Where did you get these splits? My understanding was that there were no official splits taken in Edmonton. Someone may have pulled the info off of a video tape (estimates), but there was no calibrated equipment or high speed cameras sent up along the track to get accurate splits. I was there (in Edmonton) and saw no such setup (as there was in Seoul 1988).
There were also dubious wind readings in Edmonton. It was pretty windy and some strange readings were coming off of the guage. In many cases they reported -5m/s headwinds, when they were actually tailwinds.
Actually the Edmonton splits are from my Video-Tape Analysis of the race.
Pierre-jean has also taken 10m Splits of both Maurice Greene & Tim Montgomery within this race.
I have taken 10m splits of Maurice Greene, Tim Montgomery & Bernard Williams (the three medalists within the race) from a 25HZ Video-Tape.
The footage is good, and the speed is good. So I would say that the ‘error margin’ from my Video-Tape Analysis splits is +/-0.02s when comparing them to the Scientifically Recorded splits from Scientific Splits Research teams (1986 Moscow GWG, 1987 Roma WCH, 1988 Seoul OG, 1991 Tokyo WCH, 1993 Stuttgart WCH, 1997 Athens WCH, 1999 Sevilla WCH)
Although there were no ‘official’ splits recorded within 2001 Edmonton WCH, Peter Larsson’s ‘Algonet Statistics’ pages list estimate relay leg split times for both winning teams of the Men & Women’s 4x100m relays.
The splits given for Mo’s ex-WR of 9.79s from 1999 Athens GP II also come form my Video-Tape Analysis.
They are purely estimates, because of the fact that the marks on the track are unclear from my Video-Tape footage, they give unclear paralax of body positions at certain points on the track.
You can imagine that the moment of Mo’s injury was about 77 m and so he lost one hundrendth in 70-80 m split
How write above, split time are by video analysis and so…
The truth is that mo wasn’t lucky with the perfect race
Your’e right, no split times were recording for that race unfortunately. All numbers are just estimations from videotapes analysis.
re-4x100m splits in Edmonton, Peter Larsson asked me if he could use the data i posted while ago on the IAAF forum, i said they were just estimations, but he still used it on his all-time list.
The 10m split times are usually inaccurate, even for Tokyo’91 100m analyse made by Japanese biomechanical team, the accuracy was 0.02 according to original paper.
That’s why systematic analysis in GDR or USSR used only 30m, 60m and 80m splits to analyse 100m.
Pierre-jean what you said about Tokyo WCH-91 about the inaccuracy makes sense to me.
I mean, the 10m splits of Dennis Mitchell’s 9.91s seem ‘correct’, as they are progressive and show nearly not as many ‘peaks’ and ‘troughs’.Much the same for Carl Lewis’ splits.
However it just seems strange how Leory Burrell can run so many ‘uneven’ 10m splits during his last 50m;
50-60m: 0.86s
60-70m: 0.87s (+0.01s)
70-80m: 0.84s (-0.03s!)
80-90m: 0.89s (+0.05s!)
90-100m: 0.87s (-0.02s)
We all know the track was illegally hard but c’mon!
There were no official split times in Atlanta '96.
However, both Pierre-jean and I have taken splits of Donovan Bailey’s ex-WR 9.84s. Our splits give different views of Donovan’s race though;
PJ’s splits (translated from the speeds given for Donovan by the Swatch Timing speed curve):
What was the difference in Mo’s reaction time as opposed to Tim’s? I realize that Tim had false started but did it greatly impair or inhibit his subsequent start? If anyone has the splts for this race for Tim it would be greatly appreciated so that 10, 20 and 30m comparisons would be possible.
Check the film and you’ll see that Tim was left far behind as he had to hold back. Remember, this was still the old (and better) rules, where a false start only affected the perpetrator and left the rest of the field untouched.
No splits were officially taken at Edmonton. I was there - I saw the setup. These must have been pulled off a video tape and, hence, aren’t accurate. Seoul in 1988 had a technical team pulling off precise splits from the performances (i.e. high speed cameras with proper sight lines and calibration). This was also done in 1997 at the World Championships in Athens (there is a publication available through the IAAF for these results - I have a copy).
Be very careful when quoting splits. Once in a while the IAAF will take accurate splits with proper equipment. Not since 1997 though.
I have frequently read and heard it stated by “experts” as well as Donovan himself that he achieved the highest top speed in history. Why is this being stated? Both Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson have achieved official .83’s. Sincethis time Tim and Mo have achieved .83s with Mo having hit a .82 in Sydney. I believe that Ben has also reached a .81 somewhere. Zurich?
i think Maurice Greene would be better if he didnt have the injury in edmonton this man ran 9.82 pulling his injurede leg :mad: if he didnt have this injury he would be running this race in 9.75 sec
Mo might have ran 9.75, but if you’re going to speculate then you have to accept that Ben also would have ran significantly faster in Soeul if he had not eased up, and on today’s harder tracks.
I think the Edmonton injury was much worse than anyone cared to admit and I’m sure it limited him afterwards- and, I suspect, his better results this year were the result of John modifying his start to take the pressure off the tendon.
Charlie, I have heard many hypotheses on what Mo could have achieved had he not gotten injured at 80m but I do not ever recall you having offered an opinion on this item (although you have commented on other aspects of the race). I am also aware that you felt Tim could have won with an uninhibited start. What do you think was possible barring injury and how do you think this race ranks historically?
The problem is I don’t know officially what the splits were but for sure Mo had to slow down once injured and it had to be worth at least 2 or 3 hundredths. Also I know Tim was left behind at the start and moved well in the late stages. The track and atmospheric conditions were as good as it gets. (Edmonton is fairly high and dry- but below the altitude limit of 1000m.) If Mo had been able to finish and if Tim had a good start, they could have pushed each other to a time we havn’t seen yet- and it’s no sure thing who would have won.
Donovan’s claims are based upon laveg readings that were taken on all the athletes during the race (not a 10m split time) which is a legitimate way of measuring top speed. However it is not an accurate meathod of comparison of top speed (although is a far more accurate meathod of determining) with other top athletes who’s top speeds were based upon a 10m average.