Mo in edmonton was marvellous. Ok, we cannot know what was the exact split but we only know that he ran the last 9 steps with only one leg. in this phase tim halved his gap. maybe the real time for mo in that race was 9"77- 9"78 but not 9"73 as splits above suggest
… mo is the greater 100 m sprinter of the history
greeting,
valerio
I remember watching everyone in Edmonton and thinking, wow, alot of sprinters are just running very fast these days. Then, in 2003, 2 years later, no one is breaking 10 seconds. I then remember how in Edmonton MO would take around 44 steps to complete the 100m where as his normal was 45.5 steps.
The same applied to other runners, so even though all the runners in Edmonton ran awsome times, the bounciness of the track may have alot to do with it. It’s awsome to see 9.82 into a .2 head wind and hobbling for the last 20m, and it’s also awsome to see 9.79 from BJ easing up the last 20 meters, but the track surface itself must have a major impact on the times for it doesnt make sence that all 5 runners who broke 10 seconds in the quaters can not come near it now … Coinsidence is just a scientific anomoly.
Having said all that, it’s awsome to think that if greene (or any man) can replicate greenes first 70m in edmonoton, and instead of running .86, .89 and .91 then run .83, .83 and .83, that this person would run 9.65. I’d love to see that.
Interesting analysis- especially as Mo had the exact same reaction time as Ben did in Seoul. Mo’s early accel was .05sec faster up to 30m- in part due to the new, harder track surfaces (in the early stages, the foot lands behind the C/G, so that all the benefit of the faster return is available. Later in the race, in the upright position, some of the benefit is lost due to the harder contact ahead of the C/G and the times evened out and were identical at 50m, 60m, and 80m.
Remember also that Edmonton is at partial altitude, which, along with the superior track would explain the overall averages among the top sprinters.
Don’t be too sure that the lesser no of steps was a result of the faster part of the race. I would suspect that the longer steps occurred after the injury, up to the line. The only way to check your conclusion would be to check the step numbers for everyone.
can we quantify tha advantage of a surface vs another one?
valerio
It’s tough to quantify but we can know the relative difference if we know the hardness number (the lower the number- the harder the surface and thus the faster the surface returns from compression. A soft track may well continue to return its energy after the sprinter’s foot has already left the ground, robbing him of power. The standard for the IAAf was to have tracks running between 28 (hardest) to 80 (softest). Seoul was around a 32, The track for the 1991 WCs in Tokyo went totally outside the specs with a 13. This yielded a rash of PBs at the highest levels. This wasn’t lost on the IAAF and so the Olympic track in Atlanta came in at an 11. We all know about the results there.
As well, the volume of the speakers was enhanced, which improved R/Ts.
This brings up another issue about starts. Did the louder stimulus enhance R/Ts alone or did it also intensify tha average FORCE applied to the blocks??? This is a very important question, since everyone knows how badly times went on average in the mens 100m this year and the sprinters are attributing it to the ridiculuous new starting rule. The powers that be will review the R/Ts and suggest that they appear to be unaffected. BUT, while the R/T is one thing, the FORCE applied is another. When the sprinters are tentative in the blocks, the force applied will be greatly reduced and times will be affected. A review of the 10, 20, and 30m splits, as well as R/Ts may tell the story. It is an insane rule, made up by people with no understanding of sprinting to placate an equally ignorant TV medium.
When you give in to the media, look for 9AM starting times for Olympic finals, 15m breaks between semis and finals (don’t laugh, that happened in Canada, destroying Bruny Surin’s career),15min pauses at the blocks to allow for special bulletins- “This just in…”
Question about the 30m starts in practice. How siginificant are they in determining speed. I have worked on these and was able to run them in 3.6 out of the block on first movement. Does this really mean that I would be ready to run a decent 100m time or is it totaly meaningless?
Thanks!
Hand times are recorded in so many different ways it’s very hard to compare. You’ll need to run some races and compare your hand times to your race results.
Thanks! I Appreciate the feed back.
today, i re- watched this race but i think Mo did 45.5 steps.
valerio
Mo’s standard was 45.5 steps, but there were some races in Edmonton where he had 44-44.5 steps (check out the 9.88 quater final where he eased up with 15m to go). The year before, in the trials for the Sydney games he also had a race, easing up with 30m to go, running 10 flat, where he took 44-44.5 steps. I step is a huge difference when steps are usually very consistent when a runner is at his best. But like CF said, this may not account for the increase in the time of the race.
A runner would have to know how to cope with a surface which can give him such an increase in stride length for he will either go out of control, get hurt or be able to propel himself with the same cadence, but with 1 inch more length with each step. Then again, after seeing how most of the 1988 finalists took between 43.6 and 45.7 steps, where as Ben took 46.5 (and won by the better part of .14), stride length may be a distance second to cadence.
In QF at edmonton there was a strong wind, very strong
valerio
When the sprinters are tentative in the blocks, the force applied will be greatly reduced and times will be affected.
EXACTLY! I’m glad I’m not the only one that though this. With women, the starting force is less of a component in their race and as such the times aren’t as affected to the same extent.
Also, the exit from the blocks affects the ENTIRE race model. If the start is not powerful enough, more energy will be expended to compensate for the inferior starting angle and this is bound to affect the entire race.
The QF wind was strongly behind- but was originally called a headwind as they’d set up the wind-meter backwards!
Let me get this straight, the standard for the IAAF was to have tracks running between 28(hardest) to 80(softest).
And the Tokyo track was a 13 and the Atlanta track was an 11!!! LMAO!!! 
I’m sorry that’s just very funny to me.
What if Ben had run in Tokyo when he was in ‘his’ 9.79s form???
Well it’s safe to say that his 9.79s(easing up at around 90m, but actually celebrating at 97m) is worth 9.75s, from my reasons in the brackets.
If he ran on the Tokyo track I believe he could of run around 9.65-9.70s.
And If he had ever run on the Atlanta surface ,well what can I say??? 9.60-9.65s for 100m???
The best way to judge is to look at the margin Ben had and try to extrapolate it onto the Tokyo field (with BJ running right through to the finish).
Every race has own story
valerio
I always thought that to be at your best you always tried to race the fastest guy(still staying relaxed of course). This would mean that Ben would start a couple of metres behind everyone else so that he would have some competition. Also, did Ben always run by himself in practice? If not when did he start? Finally, did other sprinters use the same method, i.e. Angela Issanjenko?
ive got a qs abouts ben type of training, in order to run a superb 14.00 in the 150m in training does it mean u need to do a lot of 200s and 250s in sessions to achieve that endurance or is it all out of his power??
its interesting as well to see that other similar power sprinters like surin for eg only ran arounds low 21s in the 200 when he ran 10.0s in the 100m?? i remember he also sayin that his trainig was only specific to the 100m, only five years later on when he ran his 9.84 he ran a 20.4 (arounds that) for the 200m! does this mean he HAD to do longer sprints in his sessions to achieve that or was that still out of his 100m power and endurance??
if ben was to do longer sprints in his sessions (thats if he didnt) would he have been a world class in the 200m as well? or is that a completely different issue!
2)again, probably the latter… the faster you are, the more time you have to “fall off” the pace. considering the difference between 10 and sub 10 represents an enormus improvement, i’d say the 200m improvement was logical.
Ben ran 14.0 in training in the 150 from first motion, which would equal about 14.65 out of blocks from the gun.
He might have developed into more of a 200 runner and he might well have doubled in 1985 at the world cup but for poor pace judgement in the trials. Because he feared a headwind, he went out far too slowly on the curve, but ran up enough to miss the win by .01 to Da Silva, who won the WC as the single rep from the Americas. By 1986, he only ran a 200 (with the pay cut) when he was off form for the 100.
Hard to say if he ever would have been the best at 200m, though I doubt he was suited to it.
He did run other distances in training at top speed, occasionally out to 200 after 1982, but before that he ran out to 300m Spec End