Run-Down Forums

[Conway]

My point was that with such differing styles hwere in the course of a race would they have time to run similarly ...

Conway

[Dan]

From about 50-80m, I would think.

Dan

[Conway]

Hmmm ... I'm gonna have ot watch some video tonight ... ... I wish I could superimpose ... I have all three sub 9.80 races !!! And it is interesting that 3 different styles have run sub 9.80 ... Which tells me that 9.78 is NOT the ultimate sprint ... Not yet ... Since 3 differeing styles have gotten there, that would indicate that in either one of them there is room for improvement - somewhere ..

And one for the what if line of thought ... What if Mo had not pulled during his 2001 WC gold medal run ???

Conway

[Conway]

You know as I think about it ... None of Mo's fastest races have been anywherenear perfect ... In the 9.79 he was slow out of the blocks ... In the 9.80 he stumbled at the start ... And in the 9.82 he pulled a muscle and hobbled in ...

Mentally confirms for me that a healthy Mo next year should take the record back !!!!

Conway

[Dan]

I agree, and Ben gave up quite a bit at the end of his race, so both 9.79's could have been a few hundreths faster if maximizing the conditions like in Tim's 9.78...

Dan

[Paul]

Conway wrote:
[/quote]Ben and Time were both high turnover sprinters but achieved it differently ...

Ben achieved his by driving quickly off the ground ... Power, but without the extended strike period that most power sprinters have ...
[quote]
If, by this statement, you meant the amount of time the feet spend on the ground during each stride, I would have to disagree with you. The more powerful you are, the less time your foot remains on the ground. This has been proven time and time again by biomechanic strike plate analysis studies depicting power generation curves vs time. This also correlates well with what Francis said about Ben, in that the more powerful he got, the faster his cadence became.

So, the development of power results in increased turnover, a seemingly modern phenomenon in sprint training, but something I'm sure you've noticed even in old films of Jesse Owens. I'm just wondering if the Eastern Europeans were on to this 30+ years ago when there were some good sprinters from the Iron Curtain countries. I'm also wondering if this has just occurred to coaches in the last 20 years on this continent, but I'm sure it had not escaped somebody as astute as Harry Jerome, a sprinter way ahead of his time fundamentally.

Paul

[Conway]

[Dan]

Are you implying Trevor Graham was the recall starter for both races?

There has been talk that Tim pulled his arm back and said it was because he thought the race would be called back, so there is some validity to your observation. Having only seen the race once, I can't really say one way or the other... He certainly got out quick, as evidenced by the reaction time. Still, Brigitte Foster recored an even better 0.101 reaction time in the 100 hurdles that same meet, so as long as it's within what they deem legal, I have no problem with letting it stand.

One thing I very much dislike is the reliance on pressure sensing blocks. If an athlete twitches, there may be no visual movement, yet it might be enough to set off the sensor. This could explain Zhanna's first ding. On the other hand, someone's upper body could clearly move without pressure being exherted on the pedals. If the starters rely on the sensors instead of their own eyes, which often seems to be the case, then a flyer such as Tim's might slip by.

Personally, I think pressure sensing blocks and minimum legal reaction times should be done away with. Go to a purely visual recall system and get some well trained officials out there and be done with all this nonsense about whether anyone has truly testing athletes' reaction times in a lab or if 0.100 can be duplicated... If you see movement before the gun, stand them up or call the race back. Plain and simple.

Dan

[Conway]

Why so quiet around here today ??? Go to a conference and the world stops ... Thats not normal ...

I agree with what you said ... I hate the use of the auto blocks ... More trouble than they're worth ...

Anyway ... Race is over ... Next season will be what it will be ... And I think that will include a loweing of the record again ... Just very disgusted with the process .. As well as the weakness of the would be champion ...

Conway

[Dan]

Must be a Friday... Other than Seneca's shameful rabbiting in the 1500, I haven't seen any results. How'd it all play out? I tried visiting the site earlier, but it wouldn't load, which seemed fitting for a meet no one cares to be part of...

Dan

[Conway]

IAAF site has the results ... Mostly weak ... Chambers was well back in the 100 ... US did run a nice 4x1, 37.95 ... Couple of decent 400s ... I'm just waiting now to see how well Fredericks runs the 200 ..

conway

[Conway]

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=out/category=s/season=2002/index.html

Back to the topic at hand .. The above link is ot the IAAF seasons lists site ... If you look at the men's 100 there were a lot of very fast individuals early on (before US nationals) that basically disappeared for variouos and sundry reasons ... Do you guys think any of these will be major players next year ??? Better yet, what would your top 5 list of major players be for next year ??? I would think most would list Montgomery, Greene and Chambers as the top 3 (maybe not) ... But who would your next 5 be ????

Conway

[Dan]

Argh, what nugget decided to put the individual event pages in a small pop-up window... Here's the sensible direct link:

http://www2.iaaf.org/Results/lists/2002/outdoor/G/m/100.html

Tim was obviously the dominant 100 man on the clock this year, both in terms of top performance and depth of performances. I didn't realize Greene's 2nd best this year was only 9.97 -- that's terrible by his standards. I guess he was running well in so-so conditions early on and not getting great times to show for it...

Chambers would have to rank #2, but probably not by as much as the lists indicate. Greene seems the logical choice for #3, as no one else really approached the top group. It does indeed get tough after that...

1) Tim Montgomery
2) Dwain Chambers
3) Maurice Greene
4) Kim Collins
5) Coby Miller

I would almost have to say #6 is a 4-way tie between Frankie Fredericks, Mark Lewis-Francis, Bernard Williams, and Jon Drummond. Other than breaking down head to head records, I don't see much to separate them. JJ Johnson and Shawn Crawford had no season to speak of, so they would have to slip behind the above group.

I imagine those 9 to 11 athletes will account for most of the notables heading into next season. Maybe Ato, but I'm not holding my breath... Gatlin and the possible return of Capel would likely affect the 200 more than the 100, and I don't see any other instant impact types on the horizon.

Dan

[Distance_Guru]

I've been waiting for a couple of years for Bernard Williams to break out of that pack and establish himself as either the challenger or successor to Mo. Now it looks like those titles have both been taken by Chambers and Timmy. If he doesn't show some improvement ( both in quaility and quantity of top notch performances) I may give up on him.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Dan]

I've always been surprised Williams performs as well as he does... Conway has previously listed some specifics of his build and running style; I find it too awkward an overall package to have much more room for improvement.

Dan