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!
Okay Charlie, I’ll take the bait. What specifically is the difference between (Dwain/Tim/Mo) and Ben which makes them .13-.14 faster than Ben: shoes, track surface, training science, supplements, nutrition, etc.? That seems to be a huge leap. You must have a reason for such optimism.
First off, I don’t think the difference between Ben and the new group is anywhere near so large. First, if Ben had run through the line, he could have gone 9.72 to 9.73, second, on the new, faster tracks, and louder speaker systems in the blocks, Ben could have gained another.02. So now we’re looking at maybe 9.70, and if his career had not come to a screeching halt, he would have had several years to improve. Also, I’ve predicted a 9.68- it was Dwain who suggested 9.65.
Dear forum:
Remi is the one who told Dwain that he believes that a male sprinter has the potential to run 9.65 someday. Remi’s 9.65 projection did not include any altitude or wind factors. Charlie has previously stated that he thinks that
an athletes best wind aided time may possibly become their best non-wind aided time at some point in the future . Dwain did not come up with the number 9.65. Remi did, then said that Dwain may possibly be the one that could do it someday. Dwain did predict he may do
it in 2003, which was probably a mistake.
On another note, the word is that Maurice
strained the tendon that attaches the
calf muscle behind the knee. It is more
than just a muscle pull.
Dwain had a fairly bad injury with the
tendon behind the knee that attaches
to the hamstring. It was causing a lot of
pain and he could not train effectively for several weeks. His fitness was greatly affected from the loss of training time. He also was afraid to explode out of the blocks at the start of the race because he was unsure of the injury. He only had one day of blocks before the race. In simple terms, he was not really ready to run. Dwain said that he also felt very weak during the race for some reason.
I do agree with Charlie that athletes should always set goals, however it may
be best to keep them to themselves.
Especially when they are not prepared to
back their goals up with their performances.
YAY! 716 is back!
716- welcome back!
The point about wind-aided times is a good one. Whenever a time has been run- however it has been done- a neural imprint is made for all time. From that point forward, the difference to achieving the time under legal conditions is a matter of additional strength development only. (The wind doesn’t “push” the athlete, it reduces the amt of wind resistance that the athlete must overcome.)
Examples of this abound- notably Mo Green, who ran a windy 9.79 several years before achieving it under legal conditions. I don’t think it is any accident that the record time was the same down to the hundredth of a second.
The example of a 9.65 split scheme is designed with Dwain in mind because of his muscularity. The curve is very steep in the beginning, where it is likeliest that he could take advantage of his strength.
Has anyone reviewed this curve and does it seem to be reasonable? For a smaller athlete, I might project a slightly slower 60 on the way through ( but not much, as 6.32 would be about the slowest conceivable !) with a slightly faster finish. (We’re pretty far under the usual IAAF projections into the future here.
As for pressure, the trick is to keep it off yourself and ONTO the other guy. I’m sure Remi didn’t want to tell anyone yet!
…Maybe athletes should train in special wind tunnels?
LSU perhaps??
missed you 716! where have you been? any pictures?:sing:
So do you most of you think this is a false idea: that the male human body is capable of a certain time, and implying this is the absolute best it can physically achieve? I think Charlie’s wind-aided theory would disprove it because if for instance Dwain ran 9.65 he could improve upon it with a wind-aided performance, which would mean his muscles and nervous system are capable of running as fast as the wind-aided time minus the wind.
I’m not sure the equasion is totally open-ended. if someone legaly equals their WA time, it doen’t mean that they can then keep getting faster by finding additional Wa races forever. Their personal limit of frequency and stride length will eventually be reached.
Originally posted by Charlie Francis
First off, I don’t think the difference between Ben and the new group is anywhere near so large. First, if Ben had run through the line, he could have gone 9.72 to 9.73, second, on the new, faster tracks, and louder speaker systems in the blocks, Ben could have gained another.02. So now we’re looking at maybe 9.70, and if his career had not come to a screeching halt, he would have had several years to improve. Also, I’ve predicted a 9.68- it was Dwain who suggested 9.65.
Okay. Sounds good. I’d forgotten about Ben easing up et. al.
By the way, Charlie, I did not mean for my post earlier to seem accusatory…I was not thinking or typing clearly…I apologize.
No problem
I am not sure about how accurate this info is (please correct any errors) but it is interesting to compare to Charlie’s theoretical 9.65. If somebody were to run each of the fastest 10m splits ever plus a reaction of .12 it would add up to 9.67
I personally think that 9.65 might be possible but not by any of the current top sprinters. It would probably be done by an alien in a human’s body or something like that.
Best 10m Segments
0-10m 1.71 M. Greene '97, B. Johnson '87*, L. Burrell '91
D. Mitchell '91 (1.70 B. Johnson '88*)
10-20m 1.02 C. Lewis '87, B. Johnson '87*
20-30m 0.90 L. Burrell '91 (D. Bailey 0.91 '97)
30-40m 0.87 C. Lewis '87, D. Bailey '97, B. Johnson '87*,
(B. Johnson 0.86 '88)
40-50m 0.84 C. Lewis '91, (B. Johnson '88)
50-60m 0.83 C. Lewis '88 (B. Johnson '88)
60-70m 0.84 C. Lewis '91 (B. Johnson '88)
70-80m 0.83 C. Lewis '91
80-90m 0.85 C. Lewis '87
90-100m0.86 C. Lewis '87, '91
So all that is needed is an athlete with Ben Johnson’s start and Carl Lewis’s finish…not asking for much! 
Sorry to be a pain Akm100m but a number of those splits have been beaten.
Donovan bailey has a 0.82 60-70m(96)
There is also a 0.83 30-40m (according to Giness book of records who get the stats from I.A.F) recorded by Ben in 88.
Carl has a O.83 80-90m (88 oly final).
Ben, as mentioned on other threads has recorded a 0.81 split. Zurich.
With that in mind, plus looking at some of the times that have been run the last decade or so, bearing in mind the energy envelopes and race strategies for certain sprinters, I’m sure that a few of the split times you’ve mentioned may have been surpassed by as much as 2 hundredths each.
There are NO official splits from 1996 , so those are approximations. BTW, when you see that what has already been done- in complete and successful races- not spot samples as in BJ 1986- add up to 9.67, do you really think such times are that far away?
Goose1
No official 10m split times analysis were made for Donovan Bailey in Atlanta, just instantaneous speed curve by LAVEG.
See extracts from this analyse at:
http://www.chnsport.com/mainCesu.htm
Your info about Oly’88 final are wrong.
According to IAAF Scientific Report, both Johnson and Lewis reached 0.83 10m section at 50-60m.
I don’t think that such times are that far away from a performance capacity point of view. I think that the bigger factors in when the first sub 9.7 happens will be wind reading, temperature, altitude, track surface etc. It seems almost everything has to be right for a world record. Tim was in lucky conditions when he ran 9.78 with his best ever reaction time on a geat surface. If this year he runs the same time again I would deffinately see it as an improvement, perhaps even allowing for his reported messed up start mechanics in that race.(I still haven’t seen that race.)
Calvin Smiths 9.93 altitude assisted record seemed to hang around for a long
time, I think, just over 4 years.