200m


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

200m

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 25, 2003 9:50 pm

I told you guys to stop dissing "Doc" Patton. You aint seen nuttin yet!
Guest
 

Re: 200m

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:55 am

i believe the 200 meters is the truest test of speed in track and field as endurance is no factor and the race is far less likely to be lost at the start. i have heard that a sprinter reaches top speed after about 70 meters and then slows down. when michael johnson ran 19.32 if he was slowing down after 70 meters, what was his splits for each 100 meters, 19.32 equals 9.66 times two. i doubt he could come by the first hundred under the current world record of 9.78 so he must have run a negative split which would disprove the slowing after 70 meters theory (at least in his case) athletes and coaches often say the sprints are usually won by who slows down the least, are there splits for the first 50 in 100 races, and 100 for 200 races to prove this. as a fan i am confused, or do some rare athletes have the ability to pick it up longer than 70 meters?
Guest
 

Re: 200m

Postby Russ7291 » Thu Jun 26, 2003 4:02 am

Don't most runners negative split the 200m because of the first 100m being from a standing start? So MJ probably also slowed down after 70m in terms of velocity, just not as much and from a faster top speed.

Experts?
Russ7291
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: 200m

Postby gh » Thu Jun 26, 2003 6:22 am

Johnson ran 10/12/9.20
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: 200m

Postby gh » Thu Jun 26, 2003 6:24 am

and behind him Fredericks (19.68) ran 10.14/9.54, Boldon (19.80) ran 10.18/9.62.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: 200m

Postby JRM » Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:03 pm

Here are some theoretical 10m splits I came up with in a simulation (from a paper of mine which will appear in the Canadian Journal of Physics this summer). They're a pretty good match to some I've seen elsewhere in the literature. The times (t) are "raw", so you have to add his reaction time (0.161s). In this simulation, he hit a top speed of 11.58m/s at 71.99m

d (m) t (s) v (m/s) Split (s)
10 1.766 8.426 1.766
20 2.852 9.872 1.086
30 3.823 10.673 0.971
40 4.738 11.138 0.915
50 5.625 11.402 0.887
60 6.496 11.535 0.871
70 7.361 11.581 0.865
80 8.225 11.566 0.864
90 9.091 11.506 0.866
100 9.964 11.416 0.873
110 10.844 11.301 0.880
120 11.733 11.222 0.889
130 12.626 11.172 0.893
140 13.524 11.084 0.898
150 14.431 10.969 0.907
160 15.348 10.834 0.917
170 16.277 10.684 0.929
180 17.220 10.523 0.943
190 18.178 10.354 0.958
200 19.152 10.180 0.974
Splits: 100m: 9.964s
200m: 9.188s

Raw theoretical 10 m splits of Michael Johnson's 19.313 s World Record race. w = 0.41 m/s at theta = -20 degrees (gauge reading +0.39 m/s);
Altitude = 350 m.

Maximum velocity 11.582 m/s @ 71.993 m. Official reaction is +0.161 s.

50m split analysis:
Interval (m) Split (s) Interval Split (s)
0 - 50 5.625 0 - 100 9.964
50 - 100 4.339 40 - 140 8.786
100 - 150 4.467 50 - 150 8.806
150 - 200 4.721 100 - 200 9.188
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: 200m

Postby JRM » Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:04 pm

That was ugly! It didn't format very well. If anyone is interested, I can email the text file. Please drop me a line at jmureika@jsd.claremont.edu.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: 200m

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:40 pm

Shoot, let's talk about the 200 now. How much of a chance do our guys have of overtaking Kederis in Paris (hmmm, poetry there)?? I'm looking forward to it.
Guest
 

Re: 200m

Postby gh » Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:08 pm

One thing's for sure; they need to be prepared for him to be relentless in the homestretch.

I don't have any splits from Sydney, but do know that he came off the turn "a meter behind the leaders."

In Edmonton at the '01 Worlds he ran 10.3 for the first 100, making him =6th behind two 10.1s and three 10.2s.

He ran 9.7 for his second half; nobody else ran better than 9.9. We're talking strength, not speed here. As Jonas's figures so clearly show, it's not how fast you're running at the end, it's how much you can reduce the rate of slowing down, becuase everybody is doing it.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: 200m

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:09 pm

You know, Johnson's 19.32 was in the PAST, that's history. Maybe you should move this thread, too. Want to be consistent, now.
Guest
 

Re: 200m

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 3:52 pm

Even now you guys still dissing "Doc" Patton. the thread now move to MJ and FF when it began with "Doc"
Guest
 

Re: 200m

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:16 pm

i guess this proves that the 200 meters is a totally different event than the 100 meters. i am sure a lot of 100 meter guys can go 10.1 - 10.2 for the first 100, but go only 9.9 - 10 on the second and slowing down in the end. i think mj changed the event to a strength event. gh do you have any splits for previous 200 meter champions (marsh, lewis, deloach, menea, c. smith) ?
Guest
 

Re: 200m

Postby Russ7291 » Fri Jun 27, 2003 3:29 am

80 8.225 11.566 0.864

Hey JRM my watch caught MJ at 8.226 for 80m, you're way off!
But I enjoyed that breakdown.
Russ7291
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: 200m

Postby Guest » Fri Jun 27, 2003 4:02 am

Two other issues when comparing 100m and 200m times:

a) Reaction time is similar for both races (0.15 to .20 seconds). If you look at the time actually spent running, then the 100 WR is somewhere in the neighborhood of 9.65 and the 200 somewhere around 19.15. The 200 WR is still faster than twice the 100 WR, but not by as much.

b) It is impossible to move your body less than 100m in a 100m race -- the best you can do is run a straight line, which is the shortest distance between the start line and the finish line. In the 200m, if you run a fraction of an inch off the lane line you actually go less than 200m (because the true distance is actually measured some distance outside of the lane line). Add in body lean, and the runner's center of gravity is definitely moving less than 200m.
Guest
 

Re: 200m

Postby Guest » Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:15 am

And don't forget that Pietro Menna figured out how to run only 195 metres or so.
Guest
 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Bruce Kritzler, El Toro, rsb2 and 10 guests