Run-Down Forums

Dan · Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2003 4:58 pm Post subject:

Let's take things a step further and assume for the sake of argument that Mo really did run a 5m segment in 0.37 seconds. That tells us that in order to run that fast, he had to run significantly slower the preceeding and following 5m segments. In other words, he has not demonstrated the ability to run that fast over 10m, because the very example you're drawing the possibility from refutes that it can be done.

MJ ran the 200m well under 20 seconds, but no one dared suggest he could run the 400m in 38.x. Every race is about resource management. Maybe some day someone will be able to string together some mid 0.3's, but there's no evidence in front of us at this time that it is humanly possible.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

MiamiD J30 · Water Boy Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 31 Location: New York

You might be right about that,
But when Greene supposedly ran the first 5m of the 10m split at 60m, he was hitting his top speed so, it might be possible. He was accelerating, to his top speed, so its possible, and after he achieved his top speed.

If it were 100m, he would have slowed down a little, because he was becoming tired. So I think that it may be an accurate measurement.

Jason

Dan · Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2003 5:56 pm Post subject:

Remember, you're talking about nearly +/- 0.10 -- a tenth of a second difference is HUGE over 100m, let alone 5m! Question the splits, not the conclusions...

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

Conway · Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:49 am Post subject:

Conway · Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:59 am Post subject:

On the topic of 5m splits ... I think you might find an abnormally fast split in an indoor sprint ... Some ofthe guys with slower starts who make up incredible amounts of space towards the end of a 60 might hit an extrememly fast 5 meters somewhere along the way .. But that would be a momentary thing and unsustainable - sort of a "straining acceleration" moment ... We all know that the fastest races come from sustained speed ... Fast sprinting is actually rather rhythmic in nature ... It is not spurting in nature ...

Lewis, Marsh, Burrell and company increased speed by learning to spread out the effort during the race ... Boldon, Greene, Drummond and company added sustained acceleration to the mix and improved upon the previous model ... Not sure what is next ..
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

Dan · Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 8:03 am Post subject:

Conway · Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 8:46 am Post subject:

Sounds like you need more practice ... It has been fixed ... Was saying "straining acceleration" ... Embarassed

_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

Dan · Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 8:58 am Post subject:

Gotcha. I was thinking trailing or lasting, but neither made much sense.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

MiamiD J30 · Water Boy Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 31 Location: New York

Conway, to me, I don't think that even if Greene had a slow start, everyone is accelerating, and he was reaching his top speed there. Even if he had a quicker start (which definitely he has), he would have reached that time in a previous 5m, so nevertheless, most likely he did do this.
I'm having X-King to do a very detailed analysis of this race, to make sure that the split times are correct, and he is doing the whole race in 5m splits.

If anyone has a website where, I can contact a professional, that measures split times, please give it to me.

Thanks,
Jason

Conway · Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:31 am Post subject:

I think you misunderstood me Jason ... I do believe that a split of that nature is possible ... I just don't think it possible to string to gether a succession of them in a race ...

I remember watching the race when Mo set the record ... He was really pushing the envelope to get it ... So that split probably occured (or something very close to it) ... But that is my point ... He really pushed the envelope over the shorter distance ... Adding 40 meters more would be nearly impossible to sustain ... Thus making it difficult to string a series of those splits together ...

In order to do so wouldl require more strength .. However, additional strength would require more bulk (having watched the likes of Mo and Ato and Dwain and Tim over the past few years) ... And the bulk reduces the elasticity and fluidity of the performance ... So I am wondering if we are truly near the limit in the 100 ?!?!?
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

MiamiD J30 · Water Boy Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 31 Location: New York

Yea, I did misunderstand what you were saying.
And now that I do understand I totally agree with you.
Since the top speed only can be maintained for about 5m, I think that 55m is where Greene reaches his top speed. And that is where the 0.37s occured. And since it was only a 60m race, he might have slowed down the last 5m of the race.

If it were 100m in that race he probably would have made the last 5m about 0.43s instead of 0.46. I believe that he would've done this.

And since this is probably Maurice's last yea in his prime, I would expect for him to break the WR.

Jason

Dan · Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:53 am Post subject:

I'll go on record here saying I do not believe it is possible to derive accurate 5m splits from video analysis unless the race was set up for it in the first place (which none are, as far as I know). Too small/fast of an increment to ensure proper camera angles. If you're guessing where the 5m marks are on the track, let alone when the camera and athlete angles line up on that imaginary plane, you'll be lucky to get accuracy within 0.05. Even that is asking a lot, and it's well into the realm of significant percentage error.

The only real chance of getting meaningful numbers is to have photofinish equipment set up every 5m on the track with lines painted across all the lanes for each segment, at an equipment cost of well over $100k. You might be able to work with one of those track level "rabbit" cams, but those rarely show you the track itself. So, what we've got here is entertainment value, not valid statistics. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's just the way it is. Take your case before any T&F statistician and they'll tell you the same thing.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

Dan · Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:57 am Post subject:

MiamiD J30 · Water Boy Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 31 Location: New York

Most of the time, you find the fastest split time, in the 50-60m range.

And it slows up about 0.01-0.03s in the 60-70m range. Smile

Jason

Dan · Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:24 am Post subject:

Ok, I'm withdrawing from this discussion and all related ones. We're obviously not speaking on the same level.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

Discussion Forum

Share the Love!

What's New

Running Links Directory