Male 100 Meter Sprinters

[The Hitch]

Nope pretty precise science actually,
you see there is a passing zone then the 100 meters starts. The time starts when you enter the actual 100 meter zone.
As far as speed obtained prior is a moot point because as anyone who follows sprints closely world class sprinters reach a top speed somewhere around 50 meters out and can only hold it briefly until gradual deceleration sets in. While Bolt look like he was accelerating at the end of his Olympic final he was actually just decelerating the least of the field.
There is some speculation amongst coaches and others that it might be better to reach less than your maximum speed and hold it for a greater distance. But in the real world the winner seems to usually be those that reach the fastest speed.
If you want to see the video here is a link

http://speedendurance.com/2009/03/25/bob-hayes-1964-olympic-4x100m-relay-in-hd-video/

He was famous for only running fast enough to win, he was 4 meters back when he got the baton and finished 4 meters clear of second place.
He ran a 9.91 auto timed 100 meters in the semi in tokyo but a a 5.3 meter per second aiding wind which only 2.0 mps is allowed for record purposes. However no one ever ran a faster time at the Olympics in more than 32 years(excluding doped Ben Johnson)
again on a cinder track.

Ok, but why then is the 200m faster. If they reach their fastest speed at 50m and then deccelerate, wouldnt they in the 200m be decelerating for 150m instead of 50m?

 

[Ferminal]

Ok, but why then is the 200m faster. If they reach their fastest speed at 50m and then deccelerate, wouldnt they in the 200m be decelerating for 150m instead of 50m?

The slowest part of the sprint (the start/acceleration) is a bigger component of the 100m. They might decelerate after 50m over the next 150m but it's still much faster than the first 20-30m, resulting in higher average speed (although aren't Bolt's 100m and 200m records more or less the same average speed?).

 

[Merckx index]

Ok, but why then is the 200m faster. If they reach their fastest speed at 50m and then deccelerate, wouldnt they in the 200m be decelerating for 150m instead of 50m?

While it's true the runners are probably slowing down well before the second 100m, they still run that second 100m with a flying start, unlike the case with the first 100m. That compensates considerably for the fact that they are tiring and slowing down.

Hayes was a remarkable athlete, but again, that 8.6 or whatever the 100m time in that relay (there are a range of estimates) sure sounds like another statistical fluke to me. While he consistently ran faster than the competition, he did not consistently put up times comparable to Bolt's. And to reiterate--since certain posters ignore this point again and again and again--Hayes did not dominate against a field that was pumped up with all the stuff that Bolt's contemporaries are known to use. His drug problems later in life suggests he might well have used PES, but a lot of what is available now was not then.

 

[Nick777]

The slowest part of the sprint (the start/acceleration) is a bigger component of the 100m. They might decelerate after 50m over the next 150m but it's still much faster than the first 20-30m, resulting in higher average speed (although aren't Bolt's 100m and 200m records more or less the same average speed?).

If you look at the splits, Bolt's first twenty metres at Beijing took nearly 3 seconds (2.865), whereas his fastest 20 metres with a flying start took 1.65 seconds.

His 200m WR was split as 9.92 + 9.27. So in his second hundred, he was averaging .92 per 10 metres, which is .1 of a second slower than his peak 100m speed - managable..

Broken down further, his 50 splits were:
5.60
4.32
4.52
4.75

So even with the gradual deceleration after 100m, his last 50m was still nearly a second quicker than his first 50.

http://speedendurance.speedenduranc.../berlin2009beijing2008usainbolt200msplits.jpg

 

[Ferminal]

If you look at the splits, Bolt's first twenty metres at Beijing took nearly 3 seconds (2.865), whereas his fastest 20 metres with a flying start took 1.65 seconds.

His 200m WR was split as 9.92 + 9.27. So in his second hundred, he was averaging .92 per 10 metres, which is .1 of a second slower than his peak 100m speed - managable..

Broken down further, his 50 splits were:
5.60
4.32
4.52
4.75

So even with the gradual deceleration after 100m, his last 50m was still nearly a second quicker than his first 50.

http://speedendurance.speedenduranc.../berlin2009beijing2008usainbolt200msplits.jpg

Is it possible for him to run the first hundred, in say 9.7s? Or does the bend make it harder and is there some very small conservation of energy in order to sustain the effort over the final 100m? Because 9.92s is pedestrian compared to what he does in the 100m.

 

[Merckx index]

If you look at the splits, Bolt's first twenty metres at Beijing took nearly 3 seconds (2.865), whereas his fastest 20 metres with a flying start took 1.65 seconds.

So a flying start is worth 1.2 seconds? Puts Hayes' 8.6 relay split in a new perspective,doesn't it? We seem to be talking about a 9.8 from a regular start. That would have been a PB for Hayes, but hardly a Bolt-beater.

 

[D-Queued]

....

They also didn't have fast artificial surfaces like today. One could easily argue the difference between a cinder surface that had been used heavily before a sprint would more than make up for FAT(full auto timing)

that is debateable, but just remember the amount of force that is generated in each individual stride depends heavily on traction. For a sprinter that is key to running an optimal race, ie being in the optimum position in regards to foot placement to maximize output. The shorter the race the more crucial traction of each stride is.

...

If what you say is true:

1. Track surfaces are better
2. Foot placement is critical

Then, wouldn't you have to train specifically for the surface? Or, wouldn't specific training help you to go faster than everyone else?

But, aren't Jamaican facilities what we would call a wee bit less than optimal?

From Wikipedia:

American colleges offered Bolt track scholarships on the strength of his performances, but the teenager from Trelawny refused them all, stating that he was content to stay in his homeland of Jamaica.[13] Bolt instead chose the surroundings of the University of Technology, Jamaica, as his professional training ground, staying with the university's primitive track and weight room that had served him well in his amateur years

By US standards, the training facilities are second class. Jamaica's top sprinters cram into UTECH's tiny gym to pump rusty weights, and they often practice on the school's basic grass track

"We have to be creative, because we don't have the resources," says Davis, explaining that the lanes of the track are marked with diesel and burned because the school (UTECH) can't afford the machine that lays down chalk lines every week or so. "We had a choice: complain about the resources and do nothing or work with what we have."

Sure seems strange when specificity is so important.

Dave.

 

[Nick777]

Is it possible for him to run the first hundred, in say 9.7s? Or does the bend make it harder and is there some very small conservation of energy in order to sustain the effort over the final 100m? Because 9.92s is pedestrian compared to what he does in the 100m.

He could most likely run faster, but the rate of fade would be greater. It's all about getting the balance just right.

 

[runninboy]

Ok, but why then is the 200m faster. If they reach their fastest speed at 50m and then deccelerate, wouldnt they in the 200m be decelerating for 150m instead of 50m?

The reason the elapsed time in 200 meters is less than twice the 100 meter time is reaction time to the gun and that it takes almost 50 meters to get out of the blocks and up to top speed.
But their top speed is not as fast in the 200 as the 100
they go sub max speed and control it for longer
in the old days it was called "float"
many 800 meter runners used to be converted from 200 meter runners because they had controlled speed but not as fast of top end speed as a 100 meter man. Its all about maintaining form and speed in the 200, but at less than maximum.

 

[runninboy]

And to reiterate--since certain posters ignore this point again and again and again--Hayes did not dominate against a field that was pumped up with all the stuff that Bolt's contemporaries are known to use. His drug problems later in life suggests he might well have used PES, but a lot of what is available now was not then.

Most certainly true, however that proves only that Bolt ran against inferior competition. If Bob Hayes can run comparably to Bolt, what the competition does is inconsequential. Maybe that is why people are ignoring that aspect?
If you look up Bob Hayes he still has some World records indoors. I think it is a 5.99 60 meters. He did it without drugs. Is it not reasonable to assume that fifty years later someone could run that fast also without drugs?
Sorry but the competition being doped is irrelevant to that.
One amazing athlete dominates undrugged competition, fifty years later another undrugged athlete does the same .
Jesse Owens, Bob Hayes, Usain Bolt history tells us the first two did amazing things without drugs and with technolgy advances all three are arguably similar in human performance.
Owens 4 world records in 45 minutes! most of those records stood for decades
Bob Hayes fastest relay split ever, and a world record in thesame Olympics along with the fastest semifinal or final in any Olympics save one in 32 years.
49 consequetive wins etc etc etc
Usain Bolt has to use drugs to run & dominate in a comparable fashion?
Sorry not buying the analogy that drug use is a given.

 

[D-Queued]

...
Usain Bolt has to use drugs to run & dominate in a comparable fashion?
Sorry not buying the analogy that drug use is a given.

Pretty sure the drugs are taken to be effective.

Dave.

 

[runninboy]

If what you say is true:

1. Track surfaces are better
2. Foot placement is critical

Then, wouldn't you have to train specifically for the surface? Or, wouldn't specific training help you to go faster than everyone else?

But, aren't Jamaican facilities what we would call a wee bit less than optimal?

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usain_Bolt



Sure seems strange when specificity is so important.

Dave.

No actually the opposite. Jim Ryun experienced this when he had a HUGE improvement over his PR to set a world 800 meter record. It was his first 800 on an artificial surface and he knocked several seconds off his recent PR to set the WR.
If you run on dirt tracks it forces you to learn your foot placement EXACTLY. Put your foot too far ahead of your weight you can feel your foot slide before it gets traction. Place too far under your body you dont get all the power out of your stride as you push off, as your momentum carries you too quickly over your foot and your push off is not maximized.
By running on primitive surfaces it forces you to be better
when you train on artificial surfaces you can run without spikes as you will get traction (ie not slide) at pretty much any foot placement or angle.
Once you find your "sweet spot" and then you race on an artificial surface you get the best of both worlds. Better technique meets better facilities.
Also this is my theory as to why all but one of the US high school sub four minute miles were run on dirt tracks in the 1960's, and only one since. an artificial surface in 2001. Running on frequently on artificial surfaces there is no need for high school runners to learn optimum foot placement. If they ran like that on the dirt tracks they would slide on each footstrike. For those who have not experienced it, if you dont get it just right it feels like you are running on marbles.

 

[mad black]

Hayes was a remarkable athlete, but again, that 8.6 or whatever the 100m time in that relay (there are a range of estimates) sure sounds like another statistical fluke to me. While he consistently ran faster than the competition, he did not consistently put up times comparable to Bolt's. And to reiterate--since certain posters ignore this point again and again and again--Hayes did not dominate against a field that was pumped up with all the stuff that Bolt's contemporaries are known to use. His drug problems later in life suggests he might well have used PES, but a lot of what is available now was not then.

I see! Every single world record over the 100m in the past 45 years (at least) was/is either a "statistical fluke" or aided by PED's.

Honestly, I'm baffeled not to say dumpfounded at that kind of argumentation. Why do you bother following any sport if every single achievement boils down to the above 2 options?

With a similar kind of twisted fuzzy logic one could argue that LA's 7 TdF wins in a row were a "statistical fluke"...

 

[Merckx index]

Jesse Owens, Bob Hayes, Usain Bolt history tells us the first two did amazing things without drugs and with technolgy advances all three are arguably similar in human performance.

You really don’t get it. In the first place, we don’t know that Owens and Hayes used no PEDs, they would have been rare athletes if they didn’t, and we know Hayes had drug problems after retiring. In the second place, even if they were clean, they faced competition that, even if doped to the gills by the standards of the day, were not nearly as effective as the stuff Bolt’s rivals use.

By running on primitive surfaces it forces you to be better

Interesting that you have figured that out, and the Jamaicans have,but the entire U.S. Olympic organization has not.

With a similar kind of twisted fuzzy logic one could argue that LA's 7 TdF wins in a row were a "statistical fluke"

Another poster who writes without reading. I provided a very specific criterion of a fluke--a result that was far better than anything the guy who did it was able to achieve again, before or since.

By this standard, Beamon's LJ was definitely a fluke. I suggested Hayes' relay split might have been, too, but having since learned that a flying start is apparently worth well over one second in time, I'm inclined to say it wasn't a fluke--but that neither was it comparable to what Bolt routinely does. And I have specifically argued all along that Bolt's accomplishments are not, by this definition, flukes.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

enough already. In my opinion Usain Bolt is a PED abusing sprinter!

 

[D-Queued]

enough already. In my opinion Usain Bolt is a PED abusing sprinter!

Sheesh. An opinion like that and you would think you knew something about running.

Dave.

 

[python]

No actually the opposite.
snip

If you run on dirt tracks it forces you to learn your foot placement EXACTLY...snip... By running on primitive surfaces it forces you to be better
when you train on artificial surfaces .

this is an an interesting statement, as it draws parallels with training concerns in my primary sport - classic style cross country skiing (my body is too long to be either an efficient sprinter or a long-distance runner though i can boast a sub-3h marathon).

i train year round on roller skis and generally avoid 'striding' because the ratchet built-in into one of the wheels makes my push-off phase too easy thus not contributing to the development of the proper technique when on the real snow. this would seem similar to constant training by the elite runners on artificial surfaces ? (note the '?') but i repeat, i don't know much about running. what i do know that just about all elite xc-skiers avoid 'striding' when training on roller skis b/c of the concerns i described above.

 

[Cloxxki]

this is an an interesting statement, as it draws parallels with training concerns in my primary sport - classic style cross country skiing (my body is too long to be either an efficient sprinter or a long-distance runner though i can boast a sub-3h marathon).

How much taller than Bolt are you then? I bet they told that kid he was too tall, too.
They told me I was too tall to be a decent climber in XC. At my level of racing, I was at one stage the fastest of all, on the steepest hills, in the 26"wheel era. Heck, I had been a granny gear grinder as little as 1 or 2 seasons earlier. Some interval training all changed that. I made greater advancements clean that way, than dope ever brought anyone.
If you have the body, and you find your way, you can do things previously thought impossible.
I'm making the switch to skate-skiing btw, to complete a goiod wintertri one day, despite having been the anti-runner (physically) all my life. Down to an 18min 5k now, and heading towards 16min.

 

[python]

How much taller than Bolt are you then?

gee, your question made me google bolt's physique (honestly, i had no idea before).amazingly, it turns out we're the same height but he's 20 kgs heavier.
another of my preconceptions about running just got shattered by you, 'bad-man' cloxxi

I bet they told that kid he was too tall, too.

that's exactly what i was told. But i don't want to make this fascinating thread about me, you or the xc-skiing.

i like this thread. carry on carrying on, folks