A congrats to Aziz aswell!! Finally a member of the Sub 10 club!!Well done dude!!!
wow he totally destroyed the feild!
I was doubting him before but that was just an incredible run. He is the real deal.
Anyone have any comments regarding his lack of hip extension and poor mechanics this time?
Didn’t think so…
On a positive note, I would like to comment on his relaxation. I think he was trying too hard, and I think he has a lot more to give still when he can relax.
And i think it will be frightening when he does! If he can run 9.77 reasonably tense then what will he run when he’s running relaxed??
:eek: :eek: :eek:
No2 i slowed it down and he looks better.all i can say is WOW!!!
i don’t think anybody ever doubted the man breaking the WR and i think it will get faster again this year
I did my homework tonight…
Intermediate times at 30, 60, 80m
3.83, 6.39, 8.07, 9.77. A pair of 0.85 in the last 20m. The gains are more to expects in the start and transition phase even if the transition was better than in Ostrava 9.85 (where i timed him in 6.42 at 60m).
Congratulations for Asafa for this great WR. Becareful, you’ll be the rabbit now and most of people won’t be ready until 7 August and pop up like Jacks in the box!
I’m surprised that Tim M is surprised by the WR, did he followed sprints in 2005? However, he didn’t trash talked so his reaction was smart.
PJ - where are you getting the splits? I see no visible marks or reference points on the track from which to eyeball the intermediate times (30, 60, 80m) - at least from the clips posted. Is the meet providing the splits?
I know that there was ‘accurate’ interval timing at Seoul in 1988 and at Athens in 1997WC, but it is rare to have at meets. There was talk of Donovan Bailey’s splits and top speed at Atlanta in 1996, but there was no set-up for this. How do video extracted times compare?
6.39 at 60m seems slow for 9.77
yeah i agreed!
I wish I put some money on it after watching Ostrava live!:
Actually there were visible marks in the track, in Athens track case that’s the women’s hurdles mark (each 8.5m). The analysis i will post soon on the biomechanics section will be a calculation from intermediate times at 10m (this is the relay en zone, but it’s usually a little before 10m because the bend is 116m long, if it was 100m, the relay en zone would match the 10m point on the straigth, this is only the case in some US tracks like Boise if i’m not mistaken), 21.5m, 30m, 38.5m, 47m, 55.5m, 64m, 72.5m, 81m, 90m. Time code are also taken at each step to calculate step frequency. Average frequency for 10m sections are derived. And the product of speed and frequency gives stride length. Stride length is then checked with the number of steps between each 8.5m sections. I’ve checked this method with the IAAF analysis and found pretty similar results. The difference is i get much more accurate data for frequency, since published analysis derive frequency from speed and number of steps (usually counting number of steps gives you only vague data, like 4.1 steps in 10m section is 2.44m, 4.0 gives 2.50m, 3.9 gives 2.56m, etc, and then they derive frequency from these innacurate stride lentgh… On the other hand my procedure starts with frequency at each step which takes much longer times but gives satisfying results.
Concerning the past analysis i talk about this here: