GL Bruxelles m100m - Usain Bolt 9.77

[imaginative]

In keeping with the integer "one", here:s one more: Only one other man in history has been able to run faster without stopping than the sum (19,41) of Bolt:s top-two 100m times.

This remark got me thinking on how unusual this could be. Being bored, I
checked a few prime suspects, and believe that the answer is ``not very''---for
a 100m WR holder. (Of course, the fact that Johnsons time was an extreme
outlier does add something to it.)

In the current the current crop, Powell and Gay are also better than any result
other 19.30/19.32.

Greene, at the time, had only 19.32.

Lewis, probably, had _no_ non-altitude 200m by someone else ahead of his sum for
a while. (I have not checked this.)

Hines had 9.95 + 10.03 (?) = 19.98, which for two days (between 100m and 200m
is Mexico City) was only bested by Carlos 19.92. For a hypothetical
none-altitude games and assuming 2 * 10.03 = 20.06, he probably had no-one
ahead of him, since Carlos time (Echo Summit) disappears. Smith may have gone
below 20.06 in the same games---if not, Hines would have had no-one better
until 1971 (hand-time 19.8, Quarrie) or 1972 (FAT 20.00, Borsov).
(Discussion based on http://www.athletix.org/Statistics/wr200men.htm.)

Other cases are likely to exist, e.g. Hayes. (In particular in the hand-time
era, where two hand-timed 100m races had twice the timing benefit of one 200m
race.)

Pardon the digression ;-)

[EPelle]

That was a great digression!

[scottmitchell74]

Bolt does have the best average time for his top-10 races in a season, which was the implication:

1. Usain Bolt, JAM, 2008
9,820 (9,69, 9,72, 9,76, 9,77, 9,83, 9,85, 9,85, 9,89, 9,92, 9,92)

The most amazing thing to me is how many of those races were run with less (much less at times) than 100% effort. His Jam Trial 9.85 and his Beijing heats 9.85 and 9.92 being the ones I'm thinking of. He's absurd!

[26mi235]

There have been a number of threads of late that have had lots of bashing. In contrast, the last dozen or so entries on this thread are why I spend so much time here - thanks to the contributors.

[kuha]

I only scanned the stuff above--so my apologizes if this has been covered.

I was paying very close attention to the rain--and saw that it stopped pretty much right at 7:00pm. The track remained wet for some time of course (at least the inside 3 lanes; the outer lanes were protected by the overhanging roof). The 100 went off at 8:25pm and the conditions were actually quite good, except for that damn headwind. Bolt seems to be "Mr. -0.9" this year, and Powell's great 100 at Lausanne had essentially no wind. If any of them had enjoyed a "Montgomery 2.0" the times would be all the more mind-boggling...as if they aren't already.

The electricity in the stadium leading up to the start of the 100 was quite remarkable.

Wow, were you there for this race?

You lucky man!

Yes! My "season" this year was short & sweet: Lausanne and Brussels--lots of great sprinting in the span of only 4 days!

[rumbleyoungmanrumble]

Jesse Ownes is way above the others, almost at the same level as Bolt.
BTW, his gold medal performance in 1936 topped Brussels 2008.

Welcome MattMarriot! May I just say that this is a little different from your, er, normal posts? 8-)

[joeltetreault]

1. Usain Bolt, JAM, 2008
9,820 (9,69, 9,72, 9,76, 9,77, 9,83, 9,85, 9,85, 9,89, 9,92, 9,92)

What's also impressive is that his average time (9.82) for the top ten races is better than any other man's PR save for Powell, Gay and Greene.

http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm

Edit: added Gay to list after Scott's post.

[scottmitchell74]

Gay's 9.77 not counted?

[joeltetreault]

Gay's 9.77 not counted?

Whoops! I actually noted that earlier, then just didn't come out when I started typing the post. Yes, make that three. Thanks for the correction.

[scottmitchell74]

Cool! I thought maybe you were a Eugene-Track-Conspiracy guy.

[joeltetreault]

Cool! I thought maybe you were a Eugene-Track-Conspiracy guy.

Right now I'm the more mundance "doing three things at once guy" or trying to do three things anyway

[Charley Shaffer]

I smell something fishy about the Brussels wind readings. On the TV broadcast of the m100 (both CBC & ESPN2) the wind reading of "-0.9" flashed onto the left side of the screen at about 10.4 seconds after the start. But when the official results were finally posted, the wind reading was listed at -1.3.

Early posts to this thread also indicate an early wind reading of -0.9, then later posts mention -1.3. Which is it?

I believe that the wind data displayed immediately after the race finish is supplied through telemetry by Omega Timing to the broadcasters. Why the discrepancy in this instance? I have little confidence in the official reading in this race.

There is also something fishy about the wind reading in the Brussels women's 200m. The Omega wind reading was displayed on TV at about 20.1 seconds after the race start, when the runners were still about 20m from the finish line! I believe that IAAF rules (163.8) require that, in the 200m, "the wind velocity shall be measured for a period of 10 seconds commencing when the first runner enters the straight." The first runner to enter the straight (at the blend lines) was Kerron Stewart at about 14.0 seconds. So, in this case, the wind reading was displayed only 6.1 seconds after the first runner entered the home straight!

In the w100, m100, & w100H, the wind reading was displayed on TV 0.4 seconds after the IAAF-required period of measurement (10 and 13 seconds). This usual 0.4-second delay suggests that in the w200, the wind might have only been measured for 5.7 seconds. What is going on with Omega Timing?

[kuha]

Very interesting. The wind reading that popped up immediately after the race absolutely was -0.9. I was wondering myself where that -1.3 came from.....

[Marlow]

Very interesting. The wind reading that popped up immediately after the race absolutely was -0.9. I was wondering myself where that -1.3 came from.....

The wind operator had the 'basic' conversion tables in front of him/her and quickly calculated what wind Bolt 'needed' for a 9.70.

[sprintblox]

OK Pelle,

I get you now.

I was talking lifetime best top 10 average:

UB AP
1 9.69 9.72
2 9.72 9.74
3 9.76 9.77
4 9.77 9.77
5 9.83 9.77
6 9.85 9.78
7 9.85 9.82
8 9.89 9.83
9 9.92 9.83
10 9.92 9.84
9.820 9.787

AP's lifetime top 10 average now drops to 9.779 with the 9.77 and 9.82 he ran on Sunday.

Another thing AP has over UB, which Bolt may not get until AP retires, is the number of seasons with sub-9.80. 4-1 for AP-UB.