Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Relative effect of 100m or 400m on 200m

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Relative effect of 100m or 400m on 200m

    i'm going to suggest some maths treatment of it

    i don't want to hear bullsh!t about what meagre 400 ability some 200 guys had, which allowed them to beat a 10.00s guy over 200, etc - those topics get locked & i suggest gh take some long-term action if if it descends into that - i'm trying to suggest some thought-provoking analysis ( even if it's wrong )

    this is a mathematical analytical topic - so argue maths, not post drivel

    the one thing that these topics have got me thinking about is what the baseline 400 for an elite 100/200 guy ( ~ 10.00/20.00 ) shoud be off NO specific 400 training at all

    if we can agree on this, the rest pretty much falls into place

    i'm suggesting that a 10.00/20.00 guy spent a season runnning just 400s of his 100/200 ability ( say 1/2 dozen ), he'd get down thru racing alone ( learning pacing thru experience, etc ) of

    ~ 46.00

    i can see it being faster, but probably not slower

    then, we can get some idea of effect on a 200, based on

    - 100m advantage is double that over 200m ( known from immemorial : 10.00 = 20.00, 9.95 = 19.90, 9.90 = 19.80, etc ) for same 400m ability

    - 400m advantage for 200m, with same 100m ability from theoretical model i tried is 0.25 of the 400 advantage

    i'll post some examples next, to see if we are going in the right direction...

  • #2
    10.00/20.00/46.00 as baseline for all these guys

    how about a 10.10/45.00 guy in comparison ?

    - 0.10 down over 100m, so +0.20 loss for 200, but gains on 400 of 1.00x0.25 = -0.25, which implies overall

    -> 19.95


    how about a 10.10/44.50 guy in comparison ?

    - 0.10 down over 100m, so +0.20 loss for 200, but gains on 400 of 1.50x0.25 = -0.375, which implies overall

    -> 19.83


    how about a 10.10/44.00 guy in comparison ?

    - 0.10 down over 100m, so +0.20 loss for 200, but gains on 400 of 2.00x0.25 = -0.50, which implies overall

    -> 19.70


    how about a 10.10/43.50 guy in comparison ?

    - 0.10 down over 100m, so +0.20 loss for 200, but gains on 400 of 2.50x0.25 = -0.625, which implies overall

    -> 19.575


    how about a 10.10/43.00 guy in comparison ?

    - 0.10 down over 100m, so +0.20 loss for 200, but gains on 400 of 3.00x0.25 = -0.75, which implies overall

    -> 19.45


    other end, no improvement in 400 ability, keeping it at 46.00, but improving 100m

    9.95 -> 19.90
    9.90 -> 19.80
    9.85 -> 19.70
    9.80 -> 19.60
    9.75 -> 19.50
    9.70 -> 19.40
    9.65 -> 19.30
    9.60 -> 19.20


    conclusion ?

    on elite world stage, if 400 background is worth working at/for, it had better be at worst 44.50, or otherwise stick to traditional route of hunt for more speed

    Comment


    • #3
      we are going to have to have some subgroups or categories on this the real tall guys (Jeff Williams) and the short stubby guys (Eddie Tolan) are going to have much different predictors 100 to 200 and 400 to 200. We need exploratory regression analysis to find the informative covariates to see what fits.
      ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

      Comment


      • #4
        My word, are you and Texas going to chase each other around threads on the board before they all get locked?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Chris McCarthy
          My word, are you and Texas going to chase each other around threads on the board before they all get locked?
          Its called the T&F Court of Appeal!! :lol:

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Chris McCarthy
            My word, are you and Texas going to chase each other around threads on the board before they all get locked?
            no

            it's a mathematical thread

            offer up maths or don't bother posting on it

            Comment


            • #7
              I understand Maths - I just have no wish for the board to get hi-jacked by another "Eldrick" vs "Texas" thread that, after a few posts, no one else enjoys.

              I don't know, maybe I am the only one who feels that way?

              Comment


              • #8
                no hi-jack

                post some maths criticisms

                - wrong baseline of 46s ?

                - wrong ratio of 0.25 ?

                - wrong assumptions thruout ?

                if you want to post something more nebulous, i'll request moderator to deal with it

                at some stage, you have to attempt a quantitative analysis of the subject

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by eldrick
                  no hi-jack

                  post some maths criticisms

                  - wrong baseline of 46s ?

                  - wrong ratio of 0.25 ?

                  - wrong assumptions thruout ?

                  if you want to post something more nebulous, i'll request moderator to deal with it

                  at some stage, you have to attempt a quantitative analysis of the subject

                  "nebulous" - an Eldy-ismic word, representing the individual differences of each and every human thing, and thus not quantitavely verifiable. That's what it says in my Funk and Wagnalls.... :wink:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There's no real way of testing what someone's 400m ability is, no? What was Carl Lewis' ability? Much faster than his 47s? That throws off the models if one is unable to prove that his ability was at least 46,00.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      interesting supposition is what elite 400 guys coud run for 200

                      let's try with 10.30 - 10.10 ( shoudn't really be slower than 10.30 from commonsense & rare to go <10.10 uless name is mj )


                      say, 44.00 :

                      10.30 - implies 20.60 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 44.00 )x0.25 or 0.5 -> 20.10

                      10.20 - implies 20.40 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 44.00 )x0.25 or 0.5 -> 19.90

                      10.10 - implies 20.20 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 44.00 )x0.25 or 0.5 -> 19.70


                      say, 43.75 :

                      10.30 - implies 20.60 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.75 )x0.25 or 0.5625 -> 20.04

                      10.20 - implies 20.40 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.75 )x0.25 or 0.5625 -> 19.83

                      10.10 - implies 20.20 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.75 )x0.25 or 0.5625 -> 19.63


                      say, 43.50 :

                      10.30 - implies 20.60 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.50 )x0.25 or 0.625 -> 19.98

                      10.20 - implies 20.40 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.50 )x0.25 or 0.625 -> 19.78

                      10.10 - implies 20.20 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.50)x0.25 or 0.625 -> 19.58


                      say, 43.25 :

                      10.30 - implies 20.60 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.25)x0.25 or 0.6875 -> 19.92

                      10.20 - implies 20.40 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.25 )x0.25 or 0.6875 -> 19.72

                      10.10 - implies 20.20 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.25)x0.25 or 0.6875 -> 19.52

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by eldrick
                        interesting supposition is what elite 400 guys coud run for 200

                        let's try with 10.30 - 10.10 ( shoudn't really be slower than 10.30 from commonsense & rare to go <10.10 uless name is mj )


                        say, 44.00 :

                        10.30 - implies 20.60 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 44.00 )x0.25 or 0.5 -> 20.10

                        10.20 - implies 20.40 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 44.00 )x0.25 or 0.5 -> 19.90

                        10.10 - implies 20.20 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 44.00 )x0.25 or 0.5 -> 19.70


                        say, 43.75 :

                        10.30 - implies 20.60 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.75 )x0.25 or 0.5625 -> 20.04

                        10.20 - implies 20.40 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.75 )x0.25 or 0.5625 -> 19.83

                        10.10 - implies 20.20 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.75 )x0.25 or 0.5625 -> 19.63


                        say, 43.50 :

                        10.30 - implies 20.60 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.50 )x0.25 or 0.625 -> 19.98

                        10.20 - implies 20.40 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.50 )x0.25 or 0.625 -> 19.78

                        10.10 - implies 20.20 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.50)x0.25 or 0.625 -> 19.58


                        say, 43.25 :

                        10.30 - implies 20.60 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.25)x0.25 or 0.6875 -> 19.92

                        10.20 - implies 20.40 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.25 )x0.25 or 0.6875 -> 19.72

                        10.10 - implies 20.20 from "double ratio" & take-off : ( 46.00 - 43.25)x0.25 or 0.6875 -> 19.52
                        Snickering, snickering, snickering. :lol: (I'm snickering at your meltdown while I'm watching "world's Dumbest Melt Downs" on Tru TV)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Never mind elddy. Just kick over the stumps up and take the ball and go home. You'll take them the next day. In otherwords: " Let it go and fight them another day about another topic butthis one is dead"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Paul Henry
                            Snickering, snickering, snickering. :lol: (I'm snickering at your meltdown while I'm watching "world's Dumbest Melt Downs" on Tru TV)
                            i'm watching discovery science

                            why am i surprised you can't ?

                            now

                            in politest terms

                            why don't you f*ck off until you can post something relevant to the topic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by eldrick
                              no hi-jack

                              post some maths criticisms

                              - wrong baseline of 46s ?

                              - wrong ratio of 0.25 ?

                              - wrong assumptions thruout ?

                              if you want to post something more nebulous, i'll request moderator to deal with it

                              at some stage, you have to attempt a quantitative analysis of the subject
                              Your entire use of math to solve this problem is wrong because it is based solely on your assumptions and not on experimental data. I said it two or so years ago and I'll say it again. As insightful as you can be in other regards you routinely use statistical modelling in a most inappropriate way.

                              I await your likely insult!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X