Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mexico times revisited

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

  • Mexico times revisited

    1st stab at trying to adjust those runs for not just wind-altitude using jrm's calcs but also for fact that they were handicapped by low-O2

    from here :

    http://2008olympictrialsakatommyleonard ... ilecabinet

    http://2008olympictrialsakatommyleonard ... ration.doc

    http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/tra ... rgysys.htm

    200m run: 29% aerobic; 71% anaerobic
    400m run: 43% aerobic; 57% anaerobic
    800m run: 66% aerobic: 34% anaerobic
    1500m run: 84% aerobic; 16% anaerobic
    ( someone please help me out & find the figures for 100m, 5k & 10k )

    http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/wind/index.html

    http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/win ... twind.html

    http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/wind/400alt.html

    now, what i've tried is very simple & combine jrm's calc with low-O2 handicapping aerobic metabolism

    - for hines 100m of 9.95 ( +0.3 ) at 2250m = 10.03 basic

    now, saturation at that height is ~ 94% saturation

    which means aerobic metabolism is handicapped by 98/94 compared to sea-level ( big assumption & needs refining )

    aerobic component for 100m isn't given above ( please find a figure ) but extrapolation leads to ~ 20%

    therfore hines was handicapped aerobically by

    1 + ( (98/94) - 1 )* 20/100 ) for aerobic = 1.0085

    his estimated sea-level time is ->

    ~ 10.03/1.0085 = 9.95

    for this example, i'm advocating he wouda run 9.95 at sea-level

    - for tommie in 200 :

    19.83 ( +0.9 )

    now, obviously, he ran easy curve & celebrated at end - call it more like 19.70, which is -> 19.96 basic

    trying same above working with 29% aerobic ->

    1 + ( (98/94) - 1 )* 29/100 ) for aerobic = 1.0123

    -> 19.96/1.0123 = 19.72

    again, tends to indicate he ran same time at altitude he shouda at sea-level

    - for lee & 43.86

    jrm gives that as 44.36

    using 43% aerobic ->

    1 + ( (98/94) - 1 )* 43/100 ) for aerobic = 1.0183

    -> 44.36/1.0183 = 43.57 !

    - for doubell & 1'44.40, use jrm's 400 calc & scale up the average 400m time -> 1'45.40 basic

    using 66% aerobic ->

    1 + ( (98/94) - 1 )* 66/100 ) for aerobic = 1.0281

    -> 1'45.40/1.0281 = 1'42.6 !

    - for keino & 3'34.9, use jrm's 400 calc & scale up the average 400m time -> 3'36.75 basic

    using 84% aerobic ->

    1 + ( (98/94) - 1 )* 84/100 ) for aerobic = 1.0357

    -> 3'34.9/1.0281 = 3'29.3 !

    ( indicating ryun ran about a 3'32.3 behind )

    obviously needs lot more work, but those mexico performances were truly superhuman & altitude doesn't detract them

  • #2
    Re: Mexico times revisited

    Originally posted by eldrick
    those mexico performances were truly superhuman & altitude doesn't detract them
    Complete nonsense.

    Comment


    • #3
      refutation ?

      Comment


      • #4
        valant effort and a welcomed contribution....

        1) I dont buy your % aerobic numbers for the 100 (try 0 percent), 200 (try 0 percent) and 400 (try something closer to 10% tops).... at 800 everything is upside down and you are more like 80% aerobic.

        2) Please provide evidence that the to 02 % of (or saturation) air is a linear factor in O2 absorption during athletics.

        Id say on the whole the '68 performances were not at all out of line with what preceded and followed them in '64 and '72 respectively.
        ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

        Comment


        • #5
          - the studies show above 200m is 29% aerobic & the 100 is going to be somewhat less but >0

          simple thought experiment : get a 10.00 guy to run a 100m in a 100% nitogen atmosphere with no O2 ( have him breathe a normal 78% N2/21% O2 mixture at atmospheric pressure thru a cylinder just before the gun goes off ) - if he runs 10.00 then there is no aerobic component, but if he runs anything slower, there is aerobic component

          - i have no evidence O2 consumption is linearly related to saturation, but it's an assumption until we get some studies, but i strongly suspect it's linear :

          look at that saturation curve - upto about 2000 feet, the saturation is maintained at 98% - this is done by the body desparately compensating to maintain full saturation by means of producing a molecule called 2,3 DPG which shfits O2 dissociation curve to the right - this must mean saturation is vitally important to aerobic function & unlikely for a say, 5% drop in sauration to only affect aerobic metabolism by 1 or 2%, but more likely the full 5%, as otherwise such compensatory mechanisms woudn't have evolved

          with higher altitudes, the body can't compensate with 2,3 DPG & the saturation starts dropping

          - i'd have to say generally the '68 guys were the best, followed by '64 ones & lastly the '72 ones - not all games have same calibre of elite

          Comment


          • #6
            following on from above, i'd tentatively suggest the ideal altitude to run any race ( & therefore to build a track ) is ~ 2,000' as at this altitude you have virtually full saturation at ~98% & gain full benefit from less wind-resistance of the 2,000' of altitude

            compared to sea-level, you'd gain an advantage of ( using jrm's 400m calc )

            100m ~ 0.03s
            200m ~ 0.07s
            400m ~ 0.14s
            800m ~ 0.28s
            1500m ~ 0.525s
            3k ~ 1.05s
            5k ~ 1.75s
            10k ~ 3.5s
            1/2M ~ 7s
            M ~ 14s

            that woud mean lausanne is the ideal place on the planet to run fast times ( followed by munich )

            Comment


            • #7
              Time for a reality check.

              Tommie Smith ran 19.83 (with some easing down) at Mexico City, and before then he seemed to look for any opportunity to set fast times - either at altitude, or with illegal spikes (à la John Carlos) or using 200m straight tracks.

              When did he actually break 20.3 FAT at 'normal' altitude on a regular track?

              Never, to my knowledge.

              In his prime, in the best race of his life (Olympic final), at normal altitude on a normal track and with no wind assistance, I reckon he was good for ~ 20.10. In those days that was a superb time.

              But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he was capable of < 20.00 under the above conditions.

              Mennea was a full tenth faster than Smith 11 years later on the same track in Mexico, but only just managed to dip below 20.00 at sea level. And he was around a lot longer than Smith to get that career best of 19.96.

              Or look at the achievements of Don Quarrie: 19.86 at altitude, but 'only' 20.22 in the Montreal final.

              Peer group comparisons are of much more value in my book, compared to the pseudo calculations that you favour, but which have no real basis in the sprinters' world.

              Comment


              • #8
                whether smith used brush spikes or not like carlos, i don't know, as only carlos' 19.92A wr was unrecognised

                it was not smith's aim to go to altitude to chase times - usatf arranged the meet at echo summit so that all the sprinters had an idea what racing at altitude was like prior to mexico - check your facts before dissing him

                smith's straight 19.5 was run 2y before mexico - how on earth you think this has anything to do with his plans for mexico or gain recognition as an iaaf wr, i don't know ?!

                his best time auto prior to mexico was 20.14A at provo in '67 which is 1400m elevation - it's a good time at altitude but doesn't indicate a 19.83 easing down 1y later at a further 850m altitude unless he had improved greatly in 1y aiming for a peak at games

                altitude doesn't guarantee anything - Carl went to sestriere in '88 & everyone & his dog ( probably including himself ) felt he was going to demolish the wr ( i was certainly expecting 19.6, maybe 19.5 ), but all he ended up was with a 19.82 - he actually ran faster in seoul soon after - mabe altitude isn't what it's cracked up to be ?

                mennea's time converts to mid-19.7 with above, but considering the reports that he shouda been dq'ed for running large parts of the curve in the inner lane, that probably indicates an effort in high-19.8/low-19.9s if he'd run it legit, not inconsistent with what may have been a career best performance ( he only won og in 20.21 )

                quarrie may have won og in 20.22, but you forget he won zurich in '74 in 20.06 ( +0.4 ) - his 19.86A equates to a low 19.9 - nothing unremarkable for a guy who ran 20.06

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by eldrick

                  mennea's time converts to mid-19.7 with above, but considering the reports that he shouda been dq'ed for running large parts of the curve in the inner lane, that probably indicates an effort in high-19.8/low-19.9s if he'd run it legit, not inconsistent with what may have been a career best performance ( he only won og in 20.21 )

                  quarrie may have won og in 20.22, but you forget he won zurich in '74 in 20.06 ( +0.4 ) - his 19.86A equates to a low 19.9 - nothing unremarkable for a guy who ran 20.06
                  When is the Mennea WR cheat myth going to die!.. He did NOT run inside his lane... these stories are pure fiction. Where do you get this stuff and why does it continue unchecked. His 1980 win was in 20.19 by the way. Videos of all these are everywhere, you expose some bias.
                  ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    the youtube video doesn't show his bend clearly enough to judge - i'm going with contemporary reports

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Rob
                      Time for a reality check.
                      Tommie Smith ran 19.83 (with some easing down) at Mexico City, and before then he seemed to look for any opportunity to set fast times - either at altitude, or with illegal spikes (à la John Carlos) or using 200m straight tracks.
                      When did he actually break 20.3 FAT at 'normal' altitude on a regular track?
                      Never, to my knowledge.
                      On May 7, 1966 on a dirt track in San Jose, Tommie Smith ran a 19.5 for 220 yards on the straightaway. I don’t think the magnitude of that race has ever been fully appreciated.

                      Let’s spitball some numbers. The old standard conversion for the straightaway was .3 seconds, but we have seen, most notably in MJ’s Atlanta run where he ran 10.12 for the curve and no one seems willing to say he was a 9.82 100 man that day, that .3 may be a worst-case scenario. But let’s stay at .3 for the moment. So we have no worse than 19.8 for a 200m curve. But this is a dirt track and that’s worth at least .1 per 100 (cf. Hayes’ 10.06 on dirt in Tokyo). So we’re down to 19.6. But now we add in the .24 for hand-timing, so we’re back up to 19.84, but then we look at all the other significant improvements in the last 42 years, and that’s at least another .1, so we’re back down to 19.74.

                      I think we can all agree that TS wasn’t a 19.3x man, but looking at the 19.6x men

                      19.62 Gay
                      19.65 Spearmon
                      19.68 Fredericks
                      19.69 Dix

                      I think we can see that he probably WAS better (or no worse) than these guys. Had TS lined up in Atlanta in the shape he was in that day in San Jose, is there any doubt he would have been, at worst, second? I submit to you, he was a sub-20 man (and would have destroyed Mennea)!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I wasn't attempting to teleport him forward in time and give him the 'evolutionary' improvements that come with it. When I stated that he wasn't a sub 20.00 200m sprinter, I meant at the time he was actually running (late 60s). Even if he had kept going to Munich, I see nothing in his resume that suggests sub 20.00 FAT at low altitude.

                        19.5h (especially US hand-timing) on a straight track in San Jose could be anything up to 20.50 FAT on an accredited synthetic track, but is certainly not worth sub 20.00. If he was that quick, why didn't he simply get on a regular track at low altitude and put all the hype beyond dispute with a new WR?

                        There is always something about Smith's times that need conversion / correction / interpolation / interpretation. That in itself sends a strong message - typical sprinter psyching-out bravado, so that people can talk about "woulda / coulda / shoulda" 40+ years later.

                        In plain language, where is his < 20.30 FAT on a normal track at low altitude?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Rob
                          19.5h (especially US hand-timing) on a straight [dirt] track in San Jose could be anything up to 20.50 FAT on an accredited synthetic track
                          I respect your credibility in matters like this, but we could not disagree more!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Rob - TS had very little opportunity to run FAT times at low altitude - the NCAA in '67 was up at Provo (we only have his 20.26 in the final, but he also run 20.2 in heat and semi [from memory]), and the OT in '68 was at Echo Summit, where he ran 20.18 from lane 1 on a tightly curved 6 lane track.
                            It may well be that his 20.0y in Sacramento in '66 or the 20.1y the following year was sub 20.30. We'll never know. Equally, we'll never be sure who would have won in Munich in '72 had TS been there and in top form. My guess is that Borzov would have been .05 to 0.10 quicker than his 20.00 but would have been 0.05 to 0.10 behind Smith

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              his 19.5 was actually for 220y, which converts to 19.4 for 200m, so giving him another 1/10th

                              i'd actually go for about 19.7+ auto back in '66 on a standard synthetic track of that era ( without going thru all the workings, i get ~same number as you taffy )

                              the assertion that smith was a 20.10 auto at best in '68 is clearly a nonsense - just using mennea as a guide - 19.72A & 19.96 at sea-level

                              smith's 19.83A was handicapped by hamstring injury which almost kept him out of the final & necessitated him running a cautious curve & of course he celebrated in the last 10m or so, slowing him further

                              calling it 19.70 flat out gives him ~ same clocking as mennea ( & mennea's was flat-out - youtube ) & therefore at the very least mennea's 19.96 has to be applicable to smith

                              19.96 auto at sea-level in '68 is worst case scenario

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X