Looking at the race profile and that of other races, the slowing up at the finish is likely to only have made a 0.02 difference …
When I was watching I didnt think the slowing at the end was even that noticeable, he only put his hand up maybe a couple meters before the line anyways.
look at the splits of the Seoul race and you will see how much he actually gave up…
You mean he goes from .88 to .90 … huge …
Unless the Charles University splits are wrong…what was the difference in splits…I was not there in seoul but Coach Francis explained with good reason why Ben could have ran low 9.7s.
Let me explain it to you more clearly. In Seoul, Ben was .09 faster from 30 to 80 than he was during the 9.83 in Rome, even though his 30m split was identical. Even from such a superior top speed phase, you seem to think that the drop off wasn’t due to stopping his arm drive. Go back and have another good look at the film. You will see clearly that all the power of the arm drive stops at 80m (not 90!)- before his head turns to look over at Carl, and long before his hand goes up. As further clarification, compare the run to Mo Greens 9.79. Their 30s were the same but Ben was .07 faster from 30m to 80m before packing it in (8.02 to 8.09). Watching it in Slow mo wil help as will the head on clip. Watch fro the point when the hands stop going up to face level in front and begin to stop at, or just slightly above, the shoulder.
BTW, I tried to “liberate” that leather jacket, as it would have fit me! No luck!
by leather jacket I assume you’re referring to the one that ben is wearing in the photograph en page 1 of this duscussion?
Why not? You’re data from Rome suggests that Ben was capable of decellerating by upto 0.07 seconds in a single 10m segment whilst doing full tilt, why would it be so rediculous for it to happen in Seoul?
This would make for an interesting discussion, however the splits from Rome are dodgey at best and the most that can be derived from them is that the athletes ran faster in the middle of the race than they did at the begining and the end. You mention in CFTS that there are three distinct phases of accelleration (witnessed in the data from most athletes) in the Rome race and put it down to breathing patterns - however if breathing patterns were infact the reason for the phenomenon, it would be apparent in most 100m races or at least in the cases of the athletes involved. It is not.
Seoul used a new and vastly improved system to gather the data from the race (multiple cameras, far higher frame rate and resolution, syncronization), and it is likely that this is why we don’t see sudden accelleration and decellerations mid race.
What has this got to do with your argument? It has a massive impact on both the 30m and 80m splits and if you take a close look at the trends expressed in the Charles data from Rome suggests that the 80m splits from Rome and from Seoul are likely to be closer than the figures suggest, so the “superior top speed phase” is in all probability not quite as superior as purported.
Already have, using the Charles footage (which incidentily used 200fps cameras), so I was able to get a pretty good idea of what distances were what, and I can’t honestly say that drive stopped any earlier than 88m (just before the 400m relay change zone)
LOL, it would have fit two of me …
1: The problem with the arguement is that it goes two different ways. First that the Rome data appears out of whack. Second that that same Rome data is used to support the idea that a decelleration of .09 in 10m is consistant.
The data provided from Rome, and, initially, in Seoul was provided by a company called Quickfacts, from Cologne. There was some discussion by them that their data was “massaged” afterwards by Charles Univ as being too extreme. Nevertheless, they felt there were “sags” of some scale reflecting breathing patterns, which you’ve probably felt yourself. Can you honestly say that you feel there is no difference in your own output between inspiration and expiration? Statistics since Rome have all been reviewed and adjusted for suspected anomalys.
Regardless of how the pie was sliced, it evened out by 80m. That said, the 80m differences are the same (note in Rome, some of the closing segments in Rome reflected a lean at the tape, worth perhaps .01 or .02 in the stats for the last 10m.
2: see point one.
3: Look at the point where the arms drop from face height to near shoulder height as you first sign, which becomes more obvious as you move forward, then the look, then the arm up which starts around 94m, fully up by 97.
4: You needn’t agree with me on this. This is my interpretation based on what I saw.
5: It would fit two of Ben too but, sadly, only one of me!
According to Frank W. Dick, Director of Coaching, Great Britain:
There is difficulty in drawing conclusions from the available data in reference to Johnson and Lewis. There had been so much publicity surrounding the Johnson-Lewis encounter since Rome, that the two sprinters viewed themselves as the only two probable winners. They ran the race against each other rather than all 8 finalist. By 70m Johnson had reached his maximum .16 sec. lead over Lewis -and held this to 80m after which point Johnson ran the final 20m as if the race had already been won (arms aloft for the final 10m; and Lewis ran as if he’d lost. Thus Johnson covered the final 10m 0.07 sec slower than his fastest 10m and Lewis 0.05 sec. slower. As for Griffith Joyner-she was within 0.01 of her fastest 10m in the race, again raising the question whether or not she had achieved her maximum speed.
This leaves Christie, Ashford and Drechsler. The drop off from maximum speed to the finish was:
Christe 0.04
Ashford 0.02
Drechsler 0.03From this and other data, it would appear that 0.02-0.04 is the normal range
It seems to me that Charlie is not the only expert that believes Ben shut down at 80m and therefore should be looked at as being objective as opposed to biased or inaccurate.