Progression Question

[feltdog70]

Let's get one thing clear: there's no such thing as a "normal" progression. Perhaps a general curve that most people follow, but people come in all sizes and styles. Jeter had a decent career as an NCAA Div. 2 athlete, and after she finished school in '03, basically retired for 3 years, running (hobbying) 11.74, 12.00 and 11.48.

Then she took up serious running again, while in what should be her peak physical years.

Thank you!! I was hoping that someone explained that "normal" progression is not realistic. If it was, then that would mean that we would all progress in the same linear fashion, with no regression....

[7-sided]

I do think progressions can be compared since there have been soooo many careers to compare them to at this point. .

ghoster, you must be new to this thing called track and field? Do you recognize how ridiculous that is? You can compare progressions "there have been soooo many careers to compare them at this point" - based upon a dissimilar population?

Please, indulge me, I gotta hear this? :roll: On second thought, don't bother, I'm sure that you have much better things to do given your cold fusion announcement for later today. :roll:

[bhall]

So I've now kicked some people to the curb. And since many insist on behaving like children with their eye rolls I've taken away the emoticons. Link to an external emoticon (smiley) and I'll ban you.

[TrackDaddy]

Chris, are you related to williamwyndhamjr by chance?

lol

And chris I'm not sure why you mentioned me. All I did was discuss Bolt's improvement and how 18 months ago Spearmon used to walk him down from behind.

I never "questioned" anyone.

Definitely not my style.

[TrackDaddy]

"looking at jeter progression only flojo campare(my research not down yet)
and americans do it at older age campared to Jamaica
Questionable? track daddy , guru"

I think the word in bold proves that you are indeed questioning Gay and Jeter.

I was asking a question of guruof track and track daddy .didnt you see guru post i repost where he was questioning fraser and other jamaica female progression.

The reason you didnt repost any of my "posts" was because I never "questioned" anyone.

I may have marveled at it, but never "questioned" it.

I also believe you taken some of guru's comments out of context, but I digress.

[optimistic]

7-sided - I didn't mean to appear biased. I was only hoping to offer a reason as to why some posters may wonder about some progressions. One reason that I can think of is the one I gave, because we are more familar with some athletes and their stories than other athletes. So what I hope to find on these boards is information that I don't already have. So someone who is more familar with Bolt/SAF should be able to state some things that account for their progress.

You may think that I have seen a lot of posts 'accusing' them, but I haven't. I avoid those posts and skip over them as soon as I start to see garbage. I almost always avoid sprint threads, but I thought a thread about progression could be an interesting discussion.

Like Bolt, his 200 progression looks nice to me. I don't think there is enough 100 data to see a progression. Didn't he stop running the 100 because he had a bad start. But he's worked on it and now that is why he is running it again? I don't know. But a bad start to a great start good equate to a huge PB. I think of Allyson Felix. If she had the start of SAF I could see a huge 100 PB for her that would be an 'out of the ordinary' progression.

So I just ask that you try not to take my post that way. I am just trying to offer a different perspective and instead of arguing with me, just give me your perspective on progression. Or what you think of Bolt/SAF/Jeter/Gay's progressions (without the drug angle of course). We all already understand that steriods are a problem and could explain anybody's progression, so let's go a different route.

[Frans Rutten]

Amother angle to watch at Jeter.

If you consider the progressive average of 10 good sprints as a way to look at someone's overall progression, Jeter last 3 year record looks like this.

End of 2007 : 11.09
End of 2008 : 11.08
Per 13-07-09: 11.02
From then on almost every sprint lowers the progressive average.
After Berlin: 10.96
And since yesterday: 10.91

So what you see is that she had a long and stable basis, before she from early 2009 on began to progress steadily.

The race of yesterday is an anomaly. Although there's a general tendency of anomalies in modern sports, where power in some form is requested, anomalies as such still must be considered as a side-effect and being a part of the often not fully understood human capacity of physical performance.

The greatest anomaly of all time of cause is not FloJo's record, but Bob Beamon's feat in Mexico City.

The times were not adjusted.

[rumbleyoungmanrumble]

Amother angle to watch at Jeter.

If you consider the progressive average of 10 good sprints as a way to look at someone's overall progression, Jeter last 3 year record looks like this.

End of 2007 : 11.09
End of 2008 : 11.08
Per 13-07-09: 11.02
From then on almost every sprint lowers the progressive average.
After Berlin: 10.96
And since yesterday: 10.91

So what you see is that she had a long and stable basis, before she from early 2009 on began to progress steadily.

Actually, I don't see anything of the kind. I would if I was 10 years old, or a dog (7 canine years=1 human year, IIRC) but since I'm not, I don't regard your data for three whole years - wow, longevity - as a "long and stable basis" of any sort whatsoever.

[Frans Rutten]

Amother angle to watch at Jeter.

If you consider the progressive average of 10 good sprints as a way to look at someone's overall progression, Jeter last 3 year record looks like this.

End of 2007 : 11.09
End of 2008 : 11.08
Per 13-07-09: 11.02
From then on almost every sprint lowers the progressive average.
After Berlin: 10.96
And since yesterday: 10.91

So what you see is that she had a long and stable basis, before she from early 2009 on began to progress steadily.

Actually, I don't see anything of the kind. I would if I was 10 years old, or a dog (7 canine years=1 human year, IIRC) but since I'm not, I don't regard your data for three whole years - wow, longevity - as a "long and stable basis" of any sort whatsoever.

She didn't start from scratch though.The only thing I did prove was that she for two years in a row performed at a rather steady level and from then on steadily began to improve. "Statistically" backed-up. Nothing more to it.

11,05
11,11
11,15
11,11
11,07
11,02
11,08
11,15
11,10
11,09
11,07
11,10
10,97
11,05
11,08
11,12
10,96
11,09
11,06
11,01
11,02
10,97
10,92
10,94
10,90
10,83
10,86
11,07
10,88
10,67

Progressive average 10 sprints
11,09
11,10
11,09
11,08
11,07
11,07
11,08
11,07
11,06
11,06
11,05
11,05
11,03
11,03
11,02
11,00
10,97
10,96
10,96
10,94
10,91

[rumbleyoungmanrumble]

I see your point, it's a valid view to take from those stats. But isolating those stats without taking into account her age, performances before 2007 and yesterday's anomaly - agree there! - is... difficult for me. Make that impossible for me.

[Frans Rutten]

I see your point, it's a valid view to take from those stats. But isolating those stats without taking into account her age, performances before 2007 and yesterday's anomaly - agree there! - is... difficult for me. Make that impossible for me.

Her age is totally irrelevant.
Her performances before 2007 have limited meaning. Obviously she has had a long solid basis to work from later on. It wasn't wasted. So she didn't come overnight. It's an argument pro as well as an argument contra. Who's is really to judge?

One thing though is striking.

1988: 10.61 vs. 9.92 (formally)
2009: 10.67 vs. 9.58

One thing still. In comparing the present with the past you have to consider (and that's not easy), that new insights do favor the present. Running 10.67 legally in 2009 must be easier than running 10.67 legally in 1988. If we talk of non-legally sprinting "everything" is possible.

[scottmitchell74]

gh wrote;

and after she finished school in '03, basically retired for 3 years, running (hobbying) 11.74, 12.00 and 11.48.

Then she took up serious running again, while in what should be her peak physical years

Very interesting.

I think what gh wrote hits closest to home. Just like NFL Running Backs who, for some reason, miss significant playing time in their 20s are able to stay productive into their 30's (John Riggins, Marcus Allen via Al Davis' idiocy, James Brooks, Fred Taylor, John Henry Johnson to name a few) perhaps this is what's happening to Jeter? She's got fresh legs with the wear and tear of a younger woman?

[rumbleyoungmanrumble]

Her age is totally irrelevant.
Her performances before 2007 have limited meaning.

Good grief.

[Smoke]

Her age is totally irrelevant.
Her performances before 2007 have limited meaning.

Good grief.

rumble you should read this over and over again. This is the most important thing written so far. Without knowing what was going on prior to you cannot define it.

[Frans Rutten]

gh wrote;

and after she finished school in '03, basically retired for 3 years, running (hobbying) 11.74, 12.00 and 11.48.

Then she took up serious running again, while in what should be her peak physical years

Very interesting.

I think what gh wrote hits closest to home. Just like NFL Running Backs who, for some reason, miss significant playing time in their 20s are able to stay productive into their 30's (John Riggins, Marcus Allen via Al Davis' idiocy, James Brooks, Fred Taylor, John Henry Johnson to name a few) perhaps this is what's happening to Jeter? She's got fresh legs with the wear and tear of a younger woman?

I'm not familiar with NFL, but I see your point. At best you can say, that her development got delayed, but she must have had a good basis to start with.