Question for the stat-o-holics...

[The King]

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.


From stride analysis and stride frequency...marks are on some tracks...

[tafnut]

Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

Sight unseen, I believe The King - it's not that hard to get close estimates from a clear video.

[Pierre-Jean]

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.

X King uses numbers coming from other's analysis, especially for the 10.14, 10.18 and 10.19 figures. As for 50m splits, these numbers are pure estimations as there was no marks and stride length and frequency are useless to find this intermediate times. Please give your sources X King if you want some credibility.

[highjumpsteve]

Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

but accurate to the HUNDREDTH of a second ? Hardly.

[Sprint Stat Man]

Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

Hand on...he says +/-0.03 himself, and all his figures have 'e' by them. The guy's posted a useful stack of data and is quite clear how he arrived at it...cut him a bit of slack.

[Jon]

Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

>
Hand on...he says +/-0.03 himself, and all his figures have 'e' by them. The
>guy's posted a useful stack of data and is quite clear how he arrived at
>it...cut him a bit of slack.



I agree.. even "official" stats can sometimes be a bit out. What X King has posted is a good indication of what the splits are.

Good job - X King.