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).
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.
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
You have changed a hand timed formula that has worked reasonably well for hundreds of athletes over a lifetime, working backwards to coincide with what Bolt has run versus what he could run optimally.
I am certainly not the only experienced coach who is convinced he can go much faster over 200m.
If your theory worked, MJ would have run 19.96 at best.
I think conversions are a crapshoot and speculation is sketchy (especially when you’re talking about a talent as mercurial as Bolt)
but there was a reasonable headwind
and it looks like the rounds really cut into the last 50 of that race.
I don’t see why a sub19 on that race is so wild a counterfactual, if we imagine away a few of the factuals.
There’s no real precision (and I can’t stand the bold statements of the kind “This was a 9.611256 BASIC!!!”) in this but if we’re just talking about a range, 19.0 doesn’t seem so out of the question.
I just did a quick and dirty, back of the envelope analysis on the relationship between the 100m and 200m using the top 250 100m/200m/400m athletes of all time and came up with:
This gave Bolt 19.24 based on 9.58 and 19.34 based on a 9.62
Tyson: 19.54 based on 9.71 and 19.67 based on 9.77
Obikwelu: 19.85 based on 9.86
And my own PB within 1/100th of a second.
It predicts that Bolt would require a 9.48 to break 19 seconds.
The model goes out the window, when you look at guys that were predominantly 100m runners and only occasionally ran the 200m (over estimate) or vice versa (under estimate), this could be because they never maximised potential in one or the other.
Before I cop a heap of crap for this and get smart alec remarks about a correlation between the number of bolt and his reaction time - I know it’s rubbish, but its a bit of fun and least this one doesn’t pretend to be deterministic.
The problem comes in when we try to forsee what’s possible versus what people usually get, especially when execution is less than perfect- something even Bolt brought up today.
We already know what everyone’s done so far.
i stand by my prediction of sub 19 as possible this year.
Maurice green
9.79 - 19.86 double his best 100m = 19.58 add 0.28
Ato boldon Double his best 100m = 9.885
19.77 – 9.86
shown crawford Double his best 100m = 19.76 add 0.12
19.79 – 9.88
tyson gay 19.58 double his best 100m = 19.42 then add 0.16
9.71
carl lewis double his best 100m = 19.72 then add 0.03
19.75 – 9.86
michael johnon double his best 100m = 20.12 – 0.8
19.32 – 10.09
wallace spearmon double his best 100m = 19.92 then take away 0.27
19.65 – 9.96
xavier carter double his best 100m = 20s then take away 0.37
19.63 – 10.00
Here are just a few examples of some athletes with 200 and 100m times.
MJ never really ran a 100m - his time is from 1994.
Wallace and Xavier - 0.27 and 0.37 Faster than doubled 100m are really the only indicators that one can run faster than doubled 100m times. And Maurice had the opposite factor!
Ato, Carl and Usain are almost smack dead on double.
If one had to predict an athletes 200m time, i would do the maths on the Individual - Otherwise, using the guys up above, we get a time ranging from
19.44 (maurices range)
to
18.36 (MJ’s Range)
or 19.16 (Carl n Ato n Usain current)
or 19.28 (crawford n gay)
or 18.76 (xavier)
or 18.89 (wallace) - Wallace is the only guy who’s MATH even comes close to the 0.24 formula. Xavier is almost but thats it.
Then like some have said, are xavier and wallace known to run the 100m as aften as the 200m???
The more one puts into the 100m, the more the difference becomes closer to simply Doubling 100m??
Like I said its just a quick and dirty prediction based on less than ideal data that I put together for a little bit of fun. The thing to keep in mind about statistical models, is that they are only as good as the assumptions made. Also the dependent variable, in this case 200m time, is only an expected value not a limit. I’m sure that if I put in a prediction interval, the range of times, (either side of the predicted value) it is likely to encompass would be wider than I would like to make an accurate forecast.
I don’t discount your sub 19 prediction, but then again I also wouldn’t discount an improvement in his 100m. With sufficient rest, this week must have provided some serious training stimulus.
The big question now is, where does bolt go from here? Other than breaking the 19 and 9.5 second barriers and continuing to lower his own WR each year and moving towards the frontier of post race clebrations, he has achieved almost everything on offer to him and the 100m and 200m. Will Bolt get bored and move up any time soon?
Bolt was relatively fresh in Berlin for the 100 but not for the 200.
If Boldwarrior is right, Bolt won’t go under 19 till he breaks the 100 significantly. If I’m right, he will. We’ll have to wait and see.
All Bolt needs now is 1x200m at a grand prix meet with 1.5-1.9 tail wind and being really inspired to run flat out. Not only he would go sub 19 he would run in 18.65-18.85 range.
That’s assuming the rounds only have a negative effect on performance. No doubt they have a negative net affect, but there may also be positives that mean it’s not as pronounced as it otherwise may be.
It worth noting the last 5 WRs have been run under championship conditions with the last 3 the athlete has doubled.