I agree apples to apples, however, the elevation between Rio and Eugene is negligible (difference of about 115 meters) so I’d need to see how you are arriving at the 2.7 equating to a .25 advantage because every wind aided conversion calculator would suggest that the advantage is essentially half of what you propose (.12 to .14) over a 100m.
True that Eugene is is one of the fastest tracks, however, neither that nor anything I’ve seen from DeGrasse has filled me with enough confidence to state that he’s objectively faster than ever.
The 60m times are actually the most viable to compare (given all 60m are ran indoors), thus a .01 differential in a year’s time (in a race that more closely relates to max V than any other as it is void of the speed endurance requirement) is perhaps the most telling piece of evidence that supports my position.
None of this is stated to take anything away from DeGrasse’s achievements, nor to slight Altis as I’m glad to have a friendly relationship with Pfaff. Simply to point out that the differential between now and what Andre was achieving with Smith-Gilbert is slight at best so let’s see what the future brings.
The 0.25s is based on my own personal experience, which differs from some online conversian tools. However, as I stated, different people are affected differently by wind.
I agree that there hasn’t been a huge improvement in De Grasse’s speed compared to last year, but that’s not to be expected anyway at this level. However, he did come closer to Gatlin by 0.1s in a global final and closer to Bolt by 0.03s this year compared to last year.
I’m sure with a full indoor season he would have run closer to 6.50s this year.
His preparation was far from ideal also, including long periods of modifield/alternative training. A few months ago people on this list were saying that his move to Altis was a major mistake because he was performing poorly in his early races. At the time I chimed in and suggested to wait until the Olympics before drawing such conclusions.
I think what he and his team have pulled off to get him into this sort of shape under these circumstances is phenomenal.
Keep in mind the 100m conversion calculators account for wind velocity, elevation, and the sprint time. Thus, the velocity at which the sprinter averaged, based upon 100m time, is a significant factor regarding the calculation. The higher the sprint velocity the lesser the impact a tail wind has on generating an advantage. This is why you have experienced a ~.25 difference maker on 100m and why a sub 10 sprinter would experience roughly half that advantage.
Thus, as reasonable as it is to remain optimistic about what his future holds, it is equally as reasonable to be optimistic about what his future may have held had he remained under Smith-Gilbert.
Other than that I think our views are aligning on the topic.
The conversion tool you used gives a 0.12s advantage caused by a +2.7 wind for someone running 9.75s and a 0.15s advantage for someone at my level. My experience has been that it’s more like 0.25s for me, however. Others are not affected as much by wind, and I even know some people who’s PB was run into a headwind. My point is thus that conversion tools are very unreliable. They may be fairly accurate for some people but not for others.
"It’s this ability to compartmentalize and conserve mental and emotional energy that may prove most useful in Rio. “I’m still waiting for him to run all out, either in training or in a race,” McMillan says. “He understands when to really let go and give 100 percent. And he has a really natural understanding of how to layer that over time so he’s not fatiguing himself too early. I make fun of him every day: ‘When are you going to actually start running?’ Because he gets beat every day by every single guy I’ve got. He’s my worst guy. But then he goes out and beats all of them in a race.”
Regarding the physics of the matter, (this will be brief) the aerodynamics force depends upon the square of velocity. As an example doubling the velocity quadruples the drag. This is why the fastest projectiles (supersonic jets and rockets) deal with fantastic friction force/drag and associated heat.
That’s why you see wind aided tables and calculators showing a lower relationship between advantage of wind aid and sprint time the faster the sprinter.
Outside of the air density relative to elevation and humidity and track surface, The variability as we know lies in the direction of wind on the track relative to the direction of the sprinter. PJ Vazel has written some excellent content on this matter.
-its a swedish documentary on elite athletes and equipment. Degrassr is getting coverage for the first 14:00minutes.
-if you listen closely you could still hear him or his coach at the time(smith- gilbert) talking.
-at one point you could even hear her telling some training advice that sounded pretty damn good coming from her. At 9:04, she advises, “we’re going to have to get you on alot of one leg drills. You get 4 weeks off, when you come back, start on that. The 2nd year is going to be phenomenal!”
-the commentary sounds like the same voice who did the short documentary on asafa powell and his mvp camp, years back around 2007 or thereabouts.
The track is quite similar to what was used at Owen’s time. I think De Grasse was the wrong candidate for this experiment though, as he is known to never get anywhere near his best in training. I would estimate that the dirt track may be about 0.2-0.3s slower than a modern synthetic track. Certainly not 1.3s as in this film (1.1s difference between his PB and the 11.0 he was timed at plus 0.2s because it was hand-timed)
I think hand timing on a cinder track should give about the same result as electric timing on a synthetic track, as the slower track surface is offset by the reaction of the time keeper to the gun. That’s why there was no major jump in world record progression for the 100m when synthetic tracks and FAT was introduced together at the 1968 Olympics.
The 1964 Olympics were won in 9.9ht (10.06 FAT) on a cinder track and the 1968 Olympics in 9.95 FAT on a synthetic track. Both times were world records.
Indeed, interesting questions point towards the difference in stiffness/ground reaction force potential between the synthetic tracks over the years. What might the times over the last +40 years of synthetic track times been today at Eugene, Berlin, Rieti…
I don’t think it’s very controversial at all to state that Ben would have been sub 9.7 even on the tracks of the late 80’s early 90’s had his career continued unobstructed. Charlie always indicated that Ben was showing no signs of regression up to 1988. Of course this stands to reason because he ran his lifetime PB in Seoul. As a consequence, if we then consider what his limit of human performance may have been and then calculated what he would have achieved on the tracks of most recent history, it continues to be uncontroversial to consider that he would have been close to, if not below, 9.60.
[b]I assure you that there is a controversy and it’s profound. Perhaps we are not reading about it or watching much about it. Didn’t you all know that if you are not reading about an issue in the paper or watching a political story on You Tube it does not exist? (yes, I am joking)
Athletics is an awesome sport. None of the current, past or future athletes deserve to or have deserved to deal with this chaos of the political handlers.
The answer is a collective movement among the athletes. Until then things will not improve. We need agents for change in the sport.
By the way Ollie. Ben ran those times almost 30 years ago. LOL. In 2018 it will have been 30 years since Seoul. [/b]
There are lots of excellent reasons why our National broadcasting system and America’s National broadcasting system failed to discuss anything about 1988 during Rio.
The discussion of those excellent reasons is controversial. So controversial there is an attempt to erase the history of all of it.
Who heads up that attempt?
Who wants to discuss this story?
An Olympic gold medal is still cool even if you really are not the fastest man alive in terms of the political manipulating that has to go on to sustain bank rolls. OUCH. Now that’s a controversial statement. I take it back for the record.