But I still ain’t seen the video! 
Everyone who has officially recorded a .83 had official 10m splits- of which a moment is the highest speed- obviously faster than the average over the 10m, has averaged 12.1 mps. DB’s fastest official 10m split averages 11.9 mps.
Charlie,
There is no bigger fan of you and Ben Johnson out there than I–I have been literally obsessed with his performances since I saw him in Seoul when I was 6. But I have to disagree with you about the superiority of Ben’s 9.79 to Mo’s 9.82. Edmonton, for me, represented a changing of the guard in sprint performances. It’s clear from the Edmonton footage (check the go-cam view) that Maurice began to limp at his 30th stride (60m), 15 full strides from the finish, and probably felt his injury for the first time at least a stride earlier. This means he ran 40 metres with one leg. When he pulled up at 60, he clearly had a metre on Tim and seemed to be pulling away. Tim was getting spanked, plain and simple.
Before 70m, Mo was ripping off .83s like nothing. Supposing .84, .85, .86 for the last 30m, a conservative guess considering this guy’s strength, you get 7.16+2.55= 9.71–more than just a few hundredths faster than his official 9.82.
Furthermore,I think it’s unfair to attribute Mo’s incredible first 30m to the track he was running on. Maurice pulled away from the best starters in world (Boldon, Collins) like they were standing still. Where was the track for them? Also, in all of the discussion comparing Seoul to Edmonton, there is little mention of the fact that Mo ran into a slight -0.2 wind while Ben had a rather favourable +1.1. Wouldn’t this at least mitigate any benefit he got in the first 30 from the track? And you can bet they fixed the wind gauge in Edmonton for the finals after the fiasco during the heats!
Number 2,
How can you say that we shouldn’t trust the splits because they were taken from tape analysis? Ben’s famous .81 from Zurich in 1986 (into a -1.3, mond you) was measured from film. Even if Mo’s time at 70m (7.16 to Ben’s 7.17) was off by a couple of hundredths–GIVE OR TAKE–he was still on his way to something very special. The data is extremely useful, even if it does say that Mo bested Ben!!
I agree. The edmonton race, in my opinion, represents the greatest 100m performance in history. I watch this race regularly to ingrain on my brain the technical virtuosity that Greene exhibits over the first 70 meters. By my calculations he would’ve been somewhere in the 9.74-9.76 range. Something like this:
Maurice Greene(USA) 1st place(Gold medal)-HYPOTHETICAL
RT:0.132s, Wind:-0.2m/s.
10m:1.83s (1.70s)
20m:2.83s (1.00s)
30m:3.75s (0.92s)
40m:4.64s (0.89s)
50m:5.50s (0.86s)
60m:6.33s (0.83s)
70m:7.16s (0.83s)
80m:8.02s (0.84s)
90m:8.91s (0.86s)
100m:9.82s(0.88s)
9.74
I actually got chills the first time I saw the slo mo of this race. Just incredible.
And let’s not forget Seville (9.80) or Sydney without conventional starting procedures and into a -0.3 headwind on a very chilly night. Check out this analysis:
http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/results/newsletter/200105/reaction_times.html
First off, No one is saying that Mo didn’t lose a great deal of time due to the injury- just as Ben lost a great deal of time easing off at 80m, and, if you accept Malcolm’s splits. both hit 5.50, 6.33, and 8.02 at 80, and the R/Ts are identical. The difference is to 30, which is due in large measure to the new harder surfaces.
FACTS:
1: The stats prove that the new tracks are much harder.
2: The harder surface yields an advantage and the majority of its advantage occurs when force delivery is behind the CG.- ie up to 30m
3: 30m times have inproved dramatically for the corporate average of top performances and all these changes have occurred since the introduction of the new super-tracks in Tokyo in 1991- exactly as the evidence suggests they should.
4: No one had ever come near Ben’s 3.80s in Rome and Seoul until the new tracks, when it became routine.
Mo records a 3.75 vs Ben’s 3.80 to 30m, exactly as a track advantage would suggest and Ben pulled back all of that advantage by 50m and remained the same to 80.
Are you suggesting that Ben would be the only sprinter NOT to benefit from the harder surface?
Ben had more wind behind but on a slower track in colder weather and without any altitude advantage (Edmonton is below 1000m but the advantage is significant at around 2000 ft)
I don’t suggest we should ignore tape analysis- often it’s all we have. Just specify how it was done- and not presented as it was in Atlanta.
Charlie,
You make a convincing argument for the benefit of harder surfaces. I was wondering if you could comment on a couple of points that I don’t quite understand.
-
Does the benefit derived from a particular surface depend in any part on the runner’s rhythm? Strength? Stride length? Foot size? Spike sole thickness? And if so, who’s to say any one surface yields universal improvement?
-
You say the major benefit occurs when the COG is in front of where force is produced. Maybe I’m missing something fundamental. Isn’t the point when COG is MOST ahead of contact also the point when contact is longest (i.e. longer contacts early on, shorter contacts later on)? At this point, compared to later in the race, wouldn’t a faster surface rebound actually help LESS instead of more, since max force occurs relatively later after the initial impulse? My feeling was that the most benefit from the faster rebound would come later on when contact was more brief and a faster return more necessary. In other words, the contact duration phases out early on, but phases in later. Please explain this phenomenon.
-
Is it really good analysis to “prove” the benefits of the new surfaces by empirical averages? Firstly, we aren’t dealing with many sprinters here. The splits we have to work with concern, with minor variation, the same players year in and year out–Seoul (Ben, Carl, Linford, Ray Stewart, Mitchell), Tokyo (Carl, Linford, Stewart, Mitchell) Athens (Mo), Seville (Mo), Edmonton (Mo). It seems to undermine the athletes’ efforts over a number of years make progress in such aspects of their race as the first 30 (probably inspired by Ben’s amazing start), not to mention advances in coaching inspired likely by your own methods, to give so much credit to a new surface and in such a specific part of the race. Maybe Ben’s amazing first 30 led to new training focuses. See point 2 to help me out here.
It’s kind of interesting that Linford’s PB from 1993 was run on one of the older surfaces and easily bested his peformances from '91 and '88 and with far less wind too (+0.1 compared to 1.1 and 1.2).
Lastly, you asked if I thought Ben would not see benefit from the harder surface. If in fact the harder surfaces yield faster performances, then–if the answer to 1 is in the negative–I’d expect Ben to see the benefit just like the others. This might well mean that Ben would have gone 3.75 in Seoul compared to 3.80 in Rome (much harder surface than Seoul). This would also mean Ben improved from '87 to '88 just as it appears Lewis, Christie, Ray Stewart, Mitchell, and the rest of the world improved throughout their own illustrious careers.
The benefits of a harder track are not so simple. While it is clear that more of the energy put into the track can be returned, which should help everywhere, there is another consideration (which we’ve touched on before on other threads). On footstrike ahead of the center of gravity in the full upright position, there are greater resistive forces to be tolerated, reducing some of the benefit that accrues after. This is not the case in the pure acceleration phase where the foot lands behind the CG. this is why the benefit is so clear in the first 30m and less clear later.
The hardness of the track is designated by number and the lower the harder. The IAAF originally specified that tracks were to be a compromise running from the hardest of 28 to the softest of 80- favourable for distance runners)
All the people you listed did improve from Tokyo on, as I pointed out. Rome was harder than Seoul (28 vs 32), but nowhere near as hard as Tokyo (13) and Atlanta (11)!
Charlie - What would you say would be the general time difference (within any 100m races) between each hardness of the track (example - the differene between 100m times of tracks of 28 & 29)???
Or it is impossible to calculate without some kind of long-winded formula? Thanks in advance
I couldn’t put a specific number on it, I can only look at results and you have other factors there as well, such as temperature, humidity, altitude, wind vector, etc. One example is Atlanta. Normally, such high temperatures would help the muscle movement on the one hand and soften the track underlayment on the other. BUT, the Atlanta track allowed for this in two ways: First a far harder underlayment (asphalt base) and Second a single hardness layer (the hardest) for the Mondo surface. Normally it comes with a harder and a slightly softer layer. This was covered in the archives somewhere by a track expert.
I have always found it difficult to truly compare certain runs due to the contrasting conditions and even environmental factors. But I must admit that both runs- Seoul 1988 and Edmonton 2001- were superb examples of human power, technique and athleticism. Although Edmonton is my “favorite” there has never been a track performance as chilling and reverberating as the 100m final in Korea.
I am wondering how similar Charlie’s coaching philosophies are to John’s and how much their time together in the early 80’s may have led to a mutual (or singular) influence? If i’m not mistaken HSI appears to spend an enormous amount of time on endurance. I heard that speed work isn’t emphasized until very very late in the season (all heresay though). If this is true (which I’m unsure of), is it due to certain pre-existing qualities of these (HSI) athletes-Mo, for example- or is it simply a reflection of John’s 400m background? Did not Ben shun work at and above 300m? Mo appears to have the same phenotype as Ben but undergoes what appears to be very dissimilar training? Do the two overlap?
Careful you don’t go visualizing his 21st step. Check it out! For some reason he pulls his right leg through nearly straight (recovers with ankle well below his support knee). Doesn’t seem to disrupt subsequent strides, but still kind of odd.
I remember seeing Merlene Ottey do this back in 1992 in her Olympic 100 quarterfinal against Torrence.
We just had a discussion about this elsewhere. Someone pointed to the same article about training that you did, but the observed facts fly in the face of the claims (ie, 3 x (60, 80, 100), 300 for months- not the last couple of weeks. Ask me and I’d say there are similarities in approach. Of course ask HSI and they’d claim they never heard of me. I met a Canadian who met John in 1993 and came back with the revelation that the secret to John’s program was deer-antler fuzz. No-one has some pre-existing quality that obviates the need for a good program.
When Eurosport did their feature on HSI during the 2003 season, it appeared that there was some emphasis with anaerobic alactic sessions during an early prep phase.
anyone have the vid of the race…so i can see it? or a link to where i can download it?
I have the video in real time and slo mo. But the clips are large; do you have the space?
From Charlie:
‘‘I couldn’t put a specific number on it, I can only look at results and you have other factors there as well, such as temperature, humidity, altitude, wind vector, etc. One example is Atlanta. Normally, such high temperatures would help the muscle movement on the one hand and soften the track underlayment on the other. BUT, the Atlanta track allowed for this in two ways: First a far harder underlayment (asphalt base) and Second a single hardness layer (the hardest) for the Mondo surface. Normally it comes with a harder and a slightly softer layer. This was covered in the archives somewhere by a track expert.’’
Thanks for your comments Charlie. I’ll look for more information in the archives later on. Once again, Thankyou.
how large ae the clips and how would i know if i have the space?
he is refering to webspace… i am guessing…
Malcolm has Mo’s Edmonton, not the 6.39 indoor. Seems nobody has the indoor race which is what most would like to see. I can post the Edmonton which Malcolm sent me, it’s the same one that’s been posted here in another thread before.
Yes, as is mentioned in the previous post, I don’t have the 6.39 run (although I would love to see it). The other clips combined -slo mo and real time Edmonton 100m final-are about 20000k of space. Each separately is right around 10,000 or 11,000k. I try to send but if they can be posted I’m sure a whole lot of people would be grateful.
PS-Sorry for the holiday time lapse