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?
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.
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
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.
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) ?
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.