Run-Down Forums Forum Index Run-Down Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch
 
Run-Down Forums Forum Index
Sprint Central
10m Splits
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 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: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are the splits times at 10m increments for the 6 100m performances of 9.83 or faster:

10m 20m 30m 40m 50m 60m 70m 80m 90m 100m
Montgomery 02 1.84 2.85 3.77 4.66 5.53 6.36 7.20 8.04 8.90 9.78
Johnson 88 1.83 2.87 3.80 4.66 5.50 6.33 7.17 8.02 8.89 9.79
Greene 99 1.86 2.89 3.80 4.68 5.55 6.39 7.23 8.08 8.93 9.79
Greene 99 1.86 2.89 3.81 4.68 5.55 6.39 7.24 8.09 8.94 9.80
Greene 01 1.83 2.83 3.75 4.64 5.50 6.33 7.19 8.02 8.91 9.82
Johnson 87 1.84 2.86 3.80 4.67 5.53 6.38 7.23 8.10 8.96 9.83

A few comments:

Greene was well on the way to the WR in 01 when he was hurt in 01.

Johnson's 88 run has never really been bettered - his times at 50m, 60m, 70m, 80m and 90m have never been beaten; he would surely have clocked 9.72-9.74 without the celebration and 9.70-9.72 if he hadn't stumbled at the start (he loses around 0.02 from 10m-20m).

Johnson was not all about his start - he goes away with every stride in 88.

Montgomery's WR was based on a great first 30m - he was 0.04 ahead of WR schedule by 20m; he lost a touch during pick-up (just 0.02 ahead of schedule at 50m) and a powerful 3/4 race surge - he regains those lost 0.02 by 80m and is still 0.04 up at 90m; had he dipped rather than looked scross at the press he would have run nearer 9.75-9.77. So he still has
something to aim for.
Arguably we have already seen the optimum run possible from currently active athetes: either Johnson in 88 without (a) the stumble, (b) the celebration and (c) the dope test; or Greene in 01 without the injury (and, of course, without the 0.2m/s headwind!).

I think that if Greene still has what he had in 2001 (a big if, given 2002) and he gets lucky (ie nice tailwind and weather, no injury, no false start distractions) then he is physically capable of running 9.70. Compared to his 2001 run, a nice 1.5m/s headwind would take at least 0.05 from each of the 2001 splits, possibly more.

I also think Montgomery can run 9.75, assuming he retains both the physical and mental condition which enabled him to run 9.78.

Had Johnson not tested positive, I think he also could have run 9.70. We know he could have run 9.75 - he did so for all but the last 10m in 88 - and he was only 27 then. Imagine adding Johnson to that 1991 WC field - 9.70 doesn't seem strange, and he would have pulled the rest to even faster times.

Justin
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 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tried to format the table but it loses the columns and the bold font indicating best times when I post it. Not sure if there is a solution for that; still, it's not impossible to read.

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: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting to see the top races lined up side by side like that. It really does show how they compare head to head. Almost as cool as those super-imposed downhill skiing graphics they came up with a few years back. Smile

Code:
                10m  20m  30m  40m  50m  60m  70m  80m  90m 100m
Montgomery 02  1.84 2.85 3.77 4.66 5.53 6.36 7.20 8.04 8.90 9.78
Johnson    88  1.83 2.87 3.80 4.66 5.50 6.33 7.17 8.02 8.89 9.79
Greene     99  1.86 2.89 3.80 4.68 5.55 6.39 7.23 8.08 8.93 9.79
Greene     99  1.86 2.89 3.81 4.68 5.55 6.39 7.24 8.09 8.94 9.80
Greene     01  1.83 2.83 3.75 4.64 5.50 6.33 7.19 8.02 8.91 9.82
Johnson    87  1.84 2.86 3.80 4.67 5.53 6.38 7.23 8.10 8.96 9.83


How's that?

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


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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Awesome work guys ... Very interesting to say the least ....

I had said earlier that Tim got that record in the first part of the race ... Not sure he can do that again ... Not to mention the max wind ... He has great pick up ... But not as great as he believes ... I still think this was his max race ....

I agree about Mo and 01 ... Not sure if he can get back there ... He had built up to that level and then had last year's drop off .. But he wasn't that bad last year .. Had he won a couple more races (and still had the same times) I don't think anyone would have been concerned ...

Ben was a complete sprinter at the end ... In both 87 & 88 he pulled away from Carl after the mid point of the race ... He became much more than a fast starter ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
X King
Varsity
Varsity


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

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those are some impressive splits there guys,where did you get them from???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Paul
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 28 Apr 2002
Posts: 1610
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Says something about Francis' coaching ability...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
X King
Varsity
Varsity


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

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Making a '2000 Leauges Under The Sea' search through my Splits,Stats and Analysis work,I have found the Best 10m Segments for Men and Women(I promise this is the final,rock-bottom thorough search of those requested splits that I shall show to this forum!!!!)
MEN
RT Limit:0.100s(0.10s)
0-10m:1.70s(Minus RT) Raymond Stewart(JAM) '91,MO Greene(USA) '99&'01 & Tim Montgomery(USA) '01&'02(Ben Johnson(CAN) 1.70s DQ.'8Cool
10m-20m:1.00s Bruny Surin(CAN)'99 & MO Greene(USA) '01
20m-30m:0.89s MO Greene(USA) '00
30m-40m:0.86s MO Greene(USA) '00
40m-50m:0.84s MO Greene(USA) '99(Ben Johnson(CAN) DQ.'8Cool
50m-60m:0.82s MO Greene(USA) '00(x3) & '01
60m-70m:0.83s Donovan Bailey(CAN) '96 & MO Greene(USA) '00(x3)& '01
70m-80m:0.83s Carl Lewis(USA) '91 & MO Greene(USA) '00
80m-90m:0.85s MO Greene(USA) '00
90m-100m:0.85s Carl Lewis(USA) '84 & MO Greene(USA) '99
Total:9.47s(WSB)
Total+ RT Limit=9.57s/9.60s

I have updated my list for the best 10m sections in women's 100m race, from biomechanical studies in various championships, and my normal and slow motion film analysis. More women could have run those times or a little bit faster (above all in the first half of the race).
WOMEN
RT Limit:0.100s(0.10s)
0-10m (minus RT) 1.78s Irina Privalova ('91)
10-20m 1.06s M.Jones('9Cool & Flo-Jo('8Cool
20-30m 0.99s Flo-Jo('8Cool, C.Arron ('98 x2,'99), M.Jones (‘98,’99 x2)
30-40m 0.94s G.Devers ('96), M.Jones (‘9Cool, E.Thanou ('99)
40-50m 0.92s Flo-Jo(‘8Cool, M.Jones ('9Cool & E.Thanou ('99)
50-60m 0.90s Flo-Jo('8Cool
60-70m 0.89s Flo-Jo('8Cool
70-80m 0.90s Flo-Jo('8Cool
80-90m 0.90s Flo-Jo('8Cool
90-100m 0.92s Flo-Jo ('8Cool
TOTAL:10.22s
TOTAL+RT Limit:10.32s/10.40s

X King
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pierrejean
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 51
Location: Rennes (France)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hum... X King, those women split times are not YOUR slow motion film analysis, those are MINE, and i gave them in the IAAF forum few days ago... You were talking about plagirism.... Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only difference is the 10-20m section where you found 1.06 for FloJo, where do they come from? From the analysis i done for her 4 races in Indianapolis and Seoul, the best is 1.09.
Back to top
pierrejean
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 51
Location: Rennes (France)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When you are giving those split times, give the source (books, magazines) and the author, and when it's your video analyse, give details such the camera point of view and the number of frames per seconds. If not, it's not reliable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Justin
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 08 Oct 2001
Posts: 312
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had assumed we were discussing officially timed 10m increments - that is the case for all the WC and OG race splits listed. I'm unsure why X King would ask "where did you get these splits" since most came from previous posts by him on this forum - X King, if you're looking for repeated praise, look elswehere. The data is fodder for debate, not an end in itself.

So, X King, are you now saying that some of these splits are from your own analysis of videotape? Damn, you MUST start listing your sources - it is NOT legitimate to list splits derived from video alongside those taken from officially recorded times. Let me guess - all the splits you list besides WC and OG are your own work right? That's great but YOU MUST SAY SO. These are NOT comparable - video analysis has a wide margin for error, however carefully you do it. It is certainly NOT precise enough to record 10m splits

As for who told who when etc - grow up please, none of us owns this data.

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


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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry guys,Your all right.I am starting a fresh,no plagirism,no 'owning',no S***!!!! I'm starting again.
X King
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
X King
Varsity
Varsity


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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2003 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin,those WC and OG Splits are not from my Video's,you will be in shock Laughing ,they are actually from a valid source.
X King
Evil or Very Mad
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: Fri Jan 10, 2003 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

X king, you've provided us with a lot of data we didn't have before, as well as starting this whole (v.interesting) thread. Your analysis is good and your data comprehensive - excellent. You just need to follow some of the boring conventions of always quoting your sources, explaining methodology etc.

I would LOVE to hear more about your video analysis - do you count frames, or what? And you could not provide too much of it if you lived to 150yrs - we'll lap it all up. You could do me a huge favour by finding sub 10.20 bends in 4x1 (1st leg) and 200m (first half). You could also settle a debate - I have never believed that Drummond ran 10.00 from blocks in a 4x1; you've analysed the tape - did he?

Could someone point me towards the relevant IAAF forum - I didn't know they had forums at all.

So, what's everyone's bet for the 100m WC top 3? My first stab:

Greene 9.76-9.80
Chambers 9.80-9.85
Montgomery 9.85-9.90

I think there's a small chance Chambers could beat Greene, but only in a very close, non-WR race; I also think Montgomery could beat Chambers, but not Greene. This assumes full fitness and good conditions of course. I would be very surprised if Paris is not the fastest 100m of the year - the WC or OG usually is.

And I'll be there, did I mention that?

Justin
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: Fri Jan 10, 2003 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, I realise the OG and WC stuff is official - you kindly pointed us towards Jonas Mureika's website:

http://desert.jsd.claremont.edu/~newt/track/splits/

and I have some other stuff myself. Nor do I want you to stop telling us about your video stuff - it's terrific, interesting, useful. I'd like to know how you do it and I'd like to be sure when I'm looking at official data and when I'm looking at video analysis data. That aside, keep the stats coming!

Justin
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, 5 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 4 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