100m final 1932

[johnclark]

Sorry for the longish post but bear with me

I've been looking at the results in the QF, SF and Finals for the 100m.

There is an expected pattern - the runners run faster in the final than in the earlier rounds.

Compared with the semi-finals, the runners in the final are typically 0.05 seconds quicker on average. It might be a bit surprising that the difference is not more, but in almost all finals there are some who actually run slower than they did in the semi-finals.

There have been three occasions where the average time for the finalists in the final has been slower than their times in the semi-finals: 1952, 1956 and 1960. In the case of 1960 we know that one of the semi-finals was run with a 5 m/s tailwind, so its hardly surprising that the final was slower. In 1956 we know that the wind was swirling and difficult for the entire event so that is perhaps also unsurprising. Unfortunately there are no wind readings at all for 1952 so we don't know if that is a factor.

The top three average improvements from semi-final to final were:

3. 2004: 0.11 seconds. The fact that one of the semi-finals was run into a 1.6 m/s headwind and the final was run with a 0.6 m/s tailwind obviously affects the results here.

2. 1988: 0.13 seconds. Ignoring Johnson and Stewarts times. The final was run with a 1.0 m/s tailwind.

1. 1932: 0.23 seconds. This is the largest improvement in times from semi-final to final by a long way. The six finalists averaged 10.48 seconds in the final, compared to their semi-final times of 10.72 and their quarter-final times of 10.62.

This was the first year that wind readings were made, and they indicate a swirling wind. Three wind gauges were used and all showed quite different results*. Looking at the flags in the footage, the winds was obviously pretty strong outside the stadium** but that is not always a good indicator of the wind speed in the stadium. However, the times lead me to think that the wind was a factor in these races. Perhaps one (or both) of the semi finals had a strongish headwind and the final had a strongish tailwind.

Its interesting that in the 1936 final, which was run with a measured tailwind of 2.7 m/s, the average times were 10.50 compared to 10.54 for the same runners in the semi-finals, only a slight improvement.

Any thoughts?


* Here is a quote from an old post from DJ: "The IC4A report on the '32 Games talks about their various experiments with the gauges. Three were used for the 100m, the race in which both Eddie Tolan and Ralph Metcalfe ran 10.38/10.3. The gauges were placed at the start, the mid-way, and the finish, and gave respective readings of "+2.0mps crosswind," -1.4mps and +0.4mps."

** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16tF5pbPpow

[Per Andersen]

There have been three occasions where the average time for the finalists in the final has been slower than their times in the semi-finals: 1952, 1956 and 1960. In the case of 1960 we know that one of the semi-finals was run with a 5 m/s tailwind, so its hardly surprising that the final was slower. In 1956 we know that the wind was swirling and difficult for the entire event so that is perhaps also unsurprising.

In the 1952 Games nobody ran faster than 10.4, the winning time in the final. In that final the top 4 ran 10.4 and the 5th and 6th placers ran 10.5. So the final was the fastest race in 1952.

In 1956 Morrow had negative wind in the QF 10.3, SF 10.3 and the Final 10.5. The Final had by far the strongest negative wind, 5.0.

In 1960 the first semi final was won by Radford in 10.4. The second by Hary in 10.3.
The final was the fastest race, Hary winning from Sime, both with 10.2. The next 3 ran 10.3.

[rhymans]

The 1960 Olympic semi-finals did not have a +5m wind [Your probably confusing '64 with '60, as Hayes ran 9.91w +5.3 in one of the semis]. The 1960 semis had wind readings of 0.0 officially, but the first race was run into a headwind [the smoke from the starter's gun moves in a 45o direction against the runners]. The other semi and the finals were run in better conditions - the 2nd semi was in very still conditions, and the final has a slight favoring wind at the start.

Comparing the full results of semi-finals with finals is a bit risky if you want a valid comparison. Better to compare the times of those who qualified for the final - In 1952 [where we don't have wind readings, but the final at least was run in very still conditions] the times were -

Remigino 10.79 10.74 semi
McKenley 10.80 10.74
Bailey 10.83 10.74
Smith 10.84 10.78
Sukharev 10.88 10.86
Treloar 10.91 10.76

So the averages are 10.84 for the final, and 10.77 for the semis, but as we don't know the wind readings it's very difficult to draw any conclusions when comparing the semis with the final.

The same is true for 1936, where the wind was generally over +2.0, but we don't have readings for the individual races (the official report states that the wind was 1.6 to 1.7 for theheats, "about 2.3" for the quarters, and about 2.7 for the semis and final)

[johnclark]

In the 1952 Games nobody ran faster than 10.4, the winning time in the final. In that final the top 4 ran 10.4 and the 5th and 6th placers ran 10.5. So the final was the fastest race in 1952.

In 1956 Morrow had negative wind in the QF 10.3, SF 10.3 and the Final 10.5. The Final had by far the strongest negative wind, 5.0.

In 1960 the first semi final was won by Radford in 10.4. The second by Hary in 10.3.
The final was the fastest race, Hary winning from Sime, both with 10.2. The next 3 ran 10.3.

Ah, I should have been more specific. I am using the unofficial FAT times. Here are the results from 1952:

SF Final
10.74 10.79 Lindy Remigino
10.74 10.80 Herb McKenley
10.74 10.83 McDonald Bailey
10.78 10.84 Dean Smith
10.86 10.88 Vladimir Sukharev
10.76 10.91 John Treloar

The average for the SF was 10.77 and for the final 10.84.

Note that I am NOT saying that the semi final races were run faster than the final. I am saying that the runners who were in the final ran faster in the semi final.

Here are the results for 1956

SF Final
10.52 10.62 Bobby Joe Morrow
10.62 10.77 Hec Hogan
10.61 10.77 Thane Baker
10.79 10.79 Ira Murchison
10.85 10.86 Manfred Germar
10.79 10.88 Mike Agostini

The average in the SF was 10.70 compared to 10.78 in the final.

But where are you getting the wind of -5 m/s in the final? I have only seen it given as -2 m/s, as shown on the T&F News site:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/index. ... event_id=1

I messed up when I said 1960 - I meant 1964. Here are the results for 1964. There are FAT times available only for the final, so I've used the hand times here.

9.9 10.0 Bob Hayes
10.3 10.2 Harry Jerome
10.4 10.2 Enrique Figuerola
10.4 10.4 Gaoussou Koné
10.4 10.4 Mel Pender
10.3 10.4 Heinz Schumann
10.1 10.4 Wieslaw Maniak
10.2 10.5 Tom Robinson

Average in the semi final was 10.25 compared to 10.31 in the final

[johnclark]

The 1960 Olympic semi-finals did not have a +5m wind [Your probably confusing '64 with '60, as Hayes ran 9.91w +5.3 in one of the semis].
...
Comparing the full results of semi-finals with finals is a bit risky if you want a valid comparison. Better to compare the times of those who qualified for the final .

Yeah, I wrote 1960 when I meant 1964. I also have done the calculation exactly as you suggested - sorry I did not make that clearer in the original post.

[paw]

But where are you getting the wind of -5 m/s in the final? I have only seen it given as -2 m/s, as shown on the T&F News site:

Looking back to the Melbourne Olympics (by R.L. Quercetani):
In ATFS from 1957 it reads on page 12:

And the wind was, unfortunately at its worst for the final: 5.0 m/s (more than 11 m.p.h.) opposing

[user4]

I've been looking at the results in the QF, SF and Finals for the 100m.

There is an expected pattern - the runners run faster in the final than in the earlier rounds.

Compared with the semi-finals, the runners in the final are typically 0.05 seconds quicker on average. It might be a bit surprising that the difference is not more, but in almost all finals there are some who actually run slower than they did in the semi-finals.

One would expect , and this forum has pointed out, that the lower ranked/placing performers in a final will not perform much better in the final than they did in the semi. These 5th-8th ranked athletes have stressed themselves fully in the semifinal to reach the final. Owens, Morrow, Hayes etc did not.

As Per has pointed out the absolute times of the winners can be very misleading due to wind conditions (with '56 being the extreme) however the spread in time between winner and last place finalist seems to always be larger than what their PRs would suggest. This is the full effect of rounds at the elite level.

[gh]

....
One would expect , and this forum has pointed out, that the lower ranked/placing performers in a final will not perform much better in the final than they did in the semi. These 5th-8th ranked athletes have stressed themselves fully in the semifinal to reach the final. Owens, Morrow, Hayes etc did not. ...

Forget the stressed-out part: I think if you watch film of an Olympic 100 (and any other race), you'll find it "obvious" that a significant number of the finalists simply run through in the later stages of the race when it's obvioius they're not going to get a sniff of the podium.