[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on July 20, 2006 at 6:44 am #12045

here is a list of stats, calculations, predictions, etc that i have compiled.  i thought some of you might be interested.  most splits were taken by someone else off video tape, but many are also official splits.

Ten Fastest 100m Races
Asafa Powell    +1.7    .137    9.74    Rieti    //07
Asafa Powell    +1.0    .148    9.77    Zurich  //06
Asafa Powell +1.5 .145 9.77 Gateshead //06
Asafa Powell +1.6 .150 9.77 Athens //05
Justin Gatlin +1.7 .166 9.77 Doha //06
Tim Montgomery +2.0 .104 9.78 Paris //02
Asafa Powell        +0.0              9.78  Rieti            //07
Maurice Greene +0.1 .162 9.79 Athens //99
Ben Johnson +1.1 .132 9.79 Seoul //88
Maurice Greene +0.2 .132 9.80 Seville //99
Maurice Greene -0.2 .132 9.82 Edmonton //01

Ten Fastest 100m Times:
Name Wind 100m Location Date OTime
Pwell  +1.7    9.61  Riete      //07          9.74
Gatlin +1.7 9.61 Doha //06 9.77
Powell +1.6 9.62 Athens //05 9.77
Greene +0.1 9.63 Athens //99 9.79
Powell  +1.0    9.63    Zurich  //06  9.77
Powell +1.5 9.63 Gateshead //06 9.77
Johnson +1.1 9.66 Seoul //88 9.79
Greene +0.2 9.67 Seville //99 9.80
Gatlin +0.6 9.67 Athens //04 9.85
Bailey +0.7 9.67 Atlanta //96 9.84

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on July 20, 2006 at 6:45 am #55441

Races With Reaction Times:
Asafa Powell +1.7 Riete 2007
0.137  2.88  3.79  4.65  5.49  6.32  7.15  7.98  8.84  9.74

Asafa Powell +1.0  Zurich 2006
.148  1.87  2.89  3.81  4.68  5.52  6.36  7.20  8.05  8.91  9.77

Asafa Powell  +1.5  Gateshead 2006
.145  1.86  2.88  3.81  4.68  5.53  6.37  7.21  8.06  8.91  9.77

Asafa Powell  +1.6  Athens 2005
.150  1.89  2.91  3.83  4.69  5.54  6.39  7.23  8.07  8.92  9.77

Justin Gatlin  +1.7  Doha 2006
.166  1.88  2.93  3.85  4.70  5.55  6.39  7.23  8.07  8.92  9.77

Tim Montgomery  +2.0  Paris 2002
.104  1.85  2.91  3.82  4.70  5.54  6.37  7.21  8.05  8.90  9.78

Maurice Greene  +0.1  Athens 1999
.162  1.86  2.89  3.81  4.69  5.57  6.40  7.23  8.09  8.94  9.79

Ben Johnson  +1.1  Seoul
.132  1.83  2.87  3.80  4.66  5.50  6.33  7.17  8.02  8.89  9.79

Maurice Greene  +0.2  Seville 1999
.132  1.86  2.89  3.81  4.69  5.55  6.39  7.24  8.09  8.94  9.80

Maurice Greene  -0.2  Edmonton 2001
.132  1.83  2.83  3.75  4.64  5.50  6.33   7.16  8.02  8.91  9.82

Ben Johnson  +1.0?  Rome
.10 1.84  2.86  3.80  4.67  5.53  6.38  7.23  8.10  8.96  9.83

Bruny Surin  +0.2  Seville
.127  1.88  2.88  3.79  4.68  5.53  6.38  7.24  8.10  8.96  9.84

Donovan Bailey +0.7  Atlanta
.174  1.90  2.94  3.88  4.75  5.59  6.42  7.26  8.11  8.97  9.84

Justin Gatlin +0.6 Athens 2004
.188  1.87  2.90                    5.56  6.41  7.27          8.98  9.85

Oluji Fasuba +1.7  Doha 2006
.158  1.83  2.85  3.79  4.65  5.50  6.35  7.21  8.08  8.96  9.85

Maurice Greene +0.2  Athens  1997
.130  1.84  2.88  3.80  4.68  5.55  6.40  7.25  8.11  8.98  9.86

Francis Obikwelu +0.6  Athens  2004
.163  1.90  2.93                    5.60  6.44  7.29          9.00  9.86

Maurice Greene -0.3  Sydney  2000
.197  1.94  2.96  3.88  4.78  5.63  6.45  7.28  8.12  8.97  9.87

Maurice Greene +0.6  Athens 2004
.151  1.88  2.92                    5.60  6.44  7.29          9.01  9.87

Dwain Chambers +2.0  Paris  2002
.140  1.89  2.92  3.84  4.72  5.57  6.41  7.26  8.11  8.98  9.87

Shawn Crawford +0.6
.161  1.89  2.93                    5.61  6.45  7.29  9.01  9.89

Donovan Bailey +0.2  Athens  1997
.140  1.92  2.95  3.86  4.73  5.58  6.43  7.28  8.14  9.01  9.91

Carl Lewis  +1.1
.136  1.89  2.96  3.90  4.79  5.65  6.48  7.33  8.18  9.04  9.92

Asafa Powell +0.6  Athens  2004
.166  1.88  2.92                    5.60  6.46  7.31          9.05  9.94

Ben Johnson
                          3.86                    6.47                            9.95

Dwain Chambers +0.2
.140  1.87  2.89  3.81  4.71  5.57  6.42  7.29  8.18  9.07  9.97

Linford Christie +1.1
.138  1.92  2.97  3.92  4.81  5.66  6.50  7.36  8.22  9.09  9.97

Jon Drummond +2.0
.131  1.89  2.91  3.84  4.73  5.60  6.44  7.30  8.17  9.07  9.97

Kim Collins +2.0  Paris 2002
.158  1.94  2.96                    5.64  6.48  7.34  8.21  9.09  9.98

Smith  +1.1  Seoul  1988
.176  1.92  2.95  3.90  4.79  5.65  6.50  7.36  8.23  9.10  9.99

Thompson  +0.2
.145  1.91  2.93  3.85  4.76  5.63  6.50  7.36  8.24  9.12  10.00

Kim Collins  +0.6
.175  1.85  2.89                    5.58  6.44  7.32          9.09  10.00

Harden  +0.2
.136  1.87  2.89  3.81  4.71  5.60  6.47  7.33  8.22  9.11  10.02

Tim Montgomery +0.2
.136  1.91  2.95  3.88  4.77  5.65  6.52  7.39  8.28  9.16  10.04

Mitchel  +1.1
.186  1.92  2.97  3.93  4.83  5.69  6.54  7.41  8.28  9.16  10.04

Jason Gardener +0.2
.142  1.91  2.93  3.85  4.74  5.62  6.51  7.40  8.28  9.17  10.07

DaSilva  +1.1
.155  1.92  2.97  3.93  4.83  5.70  6.57  7.45  8.33  9.22  10.11

Desai Williams +1.1
.149  1.88  2.92  3.86  4.75  5.61  6.47  7.37  8.27  9.18  10.11

Streete  +0.2
.173  1.97  2.99  3.93  4.83  5.72  6.61  7.50  8.38  9.31  10.24

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on July 20, 2006 at 7:28 am #55442

Races Without Reaction Times:
Powell  +1.7  Riete  2007  9.74
2.75  3.66  4.52  5.36  6.19  7.02  7.85  8.71  9.61

Gatlin  +1.7  Doha 2006  9.77
1.72  2.77  3.69  4.54  5.39  6.23  7.07  7.91  8.76  9.61

Powell  +1.6  Athens  2005  9.77
1.74  2.76  3.68  4.54  5.39  6.24  7.08  7.92  8.77  9.62

Greene  +0.1  Athens  1999  9.79
1.70  2.73  3.65  4.53  5.41  6.24  7.07  7.92  8.78  9.63

Powell  +1.0  Zurich  2006
1.73  2.75  3.67  4.54  5.38  6.22  7.06  7.91  8.77  9.63

Powell  +1.5  Gateshead  2006  9.77
1.74  2.74  3.67  4.54  5.39  6.24  7.07  7.92  8.77  9.63

Johnson +1.1  Seoul  1988  9.79
1.70  2.74  3.67  4.53  5.37  6.20  7.04  7.89  8.76  9.66

Greene +0.2  Seville  1999  9.80
1.70  2.70  3.62  4.51  5.37  6.20  7.03  7.89  8.78  9.67

Gatlin +0.6  Athens  2004 9.85
1.69  2.72                    5.38  6.23  7.09          8.80  9.67

Bailey +0.7  Atlanta //96 9.84
1.73  2.77  3.71  4.58  5.42  6.25  7.09  7.94  8.80  9.67

Montgomery +2.0  Paris  2002 9.78
1.75  2.81  3.72  4.60  5.44  6.27  7.11  7.95  8.80  9.68

Greene -0.2  Edmonton //01 9.82
1.70  2.70  3.62  4.51  5.37  6.20  7.03  7.89  8.78  9.69

Obikwelu +0.6  Athens //04 9.86
1.74  2.67                    5.44  6.28  7.11          8.84  9.70

Fasuba +1.7  Doha  2006  9.85
1.68  2.70  3.64  4.51  5.35  6.20  7.06  7.83  8.81  9.70

Surin +0.2  Seville  1999 9.84
1.76  2.76  3.67  4.56  5.41  6.26  7.12  7.98  8.84  9.72

Greene +0.2  Athens //97 9.86
1.71  2.75  3.67  4.55  5.42  6.27  7.12  7.98  8.85  9.73

Johnson +1.0?  Rome  1987 9.83
1.74  2.76  3.70  4.57  5.43  6.28  7.13  8.00  8.86  9.73

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on July 20, 2006 at 7:40 am #55443

Thanks. That's great. Greene's 99 race remains the most impressive in my mind due to the mininal wind as compared to similar times. Overall, Powell seems to be pretty damn amazing that he could turn out two times so fast. Intrinsically, this year's 9.77 is a better run than last year's 9.77 because it had less wind assistance. Note that if he had finished this year's 9.77 as fast as he did last year's he would have run 9.75.

ELITETRACK Founder

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on July 20, 2006 at 7:50 am #55444

greenes 2001 world champs remains the greatest in my mind because he was on track to do amazing things into a headwind.  his 9.79 and 9.80 are close behind.  Powell is awesome running two 9.77s.  gatlins 9.77 is the fastest 100m ever run, and the fastest second 50m ever run.  dont get too carried away though, as more stats are coming after i weed wack the lawn, along with ideas and such for discussion.

[mikeice]

mikeice on July 20, 2006 at 8:54 am #55445

if green had the same tail wind powell and gatilin had do you think he could have achived 9.77 or even lower

[davan]

davan on July 20, 2006 at 9:00 am #55446

I don't think he would have done much better, although many think he would. I say this because most of his fastest times have come w/o much wind assistance and he has said before he doesn't find it to help him much.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on July 20, 2006 at 3:07 pm #55447

i dont think greene would have run much better with wind, but i think he could have run powell and gatlins times without much wind assistance.  the more interesting question in my mind is what powell and gatlin can do without wind assistance.  not to take anything away from their times of course, because they are amazing and within legal limits, but i do wonder.  i know asafa has run 9.85 with very little wind and gatlin has run 9.87.

some interesting points:

gatlin has run the 100m in the fastest block start, 9.61.

though tim montgomery has the fourth fastest time, his time without reaction is 8th.

baileys 'WR' and gatlins oly final dont end in the top nine races, but both land in the fastest without reaction times.  i think bailey is grossly underrated.

60m and 70m times seem HIGHLY correlated with the 100m result.

pj (on cf) has said that he thinks wind affects stride length rather than frequency.  this could explain gatlin and powells consistent 10m splits in their WR races.  this could also suggest why mo greene felt excessive wind was detrimental to him and why tim montgomery is exempt from the wind effects i would expect in his WR race.

coming next are modelled races for slower sprinters.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on July 20, 2006 at 3:56 pm #55448

obviously most of us dont deal with elite athletes, so i calculated what races might look like for less experienced sprinters.  the main thing between elite athletes and lower end athletesis how fast they get to top speed.  a younger athlete generally gets to top speed faster than an elite one, but thats not to say its ever before 50m.  an elite sprinter generally hits top speed around 60m and carries it to 80m.  a 10.80 sprinter can hold it to 70m, which is not a huge difference between a 9.80 runner and a 10.80 runner. i dont have data for slower sprinters, so i have made the following speculations.  keep in mind that a slower sprinter may come through 60 faster and times dont have to be right on target, these are only general models.  feel free to comment though.

first line is raw time, second is time without reaction, and the third are 10m splits.

12.50
.200  2.37  3.68  4.84  5.95  7.05  8.12  9.19  10.28  11.38  12.49
         2.17  3.48  4.64  5.75  6.85  7.92  8.99  10.08  11.18  12.29
         2.17  1.31  1.16  1.11  1.10  1.07  1.07  1.09    1.10    1.11

12.00
.200  2.28  3.54  4.65  5.72  6.77  7.80  8.43  9.87  10.92  11.99
        2.08  3.34  4.45  5.52  6.57  7.60  8.63  9.67  10.72  11.79
        2.08  1.26  1.11  1.07  1.05  1.03  1.03  1.04  1.05    1.07

11.50
.200  2.19  3.39  4.46  5.48  6.49  7.48  8.47  9.47  10.48  11.50
        1.99  3.19  4.26  5.28  6.29  7.28  8.27  9.27  10.28  11.30
        1.99  1.20  1.07  1.02  1.01  .99    .99    1.00  1.01    1.02

11.00
.200  2.10  3.25  4.27  5.25  6.22  7.16  8.10  9.05  10.02  11.00
        1.90  3.05  4.07  5.05  6.02  6.96  7.90  8.85  9.82    10.80
        1.90  1.15  1.02  .98    .97    .94    .94    .95    .97      .98

10.50
.200  2.02  3.02  4.09  4.02  5.94  6.84  7.64  8.65  9.57  10.50
        1.82  2.92  3.89  4.82  5.74  6.64  7.54  8.45  9.37  10.30
        1.82  1.10  .97    .93    .92    .90    .90    .91    .92    .93

[flow]

flow on July 20, 2006 at 5:55 pm #55449

as far as i know sub elite and lower sprinters hit top speed earlier than elite ones,
ranging from 20-30m ("slow" 100m sprinter) to 50-60m (sub-/elite),  whereas the elite ones reach the speed that late due to their higher maxV and racedistribution (i´m referring to mikes infos here)
so youd probably have a diffrent split time distribution : )

[pzale8018]

pzale8018 on July 21, 2006 at 2:19 am #55450

cockysprinter,

I just wanted to say that this is some exception data.  I didn't know a database of this kind existed anywhere.  Where'd you find it????

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on July 21, 2006 at 2:21 am #55451

i think we have to reconsider that model, because if an 11 second sprinter hit top speed anywhere before before 50m, that means he would have to have awesome speed endurance or a ridiculously fast top speed compared to his time in order to make up for how much he decelerates at the second end of the race.  for this reason i think elite runners and non elite runners have not so different race distributions.  as i said earlier, the differenece between a 9.8 runner and a 10.8 runner is about 10m of top speed.  if that is a linear pattern than an 11.8 runner would hold until 60m and a 12.8 runner would hold until 50m.  one should not forget how long a sprinter accelerates versus how long a sprinter holds certain body angles.  a sprinter accelerates about 20m after he becomes fully erect.

next off, consider the 60m times to the 100m.  as i said earlier, 60 and 70m times seem to have a big prediction on how fast a sprinter will run.  my models say a 12.50 runner will hit 60 in 8.12.  my old 60 -> 100 calculator says that an 8.12 60m runner will hit 12.45, plus or minus a tenth.  a 12.00 runner will hit 7.80, an 11.50 runner will hit 7.48, an 11.00 runner will hit 7.16, and a 10.84 runner will hit 6.84.  the real question is, 'will the 60m times be accurate?'  i think they are relatively.

btw the 60 -> 100 equation is this:
(((60m -.12)/7.554)*11.554)+.22
+ or – .1

to get a 60 from 100:
(((100m-.22)/11.554)*7.554)+.12
i dont know the error here

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on July 21, 2006 at 2:26 am #55452

cockysprinter,

I just wanted to say that this is some exception data. I didn't know a database of this kind existed anywhere. Where'd you find it????

ive collected it all from numerous sources.  a lot comes from pierresjeans and spacemans analysis on cf, but a lot of other splits come from iaaf.org, event sites, and other sites around the internet.  to my knowledge it has not been collected anywhere.  the calculations are mine (the sprint models for slower sprinters), ive typed them up over the past few days.  i hope to make some equations modeling the speed curve but alas i am no good with regressing.

[senri]

senri on August 2, 2006 at 12:57 am #55453

finally cockysprinter splits for the normal people and not elites. I want more of these.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on August 5, 2006 at 2:17 pm #55454

finally cockysprinter splits for the normal people and not elites. I want more of these.

remember those are just estimated models.  dont take them too seriously.

[tracknut]

tracknut on August 7, 2006 at 1:09 am #55455

Those are some remarkable stats; thanks for sharing them with us.  As a not-particularly-elite sprinter, I find that your conversion works remarkably well for me, giving you one case study in favor of applying your split distributions to the rest of us as well as to the best.

I'm assuming that you're including reaction times in your 60 –> 100 calculator, correct?

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on August 9, 2006 at 2:55 am #55456

yeah the 60 to 100 calculator assumes a reaction time of .12 and the race distributions assume an RT of .200.

[heartsonfire]

heartsonfire on August 10, 2006 at 4:06 am #55457

I read in the last Track and Field News that they had done a study where they took wind, altitude, etc into account, used a formula and came up with the fastest 100m ever run.  Maurice Greene had two of the top times and I believe Ato Boldon, The Bullet and a few others were on there.  It was pretty interesting.  Anyone else see it?

[pzale8018]

pzale8018 on August 10, 2006 at 7:25 am #55458

yes, they are doing that more often now with the new Gold Book standards for wind and altitude adjustments. 

[davan]

davan on August 10, 2006 at 8:08 am #55459

I read in the last Track and Field News that they had done a study where they took wind, altitude, etc into account, used a formula and came up with the fastest 100m ever run.  Maurice Greene had two of the top times and I believe Ato Boldon, The Bullet and a few others were on there.  It was pretty interesting.  Anyone else see it?

It is the most moronic idea ever. They don't take into consideration track hardness (one of the most important things), but they take into account factors that vary quite a bit by body type? Yeah, makes a lot of sense  :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

[heartsonfire]

heartsonfire on August 10, 2006 at 8:12 am #55460

[quote author="heartsonfire" date="1155163024"]
I read in the last Track and Field News that they had done a study where they took wind, altitude, etc into account, used a formula and came up with the fastest 100m ever run.  Maurice Greene had two of the top times and I believe Ato Boldon, The Bullet and a few others were on there.  It was pretty interesting.  Anyone else see it?

It is the most moronic idea ever. They don't take into consideration track hardness (one of the most important things), but they take into account factors that vary quite a bit by body type? Yeah, makes a lot of sense  :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
[/quote] :thumbup: alright guy

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on August 10, 2006 at 10:21 am #55461

[quote author="heartsonfire" date="1155163024"]
I read in the last Track and Field News that they had done a study where they took wind, altitude, etc into account, used a formula and came up with the fastest 100m ever run.  Maurice Greene had two of the top times and I believe Ato Boldon, The Bullet and a few others were on there.  It was pretty interesting.  Anyone else see it?

It is the most moronic idea ever. They don't take into consideration track hardness (one of the most important things), but they take into account factors that vary quite a bit by body type? Yeah, makes a lot of sense  :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
[/quote]

uh… i wouldnt go that far.  track hardness is a topic that isnt so straight forward by cfs own admission.

[davan]

davan on August 10, 2006 at 10:58 am #55462

Neither is wind or altitude or humidity or anything else. I don't see what CF has anything to do with it. People try to use these to justify why X runner is better than Y runner. Of course, they include only wind and altitude and generally not humidty, time of day, temperature, air pressure, TRACK HARDNESS, etc. It is not only stupid, it is disrespectful to runners who have run a better time under legal conditions. If it is legal, then it is legal and that is that. Leave it unless you can figure out a way to take all of these factors into consideration.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on August 10, 2006 at 3:30 pm #55463

Neither is wind or altitude or humidity or anything else. I don't see what CF has anything to do with it. People try to use these to justify why X runner is better than Y runner. Of course, they include only wind and altitude and generally not humidty, time of day, temperature, air pressure, TRACK HARDNESS, etc. It is not only stupid, it is disrespectful to runners who have run a better time under legal conditions. If it is legal, then it is legal and that is that. Leave it unless you can figure out a way to take all of these factors into consideration.

i mention cf because hes the one that insists that track hardness is so important.  maybe this calculator is more to your liking:

https://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/DensityAltitude.html

anyways i agree that with the limited information we have, its hard to say one race was better than another, though i do find mos races to be far more impressive.

[sprinter-895]

sprinter-895 on August 16, 2006 at 9:35 pm #55464

Absolutely love the stats cockysprinter. Excellent collaboration of data – and the data for average sprinters is just great

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on August 21, 2006 at 5:02 am #55465

Now that Powell has a THIRD 9.77 under his belt it would be interesting to compare the splits on all three races and then put together a "SUPER" race with his fastest 10m segments from each race combined. I imagine that would put him close to 9.70!

ELITETRACK Founder

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on August 28, 2006 at 12:36 am #55466

This might be of interest to those looking at this topic.

ELITETRACK Founder

[pzale8018]

pzale8018 on August 28, 2006 at 3:52 am #55467

I am throughly impressed with the break down of Gatlin's race.  It is interesting to see some of the stark differences between his race, and that of Johnson's.  It's amazing that Johnson could achieve such a fast final time (9.79) with "only" reaching 12.1 m/s at top speed, when Gatlin went 12.35 m/s and ran 9.77.  You would think that Gatlin could have held that 12.35 m/s speed as long as Johnson held his 12.1, where his time might have been.  (I'm not the math wizard that other are, maybe someone can figure that out). 

Also, the fact that Gatlin ran as fast as he did with such relatively low stride frequency and large stride length adds quite a bit of credibility to some work done by Peter Weyand, saying that faster running speeds are achieved by increasing ground contact forces, not increasing stride frequency, or turn-over.  I guess it makes sense that he would run with that kind of style, given his body type.  I don???t have specific numbers, but I would assume Carl Lewis would have run with similar style. 

Great post Mike.  Raises some very interesting questions and makes me wish if someone has done this with previous WR (i'm sure they have) and if they've been done for all of Powell's races yet. 

[mikeice]

mikeice on August 28, 2006 at 7:27 am #55468

 
Also, the fact that Gatlin ran as fast as he did with such relatively low stride frequency and large stride length adds quite a bit of credibility to some work done by Peter Weyand, saying that faster running speeds are achieved by increasing ground contact forces, not increasing stride frequency, or turn-over. 

this also means that increasing stride length with out increasing power out put wouldnt make you faster but would infact have the same effect that having high frequency would  so you cant say that having long step make you faster its alway a combonation of both frequency*stride ength

[sprinter-895]

sprinter-895 on August 28, 2006 at 8:26 pm #55469

I've seen those splits before and the speed curve appears to be ridiculous. No amount of wind or breathing pattern could take a 10m split-time from 0.86 to 0.84 back to 0.86 in 3 segments. The Tokyo WC 1991 split-times also looked like this and to alot of the statisticians that I've spoke to those split-times are thought to be flawed [example: Carl Lewis [from 80-100m] 0.83 to 0.87 to 0.86 / Leroy Burrell [from 70m to 100m] 0.87 to 0.84 to 0.89! to 0.87]

My Analysis [its in cockysprinter's first post on this topic]
Wind: +1.7
Gatlin 9.77
RT: 0.166 [0.17]
010m: 1.88 [1.71]
020m: 2.93 [1.05]
030m: 3.85 [0.92]
040m: 4.70 [0.85]
050m: 5.55 [0.85]
060m: 6.39 [0.84] Fastest 10m Split-time
070m: 7.23 [0.84] Fastest 10m Split-time
080m: 8.07 [0.84] Fastest 10m Split-time
090m: 8.92 [0.85]
100m: 9.77 [0.85]
50m Split-times: 5.55 + 4.22
60m + 40m Split-times: 6.39 + 3.38

Fasuba 9.85
010m: 1.83 [1.?? – I couldn't find his RT]
020m: 2.85 [1.02]
030m: 3.79 [0.94]
040m: 4.65 [0.86]
050m: 5.50 [0.85] Fastest 10m Split-time
060m: 6.35 [0.85] Fastest 10m Split-time
070m: 7.21 [0.86]
080m: 8.08 [0.87]
090m: 8.96 [0.88]
100m: 9.85 [0.89]
50m Split-times: 5.50 + 4.35
60m + 40m Split-times: 6.35 + 3.50

[pzale8018]

pzale8018 on August 28, 2006 at 8:33 pm #55470

[quote author="PZale8018" date="1156717377"] 
Also, the fact that Gatlin ran as fast as he did with such relatively low stride frequency and large stride length adds quite a bit of credibility to some work done by Peter Weyand, saying that faster running speeds are achieved by increasing ground contact forces, not increasing stride frequency, or turn-over. 

this also means that increasing stride length with out increasing power out put wouldnt make you faster but would infact have the same effect that having high frequency would  so you cant say that having long step make you faster its alway a combonation of both frequency*stride ength
[/quote]

Just to clarify, when I was talking about Gatlin's longer stride length, I was inffering that he had greatly increased ground contact forces at each step.  The increase ground contact force is the reason for his superior speed, not just the length of each step.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on August 29, 2006 at 1:02 pm #55471

I've seen those splits before and the speed curve appears to be ridiculous. No amount of wind or breathing pattern could take a 10m split-time from 0.86 to 0.84 back to 0.86 in 3 segments. The Tokyo WC 1991 split-times also looked like this and to alot of the statisticians that I've spoke to those split-times are thought to be flawed [example: Carl Lewis [from 80-100m] 0.83 to 0.87 to 0.86 / Leroy Burrell [from 70m to 100m] 0.87 to 0.84 to 0.89! to 0.87]

My Analysis [its in cockysprinter's first post on this topic]
Wind: +1.7
Gatlin 9.77
RT: 0.166 [0.17]
010m: 1.88 [1.71]
020m: 2.93 [1.05]
030m: 3.85 [0.92]
040m: 4.70 [0.85]
050m: 5.55 [0.85]
060m: 6.39 [0.84] Fastest 10m Split-time
070m: 7.23 [0.84] Fastest 10m Split-time
080m: 8.07 [0.84] Fastest 10m Split-time
090m: 8.92 [0.85]
100m: 9.77 [0.85]
50m Split-times: 5.55 + 4.22
60m + 40m Split-times: 6.39 + 3.38

Fasuba 9.85
010m: 1.83 [1.?? – I couldn't find his RT]
020m: 2.85 [1.02]
030m: 3.79 [0.94]
040m: 4.65 [0.86]
050m: 5.50 [0.85] Fastest 10m Split-time
060m: 6.35 [0.85] Fastest 10m Split-time
070m: 7.21 [0.86]
080m: 8.08 [0.87]
090m: 8.96 [0.88]
100m: 9.85 [0.89]
50m Split-times: 5.50 + 4.35
60m + 40m Split-times: 6.35 + 3.50

the same thing happened in rome with ben johnson.  i have no explanation, only suspect that the data is flawed.  hard to believe gatlin ran a .81 and then .82, but its hard to say

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on May 17, 2007 at 11:36 am #55472

just resurrecting this thread since i feel much more can be discussed.  according to the IAAF scoring tables, all of my models for slower sprinters are correct to a tenth, being more accurate for faster sprinters (which would make sense to me since the models were taken from elite sprinters). also, assuming the 60 to 100m conversion is fairly accurate from the scoring tables, my theory is supported that race distribution is similar at both the high school and elite levels in the 100m dash.

i also had some more fun playing with the scoring tables and here are some better updated conversion formulas:

100 -> 200
(100 x 2) + .5
up to an additional .5 can be added if the sprinter is slower (12ish seconds).  if you have a sub 11 sprinter, everything changes depending on if they are a 200 or 100 specialist etc.

200 -> 300
(200 x 1.5) +2
this actually works pretty well im surprised.  i made it up because i didnt have an equation to use.

300 -> 400
((300 – 2) x 1.333) +5
should serve you well.

200 -> 400
(200 x 2) + 5
the old x 2 + 3.5 or + 4 doesnt really hold up well.  maybe if they are in super shape with a middle distance background (the secret to baylor?)

[aussie800m]

aussie800m on May 17, 2007 at 3:01 pm #55473

……………
200 -> 300
(200 x 2) +2
this actually works pretty well im surprised.  i made it up because i didnt have an equation to use.

the 200 -> 300 needs to be fixed, i think you wrote it wrong lol, the way its wrote now works out to be my actual 400m time from my 200m time lol

[star61]

star61 on May 17, 2007 at 9:38 pm #55474

[quote author="cockysprinter" date="1179382027"]
……………
200 -> 300
(200 x 2) +2
this actually works pretty well im surprised.  i made it up because i didnt have an equation to use.

the 200 -> 300 needs to be fixed, i think you wrote it wrong lol, the way its wrote now works out to be my actual 400m time from my 200m time lol

[/quote]I think he meant 200 -> 400; works out to about the same time as the 300 -> 400.

[ex400]

ex400 on May 17, 2007 at 10:30 pm #55475

200 -> 300 should be
(200 x 1.5) + 2

All of his conversions match my pr times for all those distances within a tenth. 

[wisconman]

wisconman on May 17, 2007 at 11:44 pm #55476

i also had some more fun playing with the scoring tables and here are some better updated conversion formulas:

100 -> 200
(100 x 2) + .5
up to an additional .5 can be added if the sprinter is slower (12ish seconds).  if you have a sub 11 sprinter, everything changes depending on if they are a 200 or 100 specialist etc.

200 -> 300
(200 x 2) +2
this actually works pretty well im surprised.  i made it up because i didnt have an equation to use.

300 -> 400
((300 – 2) x 1.333) +5
should serve you well.

200 -> 400
(200 x 2) + 5
the old x 2 + 3.5 or + 4 doesnt really hold up well.  maybe if they are in super shape with a middle distance background (the secret to baylor?)

I treid this with our teams fastest sprinter:
11.5 100m
49.2 400m

(11.5 x 2)+.5= 23.5 200m
(23.5×2)+5= 52 second 400m

Maybe I should tell him he can't run that fast of a 400m…

And I tried it with our teams slowest sprinter:
12.33 100m
55.94 400m

(12.33 x 2)+.5 = 25.16 200m
(25.16 x 2)+5 = 55.32 400m

Works very well here. Overall, I really like the conversion chart cockysprinter. Do you have conversions for 150s, 250s, and 350s? I was thinking about testing my speed in the offseason by running 200s, and if you could figure out some conversions it would be greatly appreciated.

[ex400]

ex400 on May 18, 2007 at 12:03 am #55477

11.5 & 49.2?  Maybe he should move up to 800.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on May 18, 2007 at 9:57 am #55478

[quote author="cockysprinter" date="1179382027"]
……………
200 -> 300
(200 x 2) +2
this actually works pretty well im surprised.  i made it up because i didnt have an equation to use.

the 200 -> 300 needs to be fixed, i think you wrote it wrong lol, the way its wrote now works out to be my actual 400m time from my 200m time lol

[/quote]

fixed.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on May 18, 2007 at 10:06 am #55479

[quote author="cockysprinter" date="1179382027"]

i also had some more fun playing with the scoring tables and here are some better updated conversion formulas:

100 -> 200
(100 x 2) + .5
up to an additional .5 can be added if the sprinter is slower (12ish seconds).  if you have a sub 11 sprinter, everything changes depending on if they are a 200 or 100 specialist etc.

200 -> 300
(200 x 2) +2
this actually works pretty well im surprised.  i made it up because i didnt have an equation to use.

300 -> 400
((300 – 2) x 1.333) +5
should serve you well.

200 -> 400
(200 x 2) + 5
the old x 2 + 3.5 or + 4 doesnt really hold up well.  maybe if they are in super shape with a middle distance background (the secret to baylor?)

I treid this with our teams fastest sprinter:
11.5 100m
49.2 400m

(11.5 x 2)+.5= 23.5 200m
(23.5×2)+5= 52 second 400m

Maybe I should tell him he can't run that fast of a 400m…

And I tried it with our teams slowest sprinter:
12.33 100m
55.94 400m

(12.33 x 2)+.5 = 25.16 200m
(25.16 x 2)+5 = 55.32 400m

Works very well here. Overall, I really like the conversion chart cockysprinter. Do you have conversions for 150s, 250s, and 350s? I was thinking about testing my speed in the offseason by running 200s, and if you could figure out some conversions it would be greatly appreciated.

[/quote]

i do think that the equations get less accurate for runners that are capable of running faster than 11.00, 22.50, or 50.00, but it sounds to me like he should step up to middle distance and see how he fares.  there could be a timing issue withe 100 (if it was ht) or maybe he just doesnt know how to run the 100 very well.  or possibly he just doesnt run the 100 very often since he seems like a 400m specialist.

i dont have and 150, 250, or 350 calculators, but mike does have a points system on his test decathlon, i believe one of the tests is a 250m.  maybe for a 150 you could use (100m x 1.5) + .2 or .25.  i dont really see the point in a 250, i think a 300 would work just as well.  depending on your 150 compared to 300, you could see which event you are better at or how your SE is coming along.

also, on the front page i added the splits from asafas final 9.77 run.

[wisconman]

wisconman on May 19, 2007 at 9:19 pm #55480

The sprinter is a 400m hurdler, I think his pr in that is a 54 something? I have a feeling that he may not know how to run the 100, but both of those times were FAT. He had both of those prs in a decathlon, our team is really small and he was the best athlete we had to put in it. But his 1500 is only a 4:53, so you'd think an 800 runner would have better endurance than that. Anyway you're right I could figure out a 250 with all the marks around it so thanks again.     

[ex400]

ex400 on May 19, 2007 at 10:09 pm #55481

His numbers don't seem to add up.  He seems to be an excellent 400 runner without much speed or aerobic endurance.  If the 10.5 is for real, I think he needs to work on speed, because that is his limiting factor if he has a 49 sec 400.  Maybe he is just an anaerobic machine, but I don't see his 400 coming down without improved velocity.  But I wonder about the 4:53, too.  Was this in the decathlon?  If so, he was undoubtedly pretty shot before he ran, so the time may not mean anything. 

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on May 21, 2007 at 6:07 am #55482

i guess the other thing to consider is that these 'conversions' mostly apply to an athlete equal in one event to another for example, if an athlete runs a 23.0 in the 200 but a 49.0 in the 400, he is a better 400 runner than 200 runner.  clearly the above athlete is best at the 400, though the times do seem disproportionate.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on May 21, 2007 at 6:36 am #55483

for those interested in the 'asafa powelll super race' here it is:

asafa powell super race .145 1.87 2.87 3.79 4.65 5.49 6.33 7.17 8.01 8.86 9.71
1.73 2.73 3.65 4.51 5.35 6.19 7.03 7.87 8.72 9.57
1.73 1.00 0.92 0.86 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85

[wisconman]

wisconman on June 5, 2007 at 9:53 pm #55484

His numbers don't seem to add up.  He seems to be an excellent 400 runner without much speed or aerobic endurance.  If the 10.5 is for real, I think he needs to work on speed, because that is his limiting factor if he has a 49 sec 400.  Maybe he is just an anaerobic machine, but I don't see his 400 coming down without improved velocity.  But I wonder about the 4:53, too.  Was this in the decathlon?  If so, he was undoubtedly pretty shot before he ran, so the time may not mean anything. 

Both numbers were in the decathlon, so he was tired for his 400 too. I don't know what you mean about the 10.5 100m. He hasn't ran an 800 or 1500 as far as I can tell since grade school.  Like I said he's a 400 hurdler. I'll tell him to work on his speed.

[ex400]

ex400 on June 5, 2007 at 10:35 pm #55485

The 10.5 was a typo.  Sorry.  I was referring to his 11.5, which just doesn't make sense for a 49 sec 400.  Maybe he is really faster than 11.5.  If not, he should certainly be working on his max velocity, because he will be stuck at 49 forever otherwise.

[mortac8]

mortac8 on June 5, 2007 at 11:10 pm #55486

The 10.5 was a typo.  Sorry.  I was referring to his 11.5, which just doesn't make sense for a 49 sec 400.  Maybe he is really faster than 11.5.  If not, he should certainly be working on his max velocity, because he will be stuck at 49 forever otherwise.

We had a guy in the past that could NOT break 11.5 or 23.1 (FAT) yet ran 49.1FAT.  I agree though, top speed is the way to go with someone like that.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on September 21, 2007 at 7:22 am #55487

heres pjs stats for asafas 9.74.  i just found at that he ran since i was out of touch in brazil.  holy crap.

0.137 2.88 3.79 4.65 5.49 6.32 7.15 7.98 8.84 9.74
2.75 3.66 4.52 5.36 6.19 7.02 7.85 8.71 9.61
0.91 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.90

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on September 21, 2007 at 7:33 am #55488

heres pjs stats for asafas 9.74.  i just found at that he ran since i was out of touch in brazil.  holy crap.

0.137 2.88 3.79 4.65 5.49 6.32 7.15 7.98 8.84 9.74
2.75 3.66 4.52 5.36 6.19 7.02 7.85 8.71 9.61
0.91 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.90

I would be very skeptical of these splits. Having done all the splits for USATF sprinting events at this years nationals I can tell you that it's not as simple as just looking at a 30fps video. Being off by one frame when attempting to take 10m splits can have big effects in the split times.

ELITETRACK Founder

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on September 21, 2007 at 7:38 am #55489

[quote author="cockysprinter" date="1190339543"]
heres pjs stats for asafas 9.74.  i just found at that he ran since i was out of touch in brazil.  holy crap.

0.137 2.88 3.79 4.65 5.49 6.32 7.15 7.98 8.84 9.74
2.75 3.66 4.52 5.36 6.19 7.02 7.85 8.71 9.61
0.91 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.90

I would be very skeptical of these splits. Having done all the splits for USATF sprinting events at this years nationals I can tell you that it's not as simple as just looking at a 30fps video. Being off by one frame when attempting to take 10m splits can have big effects in the split times.
[/quote]

do you see something in these splits that doesnt look right?

[mortac8]

mortac8 on September 21, 2007 at 7:41 am #55490

Yea how can you get .01 accuracy from a source that has .03 accuracy?  Edit: PJ said his source was 50fps and had video from 2 angles.

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on September 21, 2007 at 7:41 am #55491

do you see something in these splits that doesnt look right?

Three 10m splits as fast as anyone has ever run 10m for AND a final 10m split that is almost pedestrian (for a WR). I know he slowed down and and I know it was a world record but these seem very fishy. A 0.90 split is the one that really looks suspicious to me.

ELITETRACK Founder

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on September 21, 2007 at 7:47 am #55492

On a related note, here are the splits from this year's USATF meet. My company was in charge of all the video analysis and sprint breakdowns for the elite athletes. The track was clearly marked at 10m intervals and up to 7 cameras at 60fps recorded each sprint event. The large number of cameras minimizes perspective error for the splits and produces more accurate times.

ELITETRACK Founder

[mortac8]

mortac8 on September 21, 2007 at 7:57 am #55493

what's up with the women sr 100m final?

[winnesota]

winnesota on September 21, 2007 at 8:01 am #55494

On a related note, here are the splits from this year's USATF meet. My company was in charge of all the video analysis and sprint breakdowns for the elite athletes. The track was clearly marked at 10m intervals and up to 7 cameras at 60fps recorded each sprint event. The large number of cameras minimizes perspective error for the splits and produces more accurate times.

Gay's race has some weird splits

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on September 21, 2007 at 8:07 am #55495

It looks like the 90m cumulative times are off. That screws up the splits before and after. I had an assistant doing the splits so I'll look at the raw file and see if the real data is there.

The only thing suspicious about Gay's race is that the last split is the fastest. What else are you seeing?

ELITETRACK Founder

[Josh Hurlebaus]

Josh Hurlebaus on September 21, 2007 at 8:10 am #55496

It looks like the 90m cumulative times are off. That screws up the splits before and after. I had an assistant doing the splits so I'll look at the raw file and see if the real data is there.

The only thing suspicious about Gay's race is that the last split is the fastest. What else are you seeing?

Demi Omole in the semi's going from a .85 50m to a .91 60m, to a .84 70m to a .93 80m. seems a bit odd to me.

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on September 21, 2007 at 8:25 am #55497

Demi Omole in the semi's going from a .85 50m to a .91 60m, to a .84 70m to a .93 80m. seems a bit odd to me.

Such variance is more common among the lesser performers (>10.25). Look at some of the other lesser performances (especially Jrs) and you'll see the same thing. It might not be EXACTLY right but I'd guess that most of  those are good to +/- 0.02s.

Those splits I posted are not true research grade results. The only time you're going to get true 10m splits is when you use a timing gate or have photoelectric timers at each segment. Any time the race is recorded from anything but a perfectly sagittal view their will be perspective error that can account for anywhere from 0.01 to 0.1 seconds of error. The extent of this error depends on a variety of things ranging from shutter speed, degree of perspective error (more cameras, if evenly placed, should reduce but not eliminate perspective error), accuracy of track markings, etc…

We did these for the sprint development group but the only 10m results that I would really stand behind are those taken at IAAF world champs and OGs….where they have a split taking setup similar to what I described above.

ELITETRACK Founder

[Josh Hurlebaus]

Josh Hurlebaus on September 21, 2007 at 8:35 am #55498

Ahh, thanks for the clarification. I never knew that there was such a yo-yo effect for people at the sub-elite level.

[winnesota]

winnesota on September 21, 2007 at 7:54 pm #55499

It looks like the 90m cumulative times are off. That screws up the splits before and after. I had an assistant doing the splits so I'll look at the raw file and see if the real data is there.

The only thing suspicious about Gay's race is that the last split is the fastest. What else are you seeing?

Looking back, i guess thats the only thing

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on September 22, 2007 at 12:29 am #55500

[quote author="cockysprinter" date="1190340549"]
do you see something in these splits that doesnt look right?

Three 10m splits as fast as anyone has ever run 10m for AND a final 10m split that is almost pedestrian (for a WR). I know he slowed down and and I know it was a world record but these seem very fishy. A 0.90 split is the one that really looks suspicious to me.
[/quote]

i guess i can agree there, especially since powell doesnt really slow down much in his races.

[jvi]

jvi on September 22, 2007 at 10:29 pm #55501

Cockysprinter, I'm in total awe of you…!

pj (on cf) has said that he thinks wind affects stride length rather than frequency.  this could explain gatlin and powells consistent 10m splits in their WR races.  this could also suggest why mo greene felt excessive wind was detrimental to him and why tim montgomery is exempt from the wind effects i would expect in his WR race.

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by this?

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on September 23, 2007 at 9:11 am #55502

Cockysprinter, I'm in total awe of you…!

[quote author="cockysprinter" date="1153388296"]
pj (on cf) has said that he thinks wind affects stride length rather than frequency.  this could explain gatlin and powells consistent 10m splits in their WR races.  this could also suggest why mo greene felt excessive wind was detrimental to him and why tim montgomery is exempt from the wind effects i would expect in his WR race.

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by this?
[/quote]

mo often ran with his hips much lower than other sprinters of his caliber (possibly because he isnt as strong as other WR sprinters).  this leads me to believe that his form stretched his stride length to the limit, and anything aiding his stride length wouldnt do him any good.  on the other hand, gatlin did something similar and benefitted handily from wind.  however, both gatlin and powell ran 9.77 with very favorable wind (the first time for powell), which alters the timing of a sprinters stride and makes hitting top speed harder.  but since hitting top speed wont really work, they still have energy to burn and can therefore run a race with very consistent splits throughout.  montgomery is on the opposite side of gatlin, he has a very high stride frequency.  i would think that would give him an advantage in wind aided races, but its possible that his frequency is so high that his timing is also affected to the point that he cant take advantage of added stride length.  those were my thoughts.

[jvi]

jvi on September 23, 2007 at 3:00 pm #55503

mo often ran with his hips much lower than other sprinters of his caliber (possibly because he isnt as strong as other WR sprinters).  this leads me to believe that his form stretched his stride length to the limit, and anything aiding his stride length wouldnt do him any good.  on the other hand, gatlin did something similar and benefitted handily from wind.  however, both gatlin and powell ran 9.77 with very favorable wind (the first time for powell), which alters the timing of a sprinters stride and makes hitting top speed harder.  but since hitting top speed wont really work, they still have energy to burn and can therefore run a race with very consistent splits throughout.  montgomery is on the opposite side of gatlin, he has a very high stride frequency.  i would think that would give him an advantage in wind aided races, but its possible that his frequency is so high that his timing is also affected to the point that he cant take advantage of added stride length.  those were my thoughts.

Thank you very much for your reply, I think I got it now!

Now that you mention it, I do remember Mo "sitting" a bit in his stride. In the early stages of his career I recall a sports commentator saying that his running technique was traditional, almost text-book. But when he started approaching WR form, I think the modern technique of not extending the knee completely started to be more apparent.

It's amazing to me that Mo wasn't as strong as some of the other record holders! Physically he was certainly the prototype of a "power sprinter", if you'll excuse the rather subjective characterization. I did hear rumors of his surprisingly low squat numbers, but I thought they were more of a conscious choice to emphasize fast reps, and only maintain limit strength. But I also know that impressive physiques don't always go hand in hand with high levels of maximal strength (case in point: John Regis).

One other thing. I always thought that Justin Gatlin resembled Donovan Bailey in terms of body build and running form, although he was certainly a bit smoother than Bailey. Would you agree? 

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on September 24, 2007 at 8:42 am #55504

Now that you mention it, I do remember Mo "sitting" a bit in his stride. In the early stages of his career I recall a sports commentator saying that his running technique was traditional, almost text-book. But when he started approaching WR form, I think the modern technique of not extending the knee completely started to be more apparent. 

i think his WR race was pretty textbook, but later (particularly in athens 2004) he didnt do the same thing.  ive also seen photos of a lot of his early races where he had low hip height.

One other thing. I always thought that Justin Gatlin resembled Donovan Bailey in terms of body build and running form, although he was certainly a bit smoother than Bailey. Would you agree? 

i guess you could say there's some similarity between them but id say gatlins technique is the most extreme and unique form out there.  baileys is much more textbook (though ive only really seen his 96 oly final).  i also think bailey is one of the most talented and underrated 100m sprinters ever.

[winnesota]

winnesota on September 28, 2007 at 10:42 pm #55505

[quote author="JVi" date="1190480391"]
Cockysprinter, I'm in total awe of you…!

[quote author="cockysprinter" date="1153388296"]
pj (on cf) has said that he thinks wind affects stride length rather than frequency.  this could explain gatlin and powells consistent 10m splits in their WR races.  this could also suggest why mo greene felt excessive wind was detrimental to him and why tim montgomery is exempt from the wind effects i would expect in his WR race.

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by this?
[/quote]

mo often ran with his hips much lower than other sprinters of his caliber (possibly because he isnt as strong as other WR sprinters).  this leads me to believe that his form stretched his stride length to the limit, and anything aiding his stride length wouldnt do him any good.  on the other hand, gatlin did something similar and benefitted handily from wind.  however, both gatlin and powell ran 9.77 with very favorable wind (the first time for powell), which alters the timing of a sprinters stride and makes hitting top speed harder.  but since hitting top speed wont really work, they still have energy to burn and can therefore run a race with very consistent splits throughout.  montgomery is on the opposite side of gatlin, he has a very high stride frequency.  i would think that would give him an advantage in wind aided races, but its possible that his frequency is so high that his timing is also affected to the point that he cant take advantage of added stride length.  those were my thoughts.
[/quote]

I would say that wind-aided races would favor longer strides than shorter strides.(longer time in the air vs. touchdown for frequently)

[Daniel Andrews]

Daniel Andrews on October 2, 2007 at 2:43 pm #55506

[quote author="cockysprinter" date="1190340549"]
do you see something in these splits that doesnt look right?

Three 10m splits as fast as anyone has ever run 10m for AND a final 10m split that is almost pedestrian (for a WR). I know he slowed down and and I know it was a world record but these seem very fishy. A 0.90 split is the one that really looks suspicious to me.
[/quote]

Mike:

I know it's been a while since I posted, but I keep looking at the video and Powell doesn't seemed to have slowed significantly.  Again, most of the video from the race is bad, but his hip height doesn't seem to change significantly in his stride and he's 50m or more into the turn before he's slowed down to a stop.  That tells me his momentum was still strong and he's relaxed going through the line.  The lack of vertical oscillation in his hips tells me he can't be slowing down(again the video is back).  He may not have pushed harder in the latter part of the race, but that may be the reason he ran the WR time, besides the 1.7m/s wind at his back.

Regards,

Dan

[jump-start]

jump-start on October 2, 2007 at 7:11 pm #55507

What were Monty's splits for his WR, I thought he had quite a slow last 10m segment.

If powell slowed to .88 that would be in line with his previous WRs, but he also switch off in the last 3 strides so I'm not that surprised. But also at 50fps theres an error of .02 …

On a related note, why do the splits from rome 87 go up and down like they do?

[Mike Young]

Mike Young on October 2, 2007 at 9:44 pm #55508

Dan-
I agree. Most people greatly overestimate the actual magnitude of deceleration when an athlete looks like they show boat the last couple meters. For most of those guys, there's just simply too much momentum built up to decrease it over 10m without running in to a brick wall. He really only trotted for a couple steps too. Much less than he normally does.

ELITETRACK Founder

[Daniel Andrews]

Daniel Andrews on October 3, 2007 at 11:14 am #55509

What were Monty's splits for his WR, I thought he had quite a slow last 10m segment.

If powell slowed to .88 that would be in line with his previous WRs, but he also switch off in the last 3 strides so I'm not that surprised. But also at 50fps theres an error of .02 …

On a related note, why do the splits from rome 87 go up and down like they do?

 

Actually the error that can be attained is .03999999s w/ 50fps on a computer that is using variable bit rates.

[burkhalter]

burkhalter on October 3, 2007 at 8:00 pm #55510

[quote author="cockysprinter" date="1190518887"]
mo often ran with his hips much lower than other sprinters of his caliber (possibly because he isnt as strong as other WR sprinters).  this leads me to believe that his form stretched his stride length to the limit, and anything aiding his stride length wouldnt do him any good.  on the other hand, gatlin did something similar and benefitted handily from wind.  however, both gatlin and powell ran 9.77 with very favorable wind (the first time for powell), which alters the timing of a sprinters stride and makes hitting top speed harder.  but since hitting top speed wont really work, they still have energy to burn and can therefore run a race with very consistent splits throughout.  montgomery is on the opposite side of gatlin, he has a very high stride frequency.  i would think that would give him an advantage in wind aided races, but its possible that his frequency is so high that his timing is also affected to the point that he cant take advantage of added stride length.  those were my thoughts.

Thank you very much for your reply, I think I got it now!

Now that you mention it, I do remember Mo "sitting" a bit in his stride. In the early stages of his career I recall a sports commentator saying that his running technique was traditional, almost text-book. But when he started approaching WR form, I think the modern technique of not extending the knee completely started to be more apparent.

It's amazing to me that Mo wasn't as strong as some of the other record holders! Physically he was certainly the prototype of a "power sprinter", if you'll excuse the rather subjective characterization. I did hear rumors of his surprisingly low squat numbers, but I thought they were more of a conscious choice to emphasize fast reps, and only maintain limit strength. But I also know that impressive physiques don't always go hand in hand with high levels of maximal strength (case in point: John Regis).

One other thing. I always thought that Justin Gatlin resembled Donovan Bailey in terms of body build and running form, although he was certainly a bit smoother than Bailey. Would you agree? 
[/quote]

As an aside, I would say Mo in his glory years was one of the Strongest sprinters. I have seen the numbers of over 400 for reps passed around for FULL squats based on eyewitness accounts. Ato stated he full squatted more than 400 as well. Which isn't Oly lifter caliber but for someone who is a sprinter and where lifting definitely is not primary I would say that is pretty good.

I agree Bailey is way underrated.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on October 7, 2007 at 4:43 am #55511

I would say that wind-aided races would favor longer strides than shorter strides.(longer time in the air vs. touchdown for frequently)

youre probably right.

As an aside, I would say Mo in his glory years was one of the Strongest sprinters. I have seen the numbers of over 400 for reps passed around for FULL squats based on eyewitness accounts. Ato stated he full squatted more than 400 as well. Which isn't Oly lifter caliber but for someone who is a sprinter and where lifting definitely is not primary I would say that is pretty good.

I agree Bailey is way underrated.

i remember ato saying the most he ever squatted was 445, and john smith has said that mo isnt particularly strong.  while 445 certainly isnt slouching from my standpoint, it might be for an elite sprinter.  especially since we know ben johnson could do 600, i wouldnt be surprised to see other world record holders being between those numbers.

people dont seem to realize that bailey stepped onto the track and ran 9.84 5 years later.  thats amazing.  not to mention its one of the fastest races ever if you look at the splits in the beginning of this thread.

[jvi]

jvi on October 11, 2007 at 4:22 pm #55512

people dont seem to realize that bailey stepped onto the track and ran 9.84 5 years later.  thats amazing.  not to mention its one of the fastest races ever if you look at the splits in the beginning of this thread.

Bailey was occasionally playing basketball, and had a ~10.30 clocking when Dan Pfaff became his coach. In the first practice session Pfaff fell over laughing when he saw Donovan's running form! Then Bailey was sent to the gym where a female javelin thrower, Laverne Eve, "cleaned his clock" (Donovan's own words)!

A rough start, but it didn't take him long to rise to the top.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on December 2, 2007 at 10:46 am #55513

On a related note, here are the splits from this year's USATF meet. My company was in charge of all the video analysis and sprint breakdowns for the elite athletes. The track was clearly marked at 10m intervals and up to 7 cameras at 60fps recorded each sprint event. The large number of cameras minimizes perspective error for the splits and produces more accurate times.

somehow im looking at this data for the first time.  ill see what i can add.

[Derrick Brito]

Derrick Brito on December 2, 2007 at 11:49 am #55514

Works very well here. Overall, I really like the conversion chart cockysprinter. Do you have conversions for 150s, 250s, and 350s? I was thinking about testing my speed in the offseason by running 200s, and if you could figure out some conversions it would be greatly appreciated.

after looking at mikes 2007 us champs data, it looks like 200 -> 150 = 200 * .75 and of course 150 -> 200 = 150 * 1.33.  while i need to look through the data some more, that conversion seems to be close to what sprinters are running through 150 en route to a 200.  most of the time it seems high by a tenth, but ive seen it dead on and low by .3.  also if a 150 is run all out, it might very well be a little more than a tenth faster than .75.  i think i might be able to do a 350 conversion later, but a 250 will be tricky and, like i said, i believe mike has a 'conversion' for that already.