Run-Down Forums Forum Index Run-Down Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Run-Down Forums Forum Index
Sprint Central
10m Splits
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Run-Down Forums Forum Index -> Sprint Central
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Justin
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 08 Oct 2001
Posts: 312
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we separate them because we can! If we had 5m splits we'd be adding those; if we only had 50m splits we'd be having a (shorter) chat about that. Bear in mind that the margin for error in the length of the track is greater than 1/1000th of a second over a 100m race, yet all times in major champs are rounded up from 000ths to 00ths - official photo finish pictures record times to 000ths right there on the print

Justin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suppose so, but there are lots of things we can do that aren't worth doing... I'll grudgingly accept that the reaction times are already included in those numbers, but not that the 0.15 average should be used for constructing a perfect race. I cannot agree that that makes even the slightest semblance of sense.

Dan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems to me that the first 10m segments would be from gun to 10m - irrespective of reaction time ... Reaction time is simply a separate reading that is taken to determine whether or not a start was legal !!! It is not a separate segment of the race itself ... Therefore no reason to "separate it" from the rest of the 10m segment ... whatever the reaction time was, the first 10m reading tells you from the click of the gun who got there the fastest or in what time they got there !!!!!
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My thinking exactly. I don't see how separating the two adds anything of meaning to the overall race picture, but it certainly takes away from the true meaning of the first 10m split.

To try and put the rest of the race into the same light, that would be like somehow negating the athletes' speed entering each of the subsequent 10m splits so as to create a carefully controlled environment, a la a vaccum of sorts. That would, of course, be absurd, as it would change the race. So, too, would be viewing the start and first 10m as separate entities... Oh well, who says things have to make sense?

Dan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Justin
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 08 Oct 2001
Posts: 312
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think we already agreed that 0.15, although a sensible use of the limited data we have, makes less sense than just using 0.100, which we know is achievable.

The two (reaction time and 0-10m travel time) are worth separating; of course the essence of a great first 10m includes a good reaction time and explosive acceleration, but even the explosiveness of Ben Johnson won't help you if you take 0.25 to react (ie start moving) to the gun. So a perfect race would need that explosiveness AND a lighting (ie 0.100) reaction.

The perfect reaction and the perfect 0-10m acceleration might not occur in the same race - in fact they don't, since the fastest women's 10m time (1.95 by Marion Jones, incl reaction time, 1.83 excluding it) came in a different race to the fastest 0-10m travel time (1.79 excl reaction, 1.98 including it, ie a terrible 0.199 reaction).

Besides, this is only a silly hypothetical exercise, so we can juggle the data how we like, just to see what we come up with. Any way we cut it, the answer is 9.60 for men and 10.40 for women, although that 10.40 is based largely on a 10.49 thought to be windy. I'd like to know the 10m splits for Flo-Jo's 10.62 (the real women's WR) and Obadele Thompson's 9.69Aw - but if course that data doesn't exist. Meanwhile, we can legitimately imagine sub 9.70 and sub 10.60 based on data from athletes currently active. That's fun...especially as I hope to see it happen live in August.

Justin Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Justin
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 08 Oct 2001
Posts: 312
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PS Conway the reaction time IS part of the race - the clock starts with the gun, not on first movement. We had a long ole debate with Darrell from HSI on the T&F e-mail list about this - the physical process of reacting to the gun starts when the eardrum registers the noise and includes the fractions of a second it takes to send the relevant messages. This is known to have a physical human limit (the speed chemical signals can travel), hence the (actually very generous) 0.100 limit. We see the first movement a fraction of a second after it starts, it's just that the first bit of it is internal. Nonetheless the internal and external components of the reaction are distinctly measurable and the best of each don't necssarily occur together in the same race.

Justin

PS Did I mention that I've just bought tickets for all 9 days of the Paris WC??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Justin
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 08 Oct 2001
Posts: 312
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan, what's the bizarre blue thing in the logo? Is this how you see yourself? Intrigued...

Justin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
PS Did I mention that I've just bought tickets for all 9 days of the Paris WC??

Excited to be attending, by any chance? Smile

Quote:
Dan, what's the bizarre blue thing in the logo? Is this how you see yourself? Intrigued...

Check out the "USATF Fopaw of the Week" thread in the Rambling Runnings forum...

Dan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin wrote:
PS Conway the reaction time IS part of the race - the clock starts with the gun, not on first movement.
Justin

PS Did I mention that I've just bought tickets for all 9 days of the Paris WC??


I thought that is what I was saying ... That it is all the same ... Gun to 1st 10M segment .. I don't see how you can take the reaaction time out ... It is part of the run ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Justin
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 08 Oct 2001
Posts: 312
Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So we all seem to be agreeing then...hurrah!

This whole exercise is artificial - we're adding together 10m segments by different athletes on different days at different meets; why is it more artificial to separate the reaction time than to separate the 40-50m time?

Anyway - let's not continue to bash this one back and forth - let's talk about 9.60 and 10.40 since these seem to me to be times I am entitled to imagine seeing in the next decade, if not the next few years.

Later on I'll post a comparison of Ben Johnson's 9.79, Mo Greene's 9.79, 9.80 and 9.82 and Tim Montgomery's 9.78. Right now I have to brave the snow and cold to go shopping...

Justin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I agree about the 9.60 ... I think that is ultimately doable ... I think Mo is capable ... Am not so sure about Montgomery since he has seemingly run his perfect race ... Dwain perhaps since he is still young and improving and not yet run what may be his best ... And I would add MLF to that group as he is the furthest yet from perfection and seemed to be on par with Dwain before his injury ...

I could see Mo going aclose to 9.70 this year ... And then perhaps under 9.70 in 04 ... With Tim/Dwain pushing him this year and MLF next ...

I'm a lot more skeptical about 10.40 given that most of the data that leads to that time came from a race that is skeptical within itself given the conditions, etc ... I was there and it was as windy for that race as it was for the men's ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still say the stats show 9.50 to be possible. Wink

Dan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you look earlier I too belive 9.50 to be possible ... But I do not think that will be breached in the near future ... In the next two seasons I do think the 9.70 barrier will fall ...

I do not see a quantum leap to 9.50 ... I think it can be talked about in the second half of the decade .. And maybe even reached in the next decade ... But a few things will have to happen first ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But a few things will have to happen first ...

Do you mean rule changes?

Dan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
X King
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 11 Jan 2003
Posts: 431
Location: Great Britain

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have Flo-Jo's Olympic Splits From IAF Scientific Researches in Seoul'88.

100m final
Wind:+3.0m/s
RT:0.131s
10m:02.00w (1.87w)
20m:03.09w (1.09w)
30m:04.09w (1.00w)
40m:05.04w (0.95w)
50m:05.97w (0.93w)
60m:06.89w (0.92w)
70m:07.80w (0.91w)
80m:08.71w (0.91w)
90m:09.62w (0.91w)
100m:10.54w (0.92w)

200m semi-final
Wind:+1.7m/s
RT:0.156s
50m:06.33s (6.17s)
100m:11.29s (4.96s)
150m:16.36s (5.07s)
200m:21.56s (5.20s)

200m final
Wind:+1.3m/s
RT:0.205s
50m:06.29s (6.08s)
100m:11.18s (4.89s)
150m:16.10s (4.92s)
200m:21.34s (5.24s)

Flo-Jo's 10.61s 'Real World Record'
Wind:+1.2m/s
RT:??
10m:2.00s (0.00s)
20m:3.09s (1.09s)
30m:4.08s (0.99s)
40m:5.04s (0.96s)
50m:5.97s (0.93s)
60m:6.90s (0.93s)
70m:7.82s (0.92s)
80m:8.74s (0.92s)
90m:9.67s (0.93s)
100m:10.61s (0.94s)
(Note:Flo-Jo celebrated just before the finish line.This cost her 0.01s in her final 10m section.If she hadn't of celebrated she would of run 10.60s)
X King
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Run-Down Forums Forum Index -> Sprint Central All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 3 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group