This is an interesting read.
that is a very interesting and well doen article. not sure about 9.48 in 500yrs… i think that will happen sooner. Faster tracks, more people in the know about training methods, more natural selection evolution and more tech advances will make it easier… now all we need is for high school coaches to learn how to coach!!! (not implied for all!!)
I firmly believe that someone will run much faster than 9.48 within the next 100 years. It must be remembered that technology triples every year and one very strong mouse in the basement of the University of Pennsylvania may be the catalyst for freak performances. Dwain saying he’s going to run 9.65 and Shawn saying he’s going to run sub 19 may very well happen.
The most obvious flaw in this formula (besides re-writing history) is the lack of understanding of the impact of electronic timing- a minimum of .24sec slower than hand timing. The next problem is figuring out the real impact of track changes, from dirt to grasstex (asfalt) to Tartan, to Mondo, to generation 2 Mondo, and, of course, the impact of starting blocks in the 1930s, and the introduction of wind limits at 2mps (year?). Sometimes I think we ought to store the “researchers” in the basement along with the mouse.
Originally posted by Vincente
I firmly believe that someone will run much faster than 9.48 within the next 100 years. It must be remembered that technology triples every year and one very strong mouse in the basement of the University of Pennsylvania may be the catalyst for freak performances. Dwain saying he’s going to run 9.65 and Shawn saying he’s going to run sub 19 may very well happen.
I woulld hardly call IGF-1 a wonder drug that will increase human performances to an absolutely incredible level! Besides, I’m going to run that time in 10 yrs!!
Charlie, what would some splits on a race like this look like?
Prophet,
Good luck.
We looked at splits for a 9.65 a while back, under the Dwain Chambers thread. Lets start there. Re-post them here and then let’s play!
I have a homework assignment for someone. How about looking at the AVERAGES of the top 10 and top 20 and how they’ve changed since 1990 (last year before the super-tracks, first used in Tokyo 1991). Maybe we can determine a possible track (and speaker volume) improvement value.
Actually Fast dude, I believe that future times hinge more on the development of our youth in the sport . But the bigger problem is what happens at the university level. that is where the coaching stops. At least in the U.S. We need for our university coaches to attend more clinics, look more into the science, and adopt broader philosophies. Actually some of the best coaches in the sport are age group and high school coaches.
For times to drop in chucks (under same conditions i.e. shoes, track, wind) I don’t think that decreasing the standard splits will work. What I mean is that the ratio will have to change.
Take the standard model (acceleration, top speed, and speed endurance). From a standing start, a grizzly can run 100 metres over rough terrain in just over 6 seconds. Yet it’s top speed is only slightly better than a man (Top speed over 50 kilometres per hour (30 m.p.h.) for a short distance vs. 28m.p.h. for man). Thus a bear has similar top seed and speed endurance to a man but much better acceleration. So for man to improve in leaps and bounds he would need to drastically improve his acceleration. Thus the resulting splits would be slued from the standard in favour of acceleration.
For the facts I used:
http://www.nfb.ca/grizzly/bear.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/athletics/features/newsid_2116000/2116175.stm
Just my ramblings.
Here they are! Privateer, the only problem with that logic is bears have 4 legs.
Originally posted by Charlie Francis
Just for fun, I’m going to post a set of theoretical split times for a 9.65. Everybody can compare their own splits in the privacy of their own homes. Pierrejean, can you provide Dwains splits from his Paris run?
R/T .12
10m - 1.81 - 1.69
20m - 2.85 - 1.03
30m - 3.77 - 0.92
40m - 4.63 - 0.86
50m - 5.47 - 0.84
60m - 6.30 - 0.83
70m - 7.12 - 0.82
80m - 7.95 - 0.83
90m - 8.79 - 0.84
100m 9.65 - 0.86
These are the cards gentlemen.
Reed em and weep!
prophet:
Tim MONTGOMERY
RT 0.104
10m 1.85 1.74
20m 2.91 1.06
30m 3.82 0.91
40m 4.70 0.88
50m 5.54 0.84
60m 6.37 0.83
70m 7.21 0.84
80m 8.05 0.84
90m 8.90 0.85
100m 9.78 0.88
Dwain CHAMBERS
RT 0.140
10m 1.89 1.75
20m 2.92 1.03
30m 3.84 0.92
40m 4.72 0.88
50m 5.57 0.85
60m 6.41 0.84
70m 7.26 0.85
80m 8.11 0.88
90m 8.98 0.87
100m 9.87 0.89
Model for a 9.48 For those of you who are either incredibly talented- or incredibly delusional!
R/T 1.1
10m 1.79 1.68
20m 2.80 1.01
30m 3.70 0.90
40m 4.55 0.85
50m 5.38 0.83
60m 6.19 0.81
70m 6.99 0.80
80m 7.80 0.81
90m 8.63 0.83
100m 9.48 0.85
Any other models?
well, I’m delusional… what would the stride freq be for a 9.48?
Muscle man- I do agree that some of the best coaches are in high school, however, there is no money for hs programs, at least not the ones i have encountered. There are too many kids, not enough coaches and the whole thing looks like a babysitting job from he**. Coaching in high school often entails the coaches making the young kids run long on the track (shin splints) or into lactate too often (breaking down their bodies). they deny speed and weights (even playful weights ie. “throw this as far as you can!”) College coaches also need to pull their heads from their nether regions and drop the pride. too many of them look to their once upon a great time ago athlete and say “it worked for him!” well that great and all, but it won’t necessarily work for me of the next guy/gal. I say revamp the whole system, ground up. problem being one tha Charlie has referred to in talking about massage, if they figure out the best way to coach the kids, that means they actually have to put forth the effort!!! -fastdude
Re 9.48
We’ve probably already seen the required frequency and the stride length- just not together! The model I’ve shown shows the greatest change from today at the initial stages of the race, with a progression for the rest of the race not much beyond what we’ve seen in various races already. My reasoning is that the greater strength required for all aspects of the race will have the biggest impact on the start.
prophet
My point was that acceleration would have to improve to a much greater extent then top speed or speed endurance.
2, 4, 6, 8, 100, 1000 legs its still running.
500 years technology wise is like an eternity, if there is still a planet earth and an event called the 100m dash in 500 years i would bet every last penny the WR would be below that.
Originally posted by The Privateer
prophetMy point was that acceleration would have to improve to a much greater extent then top speed or speed endurance.
2, 4, 6, 8, 100, 1000 legs its still running.
ok, my bad, I misinterpreted you.
Charlie… so is the “answer” to the equation acceleration work and consistency? more strength work (to a point… diminishing returns). I guess this is going to be the fun part! seeing how it all falls into place, I hope we are all a part of it
some may call me sad but here i am all alone on my birthday with a calculator doing homework for charlie ( as i said on another post he is my god!!)
earlier in this post charlie asked someone to check out the averages of the top 10 and 20 performances over 100m since 1990…
so here goes…
year, top 10 performances;top 20 performances
1990; 10.014;10.0435
1991;9.918;9.962
1992;9.985;10.026
1993;9.964;9.9965
1994;9.943;9.969
1995;9.991;10.0155
1996;9.897;9.9235
1997;9.893;9.9105
1998;9.895;9.921
1999;9.862;9.91
2000;9.933;9.964
2001;9.89;9.933
2002;9.909;9.939
There’s something going on with the trend in 1995/2000 (well not sure if it would hold up under the scrutiny of academics as a statistical anomoly) maybe due to the unfavourable conditions at WC95/OG00 … what does everyone think?
The top averages data is interesting - and the anomaly around 1998 hints at a bottoming-out to the improvement. From a statistical (maths) perspective, it looks almost an each-way bet whether it’s an error or not to assume it’s bottomed.
But with such a small data set it’s hard to be conclusive.
See update to http://members.optusnet.com.au/kpduffy/sprintlogistic.htm for details.
Any good ideas that could explain a bottoming-out ?
Is Optimists’ data from an unreliable source ?