Just as an exercise for my own edification I decided to graph 25 female 100m performances ranging from 10.70 - 11.98 for which I had official splits.
The graph shows the percentage of total time spent in each of three segments.
0-30m
30-60m
60-100m
As you can see, the 0-30m and 60-100m segments vary as a portion of the 25 athlete’s races, but the 30-60m is a much straighter line.
The 30-60m segment averages out to 26.34% of the race across all of these performance levels. Its very constant and its very much dependent on SPEED!
There can be fluctuations at all advanced performance levels in acceleration and endurance but the most constant is speed.
So, multiplying your 30-60 segment by 3.8 will tell you fairly reliably what you are capable of in the 100m. Note that these performance levels are from 10.70-11.99, which indicates a reasonably advanced athlete. Note that an 11.99 female performance is ~ 10.70 male level.
Wow! Pretty good isn’t it
Some of the variables can be explained by reaction time but its certainly a great guide! I wasn’t sure how it would relate at the pointy end of freaky performances, but 1988 aside it seems pretty damn close!
Its interesting that the top two lines are to some extent mirror image, which of course you would expect due to the fairly flat 30-60 line.
I’ve since created a model in Excel that calculates your hundred time based on the 0-30 and 30-60 splits taking into account training v competition. As Mario said, it does help to identify which area of the race is most lacking.
Pierre-Jean has also been most helpful in sending me some of his figures (and ideas). The most remarkable of which was an average of 164 races that proved the calculation to be accurate.
Note the superiority of the 2.53 split- then consider the effect of the new tracks on the 0 to 30 times- prob pushing .10 for some, and Ben theoretical time isn’t so far off, is it? Ben is superior to anyone all-time by .06 in 30% of the race, and what do you gain over the finish when you havn’t lost energy over the first 30m (that wasn’t returned to you during the time you were in contact with the surface)?
Note the superiority of the 2.53 split- then consider the effect of the new tracks on the 0 to 30 times- prob pushing .10 for some, and Ben theoretical time isn’t so far off, is it? Ben is superior to anyone all-time by .06 in 30% of the race, and what do you gain over the finish when you havn’t lost energy over the first 30m (that wasn’t returned to you during the time you were in contact with the surface)?
Given that the debate concerns dcw23’s 3.8 times 30-60m split, his theory provides a fairly accurate guide that does explain most times. His theory would apply to all types of tracks. I have previously acknowledged the merits of the theory and the fact that Johnson would have run faster if he had not slowed down.
The new track differentials are concentrated in the first 30m segment of the race, where the athlete lands behind the CG and, thus, the breaking losses from landing slightly ahead of the CG, which occur later on, don’t mitigate the effects of the faster track return rate. I’m not suggesting that Ben’s 2.53 next segment would have been much faster, if at all.
The new track differentials are concentrated in the first 30m segment of the race, where the athlete lands behind the CG and, thus, the breaking losses from landing slightly ahead of the CG, which occur later on, don’t mitigate the effects of the faster track return rate. I’m not suggesting that Ben’s 2.53 next segment would have been much faster, if at all.
Charlie, if this is the case, then Johnson would have run 9.6 somthing.
So you are saying that dcw23’s therory may vary between older and new types (mondo) of synthetic tracks as all 100m times pre-1991 will have to be altered because of the first 30m?
