Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

150 meter race Mo Green or MJ????

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • eldrick
    replied
    Originally posted by JRM
    Originally posted by eldrick
    we are talking about how long an elite sprinter can run flat-out from the gun ( i e, on a straight track of say 400m,... )
    We are? I thought we were discussing how fast Greene could run 150m if he stopped there, instead of running through to 200m. There was never any mention of a straight track. In that case, of course he could go faster than 14.9, but then again everyone else's 150m splits would be faster too if you remove the curve.
    the straight track allusion was just to illustrate a point ( i e have a straight long track to easily visually gauge when an elite sprinter cannot run flat-out anymore - so it caters for 13 - 14s which i recall, & 30s which you state )

    Leave a comment:


  • JRM
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    we are talking about how long an elite sprinter can run flat-out from the gun ( i e, on a straight track of say 400m,... )
    We are? I thought we were discussing how fast Greene could run 150m if he stopped there, instead of running through to 200m. There was never any mention of a straight track. In that case, of course he could go faster than 14.9, but then again everyone else's 150m splits would be faster too if you remove the curve.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    jrm

    that 30s figure you post may was probably done on a rowing ergometer or a similar cycling one ( long time ago i recall something on these lines ) - i don't really believe they have the same relevance as to a sprinter -measue an "athletes" peak power output on an ergometer ( electronic reading ) & then on a track ( probably from 0.5 * m* v^2 ) & i doubt you get the same peak readings in both

    different peak readings indicate that one of them is incorrect for maximal peak power output

    we are talking about how long an elite sprinter can run flat-out from the gun ( i e, on a straight track of say 400m, if a gatlin or safa blasts thru 100 in 9.77 : how far will they go before they start slowing visibly / come to a grinding halt ( or the point that their 10m splits become much more protracted, etc ?) )

    Leave a comment:


  • JRM
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    i remember recalling an article in a physiology journal ( but it was 3 or 4y ago & i can't find it currently ) that stated the maximum possible human power effort is sustainable for ~ 13 - 14s , which in our terms means maybe 130 or 140m of flat-out sprinting - before lactate,creatine exhaustion,etc kick in & kill off your effort - this should settle the argument instantly ( but obviously i'll have to find the article for acceptance )
    Well, I've read that the maximum extertion limit is 30s. This figure is referenced in Pritchard, SIAM Review 35, 359 (1993). That would thus include the 200m.

    So, basically, at the moment, we're in a discussion of personal opinions based on what research results we've seen. I'm not sure your linear statistics hold here, since the relative efforts between performance levels aren't the same. As you say, it comes down to physiology. Statistics can be ultimately misleading here, since we have no consistent basis on which to base the models.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    Originally posted by JRM
    I'm not sure I buy this argument. You're essentially saying that the longer a sprint race, the more energy you need to conserve to run it effectively. However, if that were true, then the 60m should, on average, be a "faster" race than the 100m. However, the best outdoor 60m splits are faster than the best indoor 60m races (even after accounting for wind)

    i remember recalling an article in a physiology journal ( but it was 3 or 4y ago & i can't find it currently ) that stated the maximum possible human power effort is sustainable for ~ 13 - 14s , which in our terms means maybe 130 or 140m of flat-out sprinting - before lactate,creatine exhaustion,etc kick in & kill off your effort - this should settle the argument instantly ( but obviously i'll have to find the article for acceptance )

    from that you obviously realise that any race of upto 130 - 140m distance can be run "flat out" & therefore 60m & 100m races shoud have little variance if factors such as track hardness between indoors/outdoors , level of competion , differing dates between early season & late season for indoors & outdoors ( relative "peaking " ), etc , are taken into account

    In my opinion, the best 200m sprinters are running as close to full out as they can. If they weren't, then it should be routine see 10.1 or even 10.0 splits -- but we don't. Surely someone, at some point, has tried to run "full out" around the bend. But in reality, the frequency of such splits is extremely low. Lead relay splits may help shed some light on this, but I find them to be somewhat rough.
    not sure what you mean ?

    a 9.9 guy can't run a 9.9 on the curve - you are the king of the curve - rotational considerations make this impossible - i've asked you countless times for an optimum conversion for an elite sprinter's time around a curve - standard one of 116m ( or oslo's 105m one ) - what is the fastest theoretical time that a 9.90 basic guy can run around 100m of an "116" ( or for frankie in oslo '96 - an "105" ) ???

    While I acknowledge that the energy much be distributed differently in a 200m race, I don't believe for an instant that they're holding back by over 0.2s (for their 150m split). The element that controls the energy distribution the most is the curve. Besides, if their 100m speed has little influence on their 200m race, then this dashes the notion that a fast 100m sprinter is necessarily a fast 200m sprinter.
    the key to this is physiology ( i will look for those ole articles ), but empirically jrm this is shaky ground you tread on - you doubt more than a 0.2s difference in an en-route 150 of a 200 compared to a flat-out 150 ?

    for a start you know that a 100m time predicts nothing for a 200m
    time

    in addition, extrapolating to higher distances, 0.2s for say a 15s en-route 200 guy represents 1.33% : consider the same for a 3'30 flat guy over 1500m - his en-route 800 time is 1'52 - 1.33% for a 150/200 converts for a 800/1500 to 1.875%

    1.875% off that means the same limit applied to his potential time means a 3'30 guy is incapable of running faster than 1'50.0

    Leave a comment:


  • JRM
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    this is interesting

    no one can run 200m flat-out from gun-to-tape : it is beyond the limits of human physiology

    get a guy to run absolutely flat out from the gun in a 200 & he will probably come to a grinding halt at maybe 130 - 140m ( & the last 20 or 30m will be increasingly, horribly slow until they come to a halt )

    you can only run the 200 in a "controlled" manner - i don't know, maybe ? 70 - 80% of flat-out from the gun, as you have to husband your energy/resources in order to last the full 200 & be strong at the end

    running 150m, means you can run a higher %age of close to flat out from gun-to-tape - ?maybe 80 - 90%

    i certainly think this leads to significantly more gain than a mere 0.2s improvement in your en-route 150m time in a 200
    I'm not sure I buy this argument. You're essentially saying that the longer a sprint race, the more energy you need to conserve to run it effectively. However, if that were true, then the 60m should, on average, be a "faster" race than the 100m. However, the best outdoor 60m splits are faster than the best indoor 60m races (even after accounting for wind).

    In my opinion, the best 200m sprinters are running as close to full out as they can. If they weren't, then it should be routine see 10.1 or even 10.0 splits -- but we don't. Surely someone, at some point, has tried to run "full out" around the bend. But in reality, the frequency of such splits is extremely low. Lead relay splits may help shed some light on this, but I find them to be somewhat rough.

    While I acknowledge that the energy much be distributed differently in a 200m race, I don't believe for an instant that they're holding back by over 0.2s (for their 150m split). The element that controls the energy distribution the most is the curve. Besides, if their 100m speed has little influence on their 200m race, then this dashes the notion that a fast 100m sprinter is necessarily a fast 200m sprinter.

    If you can cite some studies to the contrary, I'd be very interested to see them.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    Originally posted by JRM
    Greene was a 19.90 sprinter over 200, and he *was* pretty much going all-out. There's no way he (or anyone else, for that matter) would shave 0.2s off a split by running 50m less overall. I can't see that happening. I would say Mo could manage a high 14.8, but that's it
    this is interesting

    no one can run 200m flat-out from gun-to-tape : it is beyond the limits of human physiology

    get a guy to run absolutely flat out from the gun in a 200 & he will probably come to a grinding halt at maybe 130 - 140m ( & the last 20 or 30m will be increasingly, horribly slow until they come to a halt )

    you can only run the 200 in a "controlled" manner - i don't know, maybe ? 70 - 80% of flat-out from the gun, as you have to husband your energy/resources in order to last the full 200 & be strong at the end

    running 150m, means you can run a higher %age of close to flat out from gun-to-tape - ?maybe 80 - 90%

    i certainly think this leads to significantly more gain than a mere 0.2s improvement in your en-route 150m time in a 200

    Leave a comment:


  • trackworld
    replied
    Originally posted by JRM
    Originally posted by trackworld
    Mo split 14.94+ during his 19.90 200m WC win in Sevilla'99 [official analysis taken at those championships] - I say that in his peak form [98-01] he runs an all out 150m in 14.75
    Greene was a 19.90 sprinter over 200, and he *was* pretty much going all-out. There's no way he (or anyone else, for that matter) would shave 0.2s off a split by running 50m less overall. I can't see that happening. I would say Mo could manage a high 14.8, but that's it.

    Originally posted by Texas
    Mo wins regardless if it's on a straight or a curve. His sub9.80 speed would be the star in a 150.
    How can you characterize Greene as having "sub-9.8" speed when he only succeeded in running sub-9.8 once -- and "only" 9.79 at that.
    1) Greene had 19.78 potential for me. He ran 19.86 & 19.89 in '97 when his 100m PR was 9.90. He did another 19.90 in '99 after WC into -0.8 [that's 19.84 w/o wind right?] and I'm sure that he would've run faster than 19.86 if he truly focused on the 200m for just one season - 14.8high is conservative in my opinion

    2) Greene can be characterized as having ''sub-9.8'' speed because he clearly showed he could run under-9.80 intrinsically on more than one occasion with the kind of conditions Powell & Gat have had for their sub-9.80s [Greene's 9.80 with stumble, 9.82 injury & into -0.2, 9.86 -0.2 in cool Berlin conditions & 9.87 -0.3, 0.197RT & poor Sydney weather in September]

    Leave a comment:


  • JRM
    replied
    Originally posted by trackworld
    Mo split 14.94+ during his 19.90 200m WC win in Sevilla'99 [official analysis taken at those championships] - I say that in his peak form [98-01] he runs an all out 150m in 14.75
    Greene was a 19.90 sprinter over 200, and he *was* pretty much going all-out. There's no way he (or anyone else, for that matter) would shave 0.2s off a split by running 50m less overall. I can't see that happening. I would say Mo could manage a high 14.8, but that's it.

    Originally posted by Texas
    Mo wins regardless if it's on a straight or a curve. His sub9.80 speed would be the star in a 150.
    How can you characterize Greene as having "sub-9.8" speed when he only succeeded in running sub-9.8 once -- and "only" 9.79 at that.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    i don't know who woud win this race, but i think mo off 9.80 & 19.86 shouda been capable of ~ 14.3 - 14.4

    mj off 9.90 - 9.95 & 19.32 ( if he;d run a 150 on atlanta track ), maybe a 14.1 - 14.2, but if you assume the non-atlanta mj was probably 10.0 / 19.70, then you get again somewher between 14.3 - 14.4

    but it's possible mo, if he'd been able to run on that atlanta track in his prime may have gone 9.70 / 19.70 & that again gets you ~ 14.1 - 14.2

    these sound overly quick times, but remember, those 14.5 - 14.6 splits for mj are en-route to a 19.32 : if he was running a 150m race he is running a race 50m less to run & can put more energy into it - certainly a lot faster than his 14.5 - 14.6 en-route split

    Leave a comment:


  • trackworld
    replied
    Originally posted by Texas
    Mo wins regardless if it's on a straight or a curve. His sub9.80 speed would be the star in a 150. MJ would be close but behind and gaining. MJ 's deal was his strenght and endurance, neither would come into play "enought" in the 150. He runs Mo down in a 200 but not a 150.
    You reckon? I can see it that way to be honest. I think it would good to have somekind of Championship in the off-years [like this one] at the 'wierd distances' such as 150m, 300m, 500m, 600m, 1K, 2K, 2M, SLJ, STJ, SHJ, 4x200R, 4x800R & 4x1M - any others I've left out?

    I'm sure Wariner could go through in 44.5+ and hold on for another 100m to run sub-60 in the 500m

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    Mo wins regardless if it's on a straight or a curve. His sub9.80 speed would be the star in a 150. MJ would be close but behind and gaining. MJ 's deal was his strenght and endurance, neither would come into play "enought" in the 150. He runs Mo down in a 200 but not a 150.

    Leave a comment:


  • trackworld
    replied
    Mo split 14.94+ during his 19.90 200m WC win in Sevilla'99 [official analysis taken at those championships] - I say that in his peak form [98-01] he runs an all out 150m in 14.75

    The splits I recorded for MJ's 19.32 for 50m, 100m & 150m consisted of 5.79, 10.14 & 14.62 - [5.79, 10.14, 14.62, 19.32] [5.79, 4.35, 4.48, 4.70] - I have seen other analysis which gives MJ's 150m split at 14.57, 14.60 & 14.61, so it was definitely in the 14.60 region

    Bailey ran 14.99 in the farcical race and turned back [running sideways for last 5 or so strides] to see where Johnson was, so I reckon he coulda run 14.85-odd running normally thru tape

    I am one of the biggest Mo Greene fans there is, but even if he is peak shape he doesn't beat MJ of 19.32 in 150m - MJ of 19.66, 19.71, 19.77, 19.79s is another story

    Where is eldy?

    Leave a comment:


  • MJD
    replied
    Here is the 150 video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfAeCluB ... n%20bailey

    Leave a comment:


  • DentyCracker
    replied
    Re: 150 meter race Mo Green or MJ????

    ROTFLMAO

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X