Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question for the stat-o-holics...

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Question for the stat-o-holics...

    This one may be a bit old, but I was discussing MJ's 19.32 with some non-tracksters and was wondering if there are any "split" times of that race?

  • #2
    Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

    The first 100m: REALLY
    The second 100m: FAST

    I don:t have my TFN with me, sorry. There are splits, and someone will have them soon, I am sure.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

      I know them by heart because they were so astonishing:

      10.12 - 9.20

      Both are other-worldly.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

        10.12 / 9.20

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

          Tee hee. That looks like I corrected it after tafnut posted doesn't it? Sigh.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

            now for those 10m splits..

            anybody have a high quality video online of that race?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

              In anyone's opinion. Are those splits equally other-wordly? I mean obviously the curve will slow you down...but is it the fact that he simply did not slow down the most impressive...or the fact that he hammered the curve? I know this is 8 years old...but I'm in the middle of an argument about the most impressive sport feat...This is my pick.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

                The old rule of thumb for the curve was to add .3 sec, which would make this a 9.82 feat. He wasn't really that fast, so what he did was 'other-worldly' in that sense: the best curve ever run. Then you get the .92 ave for the 10m segments. The fastest reliable reading for ANY one 10 m split is .84, so 9.3 for that 100 is probably the best ever also. So you end up with the best ever start and the best ever finish in one unbelievable race (and I was there!)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

                  It's worth noting that MJ was, if I remember correctly, 2/100ths up at 100m but 0.36 up at 200m.

                  Johnson 10.12 + 9.20 = 19.32
                  Fredericks 10.14 + 9.54 = 19.68
                  Boldon 10.18 + 9.62 = 19.80

                  Before 1996, the fastest to halfway in the 200m was Carl Lewis with 10.21, then Joe DeLoach with 10.24. I would never have pegged Lewis as a bend runner...maybe he needs to go on third leg on all those fantasy relays.

                  (NB these figures are from memory, may be a touch out)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

                    >The fastest reliable reading for ANY one 10 m split is .84>>

                    Figures we got from Lewis at Tokyo in '91 have an 0.83 between 70m and 80m.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

                      oops, that's what I get for retrieving data out of a 53-year old memory bank.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

                        still waiting for a link to a video of the race.. tick tock tick tock..

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

                          >still waiting for a link to a video of the race.. tick tock tick tock..


                          http://www2.raisport.rai.it/atlanta96/n ... 8/200m.mov

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

                            >It's worth noting that MJ was, if I remember correctly, 2/100ths up at 100m but
                            >0.36 up at 200m.

                            Johnson 10.12 + 9.20 = 19.32
                            Fredericks 10.14 + 9.54 =
                            >19.68
                            Boldon 10.18 + 9.62 = 19.80

                            The figures you quote are the same in which the IAAF World Record progression book gives. When actual looking closely at the video of his race, Ato Boldon passes the 100m mark just before Frankie Fredericks...

                            I have taken estimate split times of this race before, and I found these figures coming from a 50Hz Vide-Tape;

                            Wind: +0.4m/s

                            Michael Johnson
                            RT: 0.163s
                            50m: 5.79e
                            100m: 10.14e (4.35e)
                            150m: 14.57e (4.43e)
                            200m: 19.32s (4.75e)
                            100m Splits: 10.14e/9.18e
                            50m Splits: 5.79e/4.35e/4.43e/4.75e

                            Frankie Fredericks
                            RT: 0.200s
                            50m: 5.81e
                            100m: 10.19e (4.38e)
                            150m: 14.80e (4.61e)
                            200m: 19.68s (4.88e)
                            100m Splits: 10.19e/9.49e
                            50m Splits: 5.81e/4.38e/4.61e/4.88e

                            Ato Boldon
                            RT: 0.208s
                            50m: 5.82e
                            100m: 10.18e (4.36e)
                            150m: 14.94e (4.76e)
                            200m: 19.80s (4.86e)
                            100m Splits: 10.18e/9.62e
                            50m Splits: 5.82e/4.36e/4.76e/4.86e

                            The splits are estimates, taken from Video-Tape Analysis, the footage was good, so the splits give an error margin of around +/-0.03s...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

                              What I want to know is how somebody finds 50m and 150m marks for split points, since they aren't marked on any tracks I know of.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X