# 100m Distribution Chart

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.

I see embedded images have been disabled. Hmmmm. Certainly detracts from the quality of that post. Oh well.

If you’re a woman or for both males and females?

Definitely top speed is the most important factor for predicting times on potential.

Based on 3.8 times 30-60m:

Flo Jo in 1988 ran 2.8 from 30 to 60 which equals 10.64 (she ran 10.54)

Ben Johnson in 1987 ran 2.58 which equals 9.80. He ran 9.83.

Greene in 1999 ran 2.58 as well.

Phipps in 1987 (women) ran 3.07 and ran 11.67. (your method is 11.66)

However, Ben Johnson ran 2.53 in 1988 which equates to 9.61.

You do state that your theory is more relevant to times slower than 10.70 and is based on women.

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!

Seems to be both but when I get some time I’ll test it against more male data of varying levels.

Even the 1988 figure of Ben Johnson is fairly close given that he was probably going to run 9.73 if he ran it right out.

More stats (dcw’s prediction from 3.8 times 30-60m in brackets).

Kenderis ran 2.68 for 30-60m during his 10.15 run (10.07) 2001 EC

Surin 1999 2.59 9.84 (9.84)

Thompson 1999 2.65 10.00 (10.07)

Greene 1997 2.6 9.86 (9.88)

Bailey 1997 2.58 9.90 (9.80)

Lewis 1991 2.58 9.86 (9.80)

Burell 1991 2.62 9.88 (9.95)

Christie 1988 2.58 9.97 (9.80)

That’s crazy!

Can someone explain how the graph works? im confused
thanx:)

This is really good. One can also use it to identify whether an athlete has a strong start / finish or vice versa.

Thanks for posting this!

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.

nice work

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)?

Well said!

-dr.sprint

By Charlie,

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.