60m times converted to 100m

[Jon]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

>I entered several sprinters' PR's for 60i and 100 into Eldrick's formula and it
>actually works remarkably well.



For elite male sprinters, it probably would. But the trouble in using a constant like "3 seconds" is that it wouldn't translate well to calculate women's times or youth times, or tafnut's times, for instance. ;-)

[deca-pat]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

Doesnt really work that well for me though

60m - 7.01
100m - 10.64

I always run 7.0 and always run between 10.6 and 10.80

But I will admit, for most it seems pretty accurate.

[trackhead]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

Mo Greene
6.39*2 = 12.78-3 = 9.78 very good

Jason Gardner
6.46*2 = 12.92-3 = 9.92, a little off but I suppose that's where speed endurance or there lack of comes into play.

[gh]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

The real bottom line is that no matter how try you hard to put human beings into one box, they just don't fit. All the mathematical symbols in the world can't change the inherent differences from person to person (both physical and psychological).

[Track fan]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

Yeah times do not equate to 100 meter sucess. Morne Nagel is the most recent sprinter that comes to mind he tore up the indoor track a few years ago and was a relative dud in the outdoor season(He PB'd at altitude in the 100 and lowered the South African 200 record at altitude). People expected sub 10's at altitude but he was never near that form in his career and his outdoor season was slightly better then his previous outdoor seasons. Conversly I never can remember Carl Lewis doing anything indoors , yet outdoors he is the greatest modern era sprinter ever.......

[bf]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

60m/100m conversions wouldn't always apply for the same athlete - just what the ideal 60m runner's 60 equals for the ideal 100 runner's 100. (For now, we have both - Greene and Johnson. Would x.6462 be about right? That's what I've used)

[26mi235]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

This is not surprising to me, although others might be more informed than I. If you are "bigger and stronger" (deca effect), then getting unwound might take more time. Also, do you have a quick or slow reaction time. Any excess reaction time gets doubled and throws off the computation.

[eldrick]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

>Mo Greene
6.39*2 = 12.78-3 = 9.78 very good

Jason Gardner
6.46*2 = 12.92-3
>= 9.92, a little off but I suppose that's where speed endurance or there lack
>of comes into play.

this formula assumes that the 60 guy holds his "form" pretty much as well as possible for the last 40m:

mo at his peak could do this

gardner's flaw always has been that he can't - if he ran a 100 as well as his 60m, then he could expect close to 9.92

BTW, i did test it out with the women's 60m - it works OK:

you have to remember the 60m is run with 0 wind, so you have to convert women's 100 times into one's with 0 wind

7.1 -> ~ 11.2

7.0 -> ~ 11.0

6.95 -> ~ 10.90

6.92 WR -> ~ 10.84

(check privalova's corrected 0 wind best)

i believe marion also had a 6.85 split in one of her low-10.7's ( admittedly there may have been some wind in that race )

6.85 -> ~ 10.70

it's close enough to get an idea

[paulthefan]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

Im a big Mo Greene fan.. dont get me wrong.. but is there a cloud over that 6.39.. I know it is a fair and square time but what was the reaction time on it?.. was it a near flyer... or is that just part of the 60m game.

>>Mo Greene
6.39*2 = 12.78-3 = 9.78 very good

[JRM]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

>The real bottom line is that no matter how try you hard to put human beings
>into one box, they just don't fit. All the mathematical symbols in the world
>can't change the inherent differences from person to person (both physical and
>psychological).


True enough. But I don't think Eldrick is claiming that his method gives *definitive* proof of what someone can do. Any physicist, mathematician, or especially statistician would (should!) tell you that a model is only a tool for predictions. The more refined the model, the better the prediction. But, when push comes to shove, that's all the model gives you: a prediction (especially when the model is based on statistical inferences).

If Eldrick's model can predict 60-to-100m conversions to withing 0.02s or 0.03s for 8 out of 10 athletes, then it's a pretty good tool.

Although people have free will and can "do their own thing", it's actually quite surprising how well you can model their behavior. People are quite predictable! That's why population growth models work reasonably well, for example.

[eldrick]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

>Im a big Mo Greene fan.. dont get me wrong.. but is there a cloud over that
>6.39.. I know it is a fair and square time but what was the reaction time on
>it?.. was it a near flyer... or is that just part of the 60m game.

>>Mo
>Greene
6.39*2 = 12.78-3 = 9.78 very good<

1 6.39 Maurice Greene USA 23.07.74 1 Madrid 03.02.1998
1 6.39 Maurice Greene USA 23.07.74 1s1 Atlanta 03.03.2001
3 6.40 Maurice Greene USA 23.07.74 1s1 Atlanta 27.02.1999

mo did actually run 6.39 twice & he threw in a 6.40 to back them up

[eldrick]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

JRM

great to see you back !

now,you have some business on the IAAF forums to
conclude ( yet again ! & from guess which doubting thomas ?! )

http://www.iaaf.org/community/forums/Li ... icID=17968

[Jon]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

>Im a big Mo Greene fan.. dont get me wrong.. but is there a cloud over that
>6.39.. I know it is a fair and square time but what was the reaction time on
>it?.. was it a near flyer... or is that just part of the 60m game.



His first WR 6.39 was perfectly fine.

But there was definitely something dodgy when he equalled it in 2001. The rest of his times that season were nowhere near that 6.39, and he ran it in a heat! He came back later to run the final in 6.51 or something. Even Mo himself said that something must have been up (or most likely just a plain flyer).

[Jon]

Re: 60m times converted to 100m

>JRM, you have some business on the IAAF forums to conclude




And then, JRM, tell Eldrick that Fayetteville is a fast track (seeing as you seem to be the only person he'll listen to when it comes to these kind of things).