What’s really important is what this converts to in terms of a BASIC performance;).
He was definitely tired IMO. I want to see the splits on this one. I think he was faster by quite a bit on the turn than his 9.96 in Beijing because he literally ate up the stagger on Edward in 5 steps but faded a bit on the straight. Surely no one can doubt he’s ready for the 18s with some rest.
The difficulty is that wind can come from multiple directions at most tracks, so big stadiums like this where most of it is blocked out are the best chance to combine conditions with readiness.
What meets are there 10 to 14 days from now? Will he give himself a chance to rest up or is it straight into the circuit?
Maybe his 250,000 fee will enforce a bit of rest. We’ll see.
Never mind that, he’s got the relay to deal with now!
Reaction time 0.133. Def. tired. I have no doubt that he can and will go under 19.00
Interesting twitch in the blocks by Bolt in the first false start.
If you remove Bolt from that final, it is still a respectable 200m final.
As the IAAF report says “Bolt’s winning time - 19.19* - looks more like a grandparent’s year of birth than a time for the 200m…” LOL!
.11 off both of his previous world records in the 100m/200m
“In numerology the number 11 is a Master Number – ‘Master’ meaning it is of intense/high vibrational frequency and works within the etherical, magical and transcendental realms of creation. Master numbers possess great potential for learning and growth, and can bring major transformations in life.”
Major transformations such as shattering your own world records and, once again, stretching the perception of human performance limits.
Take it up with the self-appointed experts in such matters. They don’t reside here!
Formula for 200m using 0.24 reaction might be a bit old since we can have Electronic Timing for reaction times now.
Best reaction of his meet 0.13
100m of 9.58 - 0.13 = 9.45
9.45 * 2 = 18.9
18.9 + 0.13 = 19.03 as his current fastest (without so many other runs before hand)
The 0.24s reaction time is for the time keeper (who reacts to a visual stimulus), not the athlete.
Thats my point - we now use Electronic timing, and hence the “0.24” needs to be updated to what Electronic time the Said athlete can achieve in a reaction.
Glad he was tired. I thought I noticed a drop in stride with about 15-20 to go. It suggested he was slowing down but he didn’t. It wasonly one stride.
Awesome athlete. What would happen if he did 1 event ala Grand Prix, with the records. I am thinking the how low could he go.
Awesome…
His start and pick up were incredible. There don’t appear to be any weak links in his race now.
0.24s is the standard differential between a hand-timed and an electronically timed performance. It is based on how fast the time keeper can react to seeing the smoke of the starting gun, and has nothing to do with the athlete’s reaction.
The formula 200m time = 2x100m time was deveoped when hand-timing was standard. If we assume that this formula is correct, we have to adjust electrically timed performances to hand-timed performances, then double them (for a 100m time) or half them (for a 200m time) and then adjust them back to an electrically timed performances: 2x(9.58-0.24)+0.24 = 18.92 (or simplified: 2x9.58-0.24 = 18.92).
BTW: Bolt’s reaction time for his 9.58 was 0.146.
It’s simpler to double the ‘full’ time and then take away the RT. Sorry, the pedant in me couldn’t resist!
That’s got nothing to do with how the hand time rule was set. I’d keep it at .24 to convert.
The fantastic sprinting by Bolt, particularly over the last 15-16 months, brings up a question for me with regards to his talent vs. his training methods.
While it goes without saying that he is likely the greatest sprint talent ever (I know this is just a bit of an understatement!) how much of his success would we say came about from the methods employed to develop his abilities?
While we know he is a phenom, how much credit do we give to the methods Mills uses vs. the training methods of other world class sprint coaches/athletes.
Knowing this is just a guess/opinion for us all, I’d be interested to know if most here believe that his performances are due largely to the freak factor many would likely assign to Bolt or if this is, in large part,a demonstration or expression of training methods which are superior to most others employed at the world class level. I would guess it must be some of both factors.
I recorded the race and froze it when bolt is at the 100 the clock frame says 9.5 taking into account delay its gotta be between that and 9.8
So in other words - its a Crock anyway you look at it. Old timing methods folding into new timing methods…
The Best maths would be to look at the Current BASIC times.
Beijing = 9.69 x 2 = 19.38 - however, we know he slowed down in the 100m, so a 19.30 would be about right.
Berlin = 9.58 x 2 = 19.16 (pretty darn close)
This is what we know he can and has run. Usains maths is simple - double the current 100m.
Im sorry, but all this talk about Predicting a sub 19sec run, is akin to talking about a 9.58 with a 2mtr tail wind, raced in altitude, raced on a B track instead of a A track, wearing a new swimming suit and running a 9.42…
Not saying a sub 19 wont be done, but Usains 200m Maths is in - double his current 100m
before 2007 Usain had some troubles with injuries and he had a plateau of performance
he is a freak of nature but he had (with his new coach, Mills) change his plane of training