>I seem to remember that the source I used for the
>Atlanta Splits was an article published by the
>French Federation which had analysed video (in
>various events) and produced data from
Those french splits are very inaccurate. If you study them, you'll see they suggest both Fredericks and Johnson *accelerated* in the last 50m or so. Quite impossible, considering the race. In fact, here are some simulation results I've done on that race (Sim.), compared with the french ones (Fr). The last column is the differential between the two times. Note that they're all reasonable (within a few 0.01s) except at 146.42m, where the differential rises to 0.30 seconds!
On the TS vs MJ subject: I would say MJ hands down. Tommie Smith doesn't own a time under 20.4 that is not altitude-assisted. His "straight track" 200m time is doubtful at best (wind? track measurements?). Where exactly was this race, anyway? I've always wondered that.
On the TS vs MJ
>subject: I would say MJ hands down. Tommie Smith
>doesn't own a time under 20.4 that is not
>altitude-assisted. His "straight track" 200m
>time is doubtful at best (wind? track
>measurements?). Where exactly was this race,
>anyway? I've always wondered that.
Tommie Smith's 19.5s 220y/200m record of 19.5s (hnad-timed) was run in San Jose,California, U.S.A on 7th of May 1966.
<On the TS vs MJ subject: I would say MJ hands down. Tommie Smith doesn't own a time under 20.4 that is not altitude-assisted. >
Are you talking about (equivalent) auto timing? If not, a quick look at some T&FN, I have on hand shows the following manual timings from 1967 and 1968.
1967. 20.1y (Sacramento, 6/10): 20.2 (Los Angeles, 7/9). I am not counting three 20.2ys at Provo in June.
1968. 20.3y (San Diego, 6/1), 20.3 (Sacramento, 6/21), 20.2 (Los Angeles, 6/30).
I can look up his 1965 and 1966 races later and supply the necessary stats. You may be 100% sure that MJ was the better runner, but there is no need to denigrate TS's calibre.
Yes, because comparing the magnitude of a hand time to a FAT time is pointless. If you add to that the lack of wind information, then you really have no basis for comparison whatsoever.
Also, in re: the 19.5, having a "constant" tail-wind helping you down a straight 200m stretch is going to give a tremendous advantage over the same gauge reading for a curve 200m (we're probably talking at least 0.3 or 0.4s).
I'm not trying to detract from Smith's performances at the time they were run. His victory margin over his competitors is a indication of his abilities.
>You may be 100% sure that M.J. was the better runner.
Are you kidding? These things are completly unknowable. So Johnson's times are "better" So what? Every athlete is confined to his era. But what we do know is that in 1967 on a cinder track in San Jose Tommie Smith sat a w-rec in the 400 with 44.5 and beat the leading 400m runner of that period in the process. Assume that Tommie Smith had come around 30 years later - modern tracks, modern training etc. Is it inconceivable that Tommie then could have run the 400 under 43.0? I think not. We can play with these things till the cows come home but we just can't know.
Per - but isn't that at least part of the intrigue of the sport? How would xxx do against xxx? Isn't the fun in the 'playing' here and not the 'concluding', which goes without saying will never happen. Now about that Ryun at his peak vs El G ... oops. Smith v Johnson ... (can't I at least conjecture
"Those french splits are very
>inaccurate. If you study them, you'll see they
>suggest both Fredericks and Johnson *accelerated*
>in the last 50m or so. Quite impossible,
>considering the race. In fact, here are some
>simulation results I've done on that race (Sim.),
>compared with the french ones (Fr). The last
>column is the differential between the two times.
>Note that they're all reasonable (within a few
>0.01s) except at 146.42m, where the differential
>rises to 0.30 seconds!
I have the explanation of that big difference!
The source is quarterly AEFA Spécial Atlanta n°143 (1996). The analysis was done by Jo Maïsetti (who coached French 4x100m in late '80s-early '90s).
For taking splits, he used the marks for 110m hurdles noticable on the track. The space between them is 9.14m, and if we start to count from the 200m start line, the lines are at 112.86 (2nd hurdle), 122.00, 131.14, 140.28, 149.42, 158.56, 167.70, 176.84 and 185.98 meters.
So Maïsetti took times from a slow motion tape (i think it's the film taken by Jacques Piasenta) at each marks.
In the magazine, a typo mistake was made, and it was written 146.42m instead of 149.42m. The fact is that Maïseti used in his calculation the right 149.42m, the magaine did a mistake with the 146.42. So the split times are still reliable.
The problem comes from the fact that you took in account the 146.42m number in your calculation. That's why you find 14.27, as opposed as 14.57 for Maïsetti.
Maïsetti's numbers are quite reliable, i have myself analysed Piasenta video (100 frames/sec), and found same split times, with a 0.01 difference at max.
Concerning Mexico splits, Robert Parienté reported in his "Fabuleuse Histoire de l'Athlétisme" that Smith split time was 10.52. I don't know how it was measured.
As for X King splits, even though he finds the same 10.52, i'm perplex as the mid-race point isn't visible in the track (i have several footage of the race, including one B&W shotting the runners in perpendicular recurs at around mid race from the crowds.
<Also, in re: the 19.5, having a "constant" tail-wind helping you down a straight 200m stretch is going to give a tremendous advantage over the same gauge reading for a curve 200m (we're probably talking at least 0.3 or 0.4s).
I'm not trying to detract from Smith's performances at the time they were run. His victory margin over his competitors is a indication of his abilities.>
Thanks for the clarification. By the way, in a "wasted morning" going through T&FN from 1966 thru 1968, I found TS ran 20.2 into a head wind of about 3.5 mph at the Olympic Semi Trials (L.A. on 6/30/68). That should be worth a 20.4 auto time (or better) with little or no wind.
Squire and No one.
You are absolutely correct. I love to play this game and have for more years than I care to remember. However, I just saw the word "100%" and went straight for the keyboard. Good point about Smith and M.J. being the only guys considered.
i FINALLY got around to watching the clips cited many posts back and two things shocked me about my main man, Tommie Smith, since I hadn't seen footage of him in years:
1. He's not nearly as smooth as I recalled him. Much more of the "gangly" sort than I remembered. Suspect that's because in the interim everybody else has smoothed out a lot and he was just ahead of his time.
2. Even though I know that it's impossible ("impossible"?), I swear that he lifts and accelerates--maybe even accelerates significantly--with 50m to go. The Tommie Jet gear in action. What strikes me is th at it isn't a gradual pull-way; he just suddenly stomps on it, and he's suddenly moving faster than every one else; surely everybody else couldn't have decided to slow at the same time!
(apropos to that last, I do recall Bud Winter once saying that Tommie was still accelerating at the end of his 19.5. He based that--true or not--on the fact that nobody else had run in that lane that day (on dirt) and he went out and measured every one of his strides for the whole race, and they were still getting longer at the end)
ps--I still say Tommie beats MJ, particularly if the lane draw is favorable.
2. Even though I know that it's
>impossible ("impossiapropos to
>that last, I do recall Bud Winter once saying
>that Tommie was still accelerating at the end of
Bud Winter is correct. Tommie Smith achieved a peak speed of 11.95m/s (26.73mph) in the final stages of his 19.5s.
He covered the last 20 yards of this race in 1.53s. This split comes from J-C.Patinaud's book; 200m et 220y Temps Automatiques.
It has been mentioned by Pierre-Jean on several Track & Field message boards and forums.