Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GL Bruxelles m100m - Usain Bolt 9.77

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Charley Shaffer
    replied
    Originally posted by imaginative
    If I understand this correctly, it implies another complication with
    wind-readings: There can be considerable non-overlapping parts of the
    ``measurement frame'' and the time each individual runner spends on the
    straight, which in turn can make the wind-reading very misleading.
    I agree; that's one reason why taking "adjusted" or "basic" times to 1/1000 second is going too far, and why we should not take the "adjustments" to 1/100 too seriously.

    Per IAAF rules, the wind measurement period will include some time after a world-class runner running a good time will have finished. This is especially true in the 200m, since most straights are less than 100m (typically 84.39m), but 10 seconds of timing on the straight is mandated.

    Leave a comment:


  • imaginative
    replied
    Originally posted by Charley Shaffer
    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!
    If I understand this correctly, it implies another complication with
    wind-readings: There can be considerable non-overlapping parts of the
    ``measurement frame'' and the time each individual runner spends on the
    straight, which in turn can make the wind-reading very misleading.
    (Consider e.g. a wind that averages 2.5 m/s when the winner is actually on
    the straight, and 0 m/s in the time between his crossing the line and the
    10s expiring: with 8s or less on the straight, the reading is <= 2 m/s.)

    In extreme cases, say Bolt vs. an ``olympic tourist'', the last placer may
    less than half his time on the straight within the measurement frame.
    (Example: Bolt enters the straight 3.5 seconds ahead, the tourist later
    spends 14 seconds on the straight => Only the first 6.5 out of 14 seconds
    where measured.)

    (The corresponding problem in the 100m is much smaller for, at least,
    world-class runners.)

    Leave a comment:


  • sprintblox
    replied
    Originally posted by Infama
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • kuha
    replied
    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.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Charley Shaffer
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • joeltetreault
    replied
    Originally posted by scottmitchell74
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • scottmitchell74
    replied
    Cool! I thought maybe you were a Eugene-Track-Conspiracy guy.

    Leave a comment:


  • joeltetreault
    replied
    Originally posted by scottmitchell74
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • scottmitchell74
    replied
    Gay's 9.77 not counted?

    Leave a comment:


  • joeltetreault
    replied
    Originally posted by EPelle
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rumbleyoungmanrumble
    replied
    Originally posted by "MattMarriott
    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-)

    Leave a comment:


  • kuha
    replied
    Originally posted by Infama
    Originally posted by 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!

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • scottmitchell74
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X