Mo GREENE's 6"39 conversion with 60 yards?

[79.]

Can anyone tell us if Mo GREENE's 6"39 (WR)
in the 60m event are better than Lee Mac RAE's
fantastic 6"00 in the traditionnal US 60 yards
event?
I think 6"39 are more or less converted in 5"97.

[No Name]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

"Can anyone tell us if Mo GREENE's 6"39 (WR)
in the 60m event are better than Lee Mac RAE's
fantastic 6"00 in the traditionnal US 60 yards
event?
I think 6"39 are more or less converted in 5"97."


One meter is 39.37 inches. This means that 60 meters is 2,362.2 inches. 2,362.2 inches equals 65.616 yards.

Using the average pace that Greene was running during his WR reveals that he covered 60 yards in 5.84 seconds.

Is this valid?

[bf]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

I've used a conversion of 1.0744(y to m) - so 6.39 = 5.95(rounded up) for 60y.

[hjsteve1.97]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

we're dealing in such small numbers, with so many variables, IMHO it is impossible to discern which is better. The metric race is 9.35 % longer, and the time differential between the 2 records is 6.50% longer, but the start from a standstill makes those 2 %'s meaningless to compare. Obvious, but I said it anyway.

[hjsteve1.97]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

>"Can anyone tell us if Mo GREENE's 6"39 (WR)
in the 60m event are better
>than Lee Mac RAE's
fantastic 6"00 in the traditionnal US 60 yards
event?
I
>think 6"39 are more or less converted in 5"97."


One meter is 39.37
>inches. This means that 60 meters is 2,362.2 inches. 2,362.2 inches equals
>65.616 yards.

Using the average pace that Greene was running during his WR
>reveals that he covered 60 yards in 5.84 seconds.

Is this valid?


no, it's not valid because the longer race gives you more time to wipe out the handicap of a motionless start.

As an extreme example of this, just because Michael Johnson ran 19.32 for 200 meters, that does not mean his split half way at 100meters would have been half of that or 9.66. Same principle applies comparing 60m and 60 y.

[Conway]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

Actually while I agree that in the case of the 100 and 200 the longer race gives you much more time to make up for motionlessness (?), in the case of the 60 we're only talking about a few feet .. So it probably is fairly valid comparison ...

[abinferno]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

>Actually while I agree that in the case of the 100 and 200 the longer race
>gives you much more time to make up for motionlessness (?), in the case of the
>60 we're only talking about a few feet .. So it probably is fairly valid
>comparison ...

Actually it's about 5 yards, or 15 feet. Doesn't seem like a lot, but I can't think of an accurate way to account for it. I doubt there's any charts on what you should run in the 60y for a 60m time. I would hazard to say, however, that the 6.39 is superior to the 6.00 60y time. A direct conversion based on average speed comes out to about 5.85, so I doubt 15 feet would cause a loss of 0.15s or more.

[hjsteve1.97]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

I drew an extreme example, but the fact remains that the average speed for 60 meters includes a significantly longer distance to "run off" the motionless start than in the 60 yards. 60 meters is equal to 65.62 yards, which in feet is 16.86 feet longer than 60 yards... that is a heck of a lot more than " a few feet."

[tafnut]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

You guys are killing me. I banned myself earlier today, but I have to speak up here. At 50m the best in the world are traveling at .84 sec per 10 meters (video analysis). 60y = 54.864m, so how long would it take to cover the next 5.136m?
0.43 seconds. Subtract .43 from 6.39 and you have 5.96. And math ain't even my subject.

[Alan Sigmon]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

Actually, it is possible to calculate Greene's time with reasonable accuracy. Analysis of various top-class 100m races reveals that the best athletes cover each 10m segment in about 0.85 sec. when at top speed during the middle of a 100m race.

For example, in Carl Lewis' 9.86 WR win at the 1991 World Championships, Lewis passed 40m in 4.77, 50m in 5.61, 60m in 6.46, 70m in 7.30, and 80m in 8.13. Thus, his 10m segments from 40m to 80m took 0.84, 0.85, 0.84, and 0.83, respectively.

Further evidence can be seen in results from the Liévin indoor meet in recent years. Meet organizers have had official timing at the 50m point during their 60m races. Last year, for example, Coby Miller passed 50m in 5.67 en route to winning in 6.53, thus taking 0.86 for that 10m segment.

Since 60 yards is 54.864m, we may calculate Greene's 60 yard time as follows: Assuming Greene took 0.85 to cover the 10m from 50m to 60m, his 50m time would have been 5.54. Multiplying the estimated 0.85 sec. it took him to cover the next 10m by 0.4864 yields 0.4134 (the time he took to cover the 4.864m between 50m and 60 yards). Adding 0.41 to his estimated 50m time yields an estimated time of 5.95 for 60 yards.

I don't recall seeing anything faster than 0.83 for any 10m split by anyone, so even the most conservative estimate of Greene's 60 yard time (one that assumed he took only 0.83 to go from 50m to 60m) would produce a 60 yard time of 5.97.

[hjsteve1.97]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

>You guys are killing me. I banned myself earlier today, but I have to speak up
>here. At 50m the best in the world are traveling at .84 sec per 10 meters
>(video analysis). 60y = 54.864m, so how long would it take to cover the next
>5.136m?
0.43 seconds. Subtract .43 from 6.39 and you have 5.96. And math
>ain't even my subject.

I agree completely tafnut. I was doing no more than telling the original postere that his methodology was not valid, for reasons stated, nothing more. His calculated 5.84 is invalid.

[hjsteve1.97]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

>>You guys are killing me. I banned myself earlier today, but I have to speak
>up
>here. At 50m the best in the world are traveling at .84 sec per 10
>meters
>(video analysis). 60y = 54.864m, so how long would it take to cover
>the next
>5.136m?
0.43 seconds. Subtract .43 from 6.39 and you have 5.96.
>And math
>ain't even my subject.

I agree completely tafnut. I was doing no
>more than telling the original postere that his methodology was not valid, for
>reasons stated, nothing more. His calculated 5.84 is invalid.

It was not the first poster, it was the first respondent ( no name ) that was invalid.

[The King]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

>
Can anyone tell us if Mo GREENE's 6"39 (WR)
in the 60m event are better
>than Lee Mac RAE's
fantastic 6"00 in the traditionnal US 60 yards
event?

>I think 6"39 are more or less converted in 5"97.


From my Video-Tape Analysis I have recorded estimate 10m split times for each 10m section of the race with an accuracy of +/-0.02s.

From MO's first 6.39s in 1998 in Madrid I recorded the following splits for his 50 & 60m split times;
50m: 5.55e
60m: 6.39s (0.84e)
50-60m Split Time: 0.84e

Using the standard conversion from metres to yards, by mutiplying by 0.9144, I can say this;
60m x 0.9144 = 54.864m
54.864 - 50 = 4.864
10 divided (/) by 4.864 = 2.056 (rounded to 3 dp or decimal places)
0.84e divided (/) 2.056 = 0.41e (rounded to 2 dp or decimal places)

5.55e + 0.41e = 5.96e

Indicating an estimte 60yd time of 5.96e.

From MO's second 6.39s in 2001 in the USA Championships Men's 60m Semi-final.
I recorded the following splits for his 50 & 60m split times;
50m: 5.53e
60m: 6.39s (0.86e)
50-60m Split Time: 0.86e

(Note that from reports, MO said that he eased up just before the line, misjudging just how fast he was running. And claimed that had he run through the line 'normally' he would of ran within the range of 6.36s or 6.37s)

Using the standard conversion from metres to yards, by mutiplying by 0.9144, I can say this;
60m x 0.9144 = 54.864m
54.864 - 50 = 4.864
10 divided (/) by 4.864 = 2.056 (rounded to 3 dp or decimal places)
0.86e divided (/) 2.056 = 0.42e (rounded to 2 dp or decimal places)

5.53e + 0.42e = 5.95e

Indicating an estimte 60yd time of 5.95e.

[eldrick]

Re: Mo GREENE's 6

we had a similar thread on 55m runs on the much maligned IAAF board:

http://www.iaaf.org/community/forums/Li ... icID=13639