. Total time to run all four 1000-meter intervals improved from 770 to 757 seconds after creatine supplementation. In comparison, the placebo group actually slowed from 774 to 775 seconds.
In Hultman's study (cited by Anderson, 1994) creatine supplementation was very important during the last interval of each workout. Creatine supplementers doubled their advantage during the final 300-meter interval and tripled their advantage in the closing 1000-meter sprint. This supports Hultman's hypothesis that creatine is likely to be most helpful when lactic acid levels are highest and fatigue is greatest. Hultman thus feels that creatine serves as a buffer lowering lactic acid muscle burn and delaying fatigue, thus allowing an athlete to perform longer workouts.
In contrast, Balsom at al (1993) investigated the influence of creatine supplementation on endurance exercise performance in the form of a 6 km run and showed that creatine supplementation does not enhance performance or increase peak oxygen uptake during prolonged continuous exercise. There was actually decreased performance in the creatine supplementation group, which may be attributed to the participants weight gain.
In support of Balsam et al (1993), Febbraio et al (1995) conclude that creatine supplementation "may not increase performance during exercise where a significant proportion of energy is derived form aerobic metabolism." This aerobic metabolism occurs during more prolonged, sustained exercise as opposed to anaerobic metabolism which occurs during fast, nonsustained muscle contractions. It is therefore more likely that if creatine supplementation has an effect it will only be seen during brief, anaerobic exercise such as sprinting or weight lifting.
As you may or may not know, creatine monohydrate will not fully dissolve in liquid. That's why you always get that gritty sand at the bottom of the glass. Look at it this way, if it falls like sand to the bottom of your glass what does it do in your stomach? Maybe that explains why so many complain of stomach discomfort when using regular creatine monohydrate.
New High Grade "CreaBlast" Creatine
With Sharp Labs Inc.'s endless strive for excellence in all phases of sports supplement science and manufacturing we have finally released our new high grade ultra pure new creatine supplement that incorporates state-of-the-art particle micronizing technology.
This technology sets a new standard for creatine monohydrate supplementation by actually producing creatine "micro-particles" that are 20 times smaller than regular creatine powder.
High grade micronized creatine has numerous advantages over regular creatine monohydrate.
Faster Absorption
"CreaBlast" Creatine's smaller particle size means quicker digestion and faster utilization.
Our capsules are packed with these tiny crea-particles and release superior performance.
More Efficient
20 times more total surface area for greater uptake into the bloodstream.
Greater Purity
Micronizing creatine produces a more pure creatine. By increasing the total processing steps and purification procedures, "CreaBlast" yields a finished product substantially more pure. Test it. We challenge you.
Mixes Easier and Better
"CreaBlast" Creatine has 20 times more surface area. Greater service area means easier, faster and more complete mixing.
No Stomach Upset
Regular creatine monohydrate sits in the gut longer. This causes discomfort to many users. CreaBlast Micronized Creatine goes into solution better and leaves the gut quicker causing no stomach upset.
Better Results
New "CreaBlast" Micron High grade Creatine offers 2000% more particle surface area for better utilization, better uptake, and faster results.
Drink Plenty of Liquids!
Creatine works by enhancing muscle cell hydration. It is very important to consume adequate fluids while taking creatine to see best results. A good rule of thumb is to drink an EXTRA 16 to 20 ounces of liquid for every 5 grams of creatine you take.
During your Loading Phase you should be drinking an EXTRA 64 to 80 ounces of liquid than you normally drink. During the maintenance phase you should drink an EXTRA 32 to 40 ounces.
Order "CreaBlast™" Now!
To See The Latest In Next Generation Bodybuilding Supplements And Safe Alternatives To Steroids Please Click Below To Learn More About "SHOW-TECH"™! SHOW-TECH™ Is One Of Our Most Exciting And Long Time Products To Help Men And Women Alike Achieve The Fullest Potential In Muscle Compostion And Definition Without The Dangers Of Harmful Steroids! Our Proven Cell Volumization Formula Works For Nothing Short Of Amazing Results With Muscle Growth Guaranteed To Everyone! Perfect For All Levels Of Bodybuilding From The Beginner To The Professional Bodybuilding Competitor! Superior Lean Mass Gains Now Without Those Illegal And Potentially Deadly Steroids!
Web Author: Sharp Labs Inc.™
SEE WHAT SHOW-TECH™ CAN DO FOR YOU!
Hardcore Bodybuilding Without Testosterone Abuse At Its Best!
Copyright2006 And Up - Sharp Labs Inc.
"ALL RIGHTS RESERVED"
|
