Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question for the stat-o-holics...

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Jon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sprint Stat Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • highjumpsteve
    replied
    Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

    but accurate to the HUNDREDTH of a second ? Hardly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre-Jean
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • tafnut
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The King
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The King
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • basehead617
    replied
    Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

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

    Leave a comment:


  • tafnut
    replied
    Re: Question for the stat-o-holics...

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

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sprint Stat Man
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • tafnut
    replied
    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!)

    Leave a comment:


  • BCBaroo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X