Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bolt's 10-meter splits in his 9.69

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bolt's 10-meter splits in his 9.69

    After extensive work, these derived by USATF Hi-Performance (no tolerance listed but I'm guessing ±0.01 or 0.02)

    .........10m..20m..30m..40m..50m..60m..70m...80m...90m..10 0m

    split....1.85 .1.00 ...0.94 .0.86 .0.82 .0.82 ..0.83 ....0.84 .0.86 .0.87

    cum....1.85 .2.85 ..3.79 ..4.65 .5.47 .6.29 ..7.12 ...7.96 ..8.82 .9.69

    m/sec..5.40 9.98 10.71 11.58 12.23 12.16 12.05 11.90 11.64 11.49

  • #2
    Those last two splits should be shockers to those who think he lost a lot of time at the end. I tend to agree with malmo (I think it his position) that Bolt really didn't slow very much at all. NO ONE is speeding up at the end, and his slower 'splits' are very much in keeping with normal 'slowing' at the end.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bolt's 10-meter splits in his 9.69

      Originally posted by gh
      After extensive work, these derived by USATF Hi-Performance (no tolerance listed but I'm guessing ±0.01 or 0.02)

      .........10m..20m..30m..40m..50m..60m..70m...80m...90m..10 0m

      split....1.85 .1.00 ...0.94 .0.86 .0.82 .0.82 ..0.83 ....0.84 .0.86 .0.87

      cum....1.85 .2.85 ..3.79 ..4.65 .5.47 .6.29 ..7.12 ...7.96 ..8.82 .9.69

      m/sec..5.40 9.98 10.71 11.58 12.23 12.16 12.05 11.90 11.64 11.49
      Doesn't this suggest he did slow because of arms stretched out?
      phsstt!

      Comment


      • #4
        So his 60m split is faster than the Indoor 60m WR, 6.39? Am I reading this right? I never thought I'd see a 6'6" man with that type of acceleration!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bolt's 10-meter splits in his 9.69

          Originally posted by SQUACKEE
          Doesn't this suggest he did slow because of arms stretched out?
          I think so, although not as much as some have claimed. He finished with 0.86 and 0.87. I see no reason why those could not have been a 0.84 and 0.85. I remember there have been many splits for other 100's and, while the athletes do have slower splits at the end, I don't remember them being this slow.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bolt's 10-meter splits in his 9.69

            Originally posted by SQUACKEE
            Originally posted by gh
            After extensive work, these derived by USATF Hi-Performance (no tolerance listed but I'm guessing ±0.01 or 0.02)

            .........10m..20m..30m..40m..50m..60m..70m...80m...90m..10 0m

            split....1.85 .1.00 ...0.94 .0.86 .0.82 .0.82 ..0.83 ....0.84 .0.86 .0.87

            cum....1.85 .2.85 ..3.79 ..4.65 .5.47 .6.29 ..7.12 ...7.96 ..8.82 .9.69

            m/sec..5.40 9.98 10.71 11.58 12.23 12.16 12.05 11.90 11.64 11.49
            Doesn't this suggest he did slow because of arms stretched out?
            He would have slowed down even if he had run as hard as he could. The question is 'how much time did he lose?". These data seem to indicate that estimates that have been bandied about of almost 0.20 seconds are not only in error but are ludicrous. My take is that, aside from measurement errors in the above data, the loss was 0.01 and 0.02 (0.85 vs 0.86 and 0.87 vs 0.85). This is a mere 0.03 -> 9.66, not 9.52 or some such re-working. I could even 'buy 9.65, but not too much below that.

            Air is a not too resistive medium and if the legs are not doing any breaking and are doing some propulsion, it is hard to lose too much time at the end. A great dip would have gained some, but most races do not have great dips (unless you are a hurdler -- or diving at the 200m finish :wink: ).

            How does these timing data related to those used in the paper draft being circulated (or any others cited elsewhere)? I presume that these are more accurate - how much more accurate? Also, so much for the reported re-acceleration in that paper.

            Comment


            • #7
              gh,

              First of.... you are the MAN!

              Questions: Do you have the analysis for another runner in that race that ran thru the line like Richard Thompson?

              Would it have been possible for Bolt to continue with the .82 splits? I ran that scenario and had him at 9.57. I am not sure if that is a likely scenario for a 100m runner to actually run thru the line.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Omega4ul
                gh,

                First of.... you are the MAN!

                Questions: Do you have the analysis for another runner in that race that ran thru the line like Richard Thompson?

                Would it have been possible for Bolt to continue with the .82 splits? I ran that scenario and had him at 9.57. I am not sure if that is a likely scenario for a 100m runner to actually run thru the line.
                As I indicated above, no one ever seems to maintain through to the end, there is always some slowing (and hence, when I saw re-acceleration in the paper draft was was surprised/skeptical). I think a better comparison can be made with Dix, who finishes well, although using Dix and Thompson might provide upper and lower bounds (i.e., take the differential margin that existed between them at 80m and apply it to the finish and note that the others were 'dipping'.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Some earlier comparisons - splits which differ from USATF:

                  http://speedendurance.com/2008/08/22/us ... endurance/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Bolt's 10-meter splits in his 9.69

                    Originally posted by 26mi235
                    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                    Originally posted by gh
                    After extensive work, these derived by USATF Hi-Performance (no tolerance listed but I'm guessing ±0.01 or 0.02)

                    .........10m..20m..30m..40m..50m..60m..70m...80m...90m..10 0m

                    split....1.85 .1.00 ...0.94 .0.86 .0.82 .0.82 ..0.83 ....0.84 .0.86 .0.87

                    cum....1.85 .2.85 ..3.79 ..4.65 .5.47 .6.29 ..7.12 ...7.96 ..8.82 .9.69

                    m/sec..5.40 9.98 10.71 11.58 12.23 12.16 12.05 11.90 11.64 11.49
                    Doesn't this suggest he did slow because of arms stretched out?
                    He would have slowed down even if he had run as hard as he could. The question is 'how much time did he lose?". These data seem to indicate that estimates that have been bandied about of almost 0.20 seconds are not only in error but are ludicrous. My take is that, aside from measurement errors in the above data, the loss was 0.01 and 0.02 (0.85 vs 0.86 and 0.87 vs 0.85). This is a mere 0.03 -> 9.66, not 9.52 or some such re-working. I could even 'buy 9.65, but not too much below that.
                    OK, 9.65. And what would have been the time with 2.0 wind assisted and a better start :?: Anyway, the perfect race is so difficult...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I wonder what the splits were in Asafa Powell's 9.72?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Omega4ul
                        Would it have been possible for Bolt to continue with the .82 splits?
                        I doubt it. If you look at all the other 100's with splits the top end speed is rarely maintained for more than two of the ten metre splits. And here, Bolt maintains it for almost three of the splits.

                        Malmo, I remember you posted a lot of the 100 m races with splits here in the past. Can you remember which thread it was in?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          access thru JRM's site

                          http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/splits/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            bolt's splits are shocking because his initial 60m is much quicker than expected

                            normally with a 6.29 split, this indicates a 100m of

                            double - 3.00 = ~ 9.58

                            if there was upto 0.02 error, then this couda been 6.31, which still indicates ~9.62

                            you'd never think a 200 guy woud have a better 60m than last 40m of a 100 !

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by malmo
                              I wonder what the splits were in Asafa Powell's 9.72?
                              Haven't seen them yet, but i do remember seeing them for his 9.77s & he did run a near-perfect 100m in terms of expected 60m split & ~0.01s slower split/10m for last 40m ( like Mo )

                              I'd be very surprised if they are far away from

                              6.36, 0.825, 0.835, 0.845, 0.855

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X