5 men posting 10.00sec?

[Guest]

Is the Norwich 100M result correct? did all 5 men all timed in 10.00 secs. If so, Isn't some sort of World record to have 4 persons running the same time as the first place finisher electronically?

[Guest]

Re: 5 men posting 10.00sec?

Nah, they were really all 10.0 ... hand-timed as the auto malfunctioned for the 100 and 400. The Norwich site has it right, the IAAF site has it wrong, I think.

[MJD]

Re: 5 men posting 10.00sec?

>Nah, they were really all 10.0 ... hand-timed as
>the auto malfunctioned for the 100 and 400. The
>Norwich site has it right, the IAAF site has it
>wrong, I think.

Don't both sites have identical results?

[trackstar]

Re: 5 men posting 10.00sec?

Is it possible to look at the videotape and calculate what their FAT times would have been? I realize it couldn't be official, but it would still be nice to know.

[trackstar]

Re: 5 men posting 10.00sec?

Video of the race at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3136567.stm

Pretty blurry, though, as is usually the case with BBC video. I wish I could understand why the greatest news service in the world can't get better Internet video technology on their website.

[gm]

Re: 5 men posting 10.00sec?

Pretty blurry, though, as is usually the
>case with BBC video. I wish I could understand
>why the greatest news service in the world can't
>get better Internet video technology on their
>website.

I guess you could expect better quality if you was a' payin' for it, Lee... whaddya expect for free?

[gh]

Re: 5 men posting 10.00sec?

>>Pretty blurry, though, as is usually the
>case with BBC video. I wish I could understand
>why the greatest news service in the world can't
>get better Internet video technology on their
>website.>>

Uh, cuz you ain't payin' for it? Cough up some real-world money and I'm sure BBC would be happy to port HDTV directly into your puter.

[trackstar]

Re: 5 men posting 10.00sec?

You're missing my point -- I'm not whining that I deserve something; I'm saying that BBC is a great organization that takes a great deal of pride in excellence. It seems out of character for them to not do something first-rate. They're not a cutting-corners, on-the-cheap type of company. (And believe me, I would gladly shell out the money if a news organization of BBC's quality would come to America. Our current selection of broadcast news is pathetic. Even NPR, which I like, can't hold a candle to BBC.)

[Russ7291]

Re: 5 men posting 10.00sec?

Hand times should never be reported to 2 decimal places.

[tafnut]

Re: 5 men posting 10.00sec?

You know what is the one tiny good thing about the hand times? If they all ran 10.0 (and who's to say if that's even right, but the blurry video does look close), it shows how evenly matched they are. If the times had been 9.96, 9.99, 10.01, 10.03, and 10.04 we would have all thought that the difeferences were significant and that the winner was SO much superior (well, OK, that's how I usually see it), when in actuality they are all pretty damn close. Anything can happen in Paris.

[Hersey]

Re: 5 men posting 10.00sec?

That is true. There is no favorite to win the 100 based on preformance. The race will be very close in Paris. To bad Gatlin will not run the 100. Right now he is a clear contender to win.

[Guest]

Re: 5 men posting 10.00sec?

And believe me, I would gladly shell out the money if a news organization of BBC's quality would come to America. Our current selection of broadcast news is pathetic. Even NPR, which I like, can't hold a candle to BBC>

say what ? npr ? i would not shell out a penny for npr or bbc. just because they do a little bit more track than nbc, cbs or abc does not mean we should welcome them as the news channel.
a lot of left wing ideology even on the us networks. sorry if this has nothing to do with track and field...

[DTG]

Re: 5 men posting 10.00sec?

This is my first time posting on the Forum, but I do have some info that may be of insight. The BBC (or any other broadcast network) is not to blame for the "blurry" image of the 100m finish. And, no, you cannot "figure out" what the auto-time would be from the videotape from the BBC. For perspective, a movie in the theaters runs at 24 frames/second (f/s). The human eye (and brain processing those images) can "see" approximately 20 f/s. The videotape in a VCR or from the BBC (for instance) runs at 50 f/s. IAAF rules allow automatic timing as "slow" as 60 f/s. The usual automatic timing devices (cameras/computers) show 800-1000 f/s (can go as high as 2000 f/s). FYI. Thanks