Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Most sprinters under 10.10 seconds in a single season...

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Most sprinters under 10.10 seconds in a single season...

    The record number of sprinters under 10.10 was 37 from last year. That seemed to be a big increase compared to what we'd typically see.

    This year we've now hit 38. If you include 10.10s then it's still tied at 42. But it's still July!

    Where has all this depth come from? Why are dudes suddenly running faster in unprecedented numbers?

    It's great. Before long we'll see championship quarter finals where everybody is a 10.0 athlete.

    Most sub tens is 14 from last year, 16 if you count 10.00s. That was a big improvement on a normal year.

    This year there's eight. Good chance that record will be toast by the end of the summer too.

    It's great. Before long we'll see championship semi finals where everybody is a 9.9 athlete.

    An under appreciated fact: 2003 may have had an unusually slow championship final, but 31 people ran under 10.10 that year, and an athlete ran 10.14 in Paris and failed to progress to the semi finals - although several athletes ran slower in other heats and still qualified.

    Can that threshold drop to 10.09 in Berlin?

  • #2
    I think quite a few runners could get to sub 10 for the world and after as well. Youngsters are running really quick as well, well the 19yr olds.

    Comment


    • #3
      From 1964 to 1984 a 10.0 clocking would win you an Olympic medal and would probably have an honest shot at the gold. As late as 1992 and 2000 minor medals could be won.

      How strange today to have forty athletes in a given year capable of running the times Bob Hayes ran. One day will we have forty athletes who can run the times Carl Lewis ran?

      As we coach more people in more places to reach their potential will a lot of people have a chance to run a 10.0 100m? Is that what a healthy well taught and motivated human male with a little bit more aptitude than his peers can run?

      The margins are fine. A lot of people have a nice singing voice but not all of them can be pop stars. Some of them get to go on American Idol. Others sing in bars. Occasionally you hear Luciano Pavarotti.

      In Beijing you could get eliminated from the quarter finals for running 10.14 seconds and 10.03 got you dead last in the Olympic final.

      Nearly a hundred years ago, in 1912, two months after the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank, the world record for 100 metres was ratified as 10.6 seconds. By London 2012, will Bolt have lowered the record even further, down from 9.6 seconds - that is to say by more than a second, or perhaps even ten whole metres - in one hundred years?

      Where are we going this century?

      Comment


      • #4
        Well when looking at what time qualifies for different rounds of championships, for majority of the runners its about how far they're pushed in eat round to qualify. Someone running beside Bolt will naturally be pushed further than someone easing up while in 1st.
        To make the finals in Beijing, Doc patton and Tyson had a battle for that last spot in the semis thus pushing the time down lower than it normally would have been.
        It's interesting to note that had Bolt had a good tailwind, he would have been 9.8x in quarter finals and 9.7 high in the semis, and one would wonder if that would tax him enough to hinder performance later on (ex. the 200 finals)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by track_expert
          It's interesting to note that had Bolt had a good tailwind, he would have been 9.8x in quarter finals and 9.7 high in the semis, and one would wonder if that would tax him enough to hinder performance later on (ex. the 200 finals)
          It's not interesting at all. Naff off with your infamulations. This isn't a Bolt thread so don't even dare turning it into one. Expert? Say something expert.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by dakota
            Originally posted by track_expert
            It's interesting to note that had Bolt had a good tailwind, he would have been 9.8x in quarter finals and 9.7 high in the semis, and one would wonder if that would tax him enough to hinder performance later on (ex. the 200 finals)
            It's not interesting at all. Naff off with your infamulations. This isn't a Bolt thread so don't even dare turning it into one. Expert? Say something expert.
            Bolt was an example, relax buddy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Okay cool. We can still be friends LOL.

              But I'm really impressed how the strength in depth has rocketed in 2008 and 2009. My one concern is this happened in 2003 and it didn't lead to fast times in Paris although there may have been other factors in play that year.

              I think for the next decade though we may be looking at fifty 10.00-10.10 runners a year with up to twenty going under ten seconds.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dakota
                Originally posted by track_expert
                It's interesting to note that had Bolt had a good tailwind, he would have been 9.8x in quarter finals and 9.7 high in the semis, and one would wonder if that would tax him enough to hinder performance later on (ex. the 200 finals)
                It's not interesting at all. Naff off with your infamulations. This isn't a Bolt thread so don't even dare turning it into one. Expert? Say something expert.
                Let's get ready to rumbleeeee...LOL
                on the road

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dakota
                  ....
                  But I'm really impressed how the strength in depth has rocketed in 2008 and 2009. My one concern is this happened in 2003 and it didn't lead to fast times in Paris although there may have been other factors in play that year.
                  ....
                  Don't be remotely surprised if there aren't many fast times in Berlin either; you can't outsprint the weather. Berlin has been a Golden League city since the beginning. The three fastest times ever run there are 9.86, 9.86 and 9.96.

                  That and other WC-related stats here:

                  http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/archiv ... s/m100.pdf

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gh
                    Originally posted by dakota
                    ....
                    But I'm really impressed how the strength in depth has rocketed in 2008 and 2009. My one concern is this happened in 2003 and it didn't lead to fast times in Paris although there may have been other factors in play that year.
                    ....
                    Don't be remotely surprised if there aren't many fast times in Berlin either; you can't outsprint the weather. Berlin has been a Golden League city since the beginning. The three fastest times ever run there are 9.86, 9.86 and 9.96.

                    That and other WC-related stats here:

                    http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/archiv ... s/m100.pdf
                    I agree, I don't see any earth shattering marks being contested here.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dakota
                      Originally posted by track_expert
                      It's interesting to note that had Bolt had a good tailwind, he would have been 9.8x in quarter finals and 9.7 high in the semis, and one would wonder if that would tax him enough to hinder performance later on (ex. the 200 finals)
                      It's not interesting at all. Naff off with your infamulations. This isn't a Bolt thread so don't even dare turning it into one. Expert? Say something expert.
                      lol haha so true man, that made me laugh reading his post then yours

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It even seems that way on the women's side.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gh
                          Originally posted by dakota
                          ....
                          But I'm really impressed how the strength in depth has rocketed in 2008 and 2009. My one concern is this happened in 2003 and it didn't lead to fast times in Paris although there may have been other factors in play that year.
                          ....
                          Don't be remotely surprised if there aren't many fast times in Berlin either; you can't outsprint the weather. Berlin has been a Golden League city since the beginning. The three fastest times ever run there are 9.86, 9.86 and 9.96.

                          That and other WC-related stats here:

                          http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/archiv ... s/m100.pdf
                          The track was nothing special at the time, but its being resurfaced right now. That can have a big impact on the whole on the fastest and average times.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The difference is that Carribeans now get it. They understand what it takes to develop world class runners. Even tiny Islands like Antigua and Grenada are now producing world class talent. Whereas in the past, Only America and Europe had depth, now their are WC runners coming from the English Carribean where T&F is popular.

                            Africa and Latin America is lagging way behind. When they get it or if T&F ever becomes popular, the number of sub 10.10 will double.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by dakota
                              Originally posted by track_expert
                              It's interesting to note that had Bolt had a good tailwind, he would have been 9.8x in quarter finals and 9.7 high in the semis, and one would wonder if that would tax him enough to hinder performance later on (ex. the 200 finals)
                              It's not interesting at all. Naff off with your infamulations. This isn't a Bolt thread so don't even dare turning it into one. Expert? Say something expert.
                              :lol: :lol:

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X