nice 1-day prep sprint triple


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

nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby gh » Wed May 01, 2013 5:53 am

The marks came at very high altitude (1777m), which helps, but impressive sprint triple for Colorado prep Ana Holland on Saturday: 11.51/23.29(HSL)/53.58
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby ATK » Wed May 01, 2013 7:24 am

Didn't Robin Reynolds do something similar her freshman year?
ATK
 
Posts: 3804
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby JumboElliott » Wed May 01, 2013 8:56 am

That's still about 11.6, 23.6, and sub-54 at sea level when corrected (I saw 23.29). That's not bad at all.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby gktrack » Wed May 01, 2013 9:49 am

I need to start paying more attention to CO kids, they are stepping it up...
legal winds, so Ana Holland will just have the (A) next to it:
100 - lost by .02 to Marybeth Sant, wind = 0.3
200 - yes, 23.29 (although T&FN's leader list currently has 23.23?), wind = 1.6
400 - in second place was a soph., Alleandra Watt in 53.78
http://co.milesplit.com/meets/128276/results/246134

Add article: http://www.aurorasentinel.com/sports/preps/track-field/track-field-holland-dazzles-at-liberty-bell-invitational/
Last edited by gktrack on Wed May 01, 2013 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
gktrack
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:42 pm

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby gh » Wed May 01, 2013 10:01 am

yes, 29, fixed.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby Marlow » Wed May 01, 2013 11:16 am

gktrack wrote:Ana Holland will just have the (A) next to it

At 1777m, that (A) is an

(A).
Marlow
 
Posts: 21077
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby JumboElliott » Wed May 01, 2013 11:33 am

Eh. That's more than 2000 feet lower than Mexico City.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby eman » Wed May 01, 2013 12:18 pm

I do think that being at altitude is an advantage for sprinters, jumpers, hurdlers and relay runners (but maybe not distance runners) and when the Liberty Bell Invitational was run last Friday and Saturday the temperatures were in the 70's and 80's but as I look out of my window and see it snowing which it has been for the past 6 hours and recollecting how we are on our sixth straight week of at least some snow falling during part of the week (2 weeks ago it snowed for 3 consecutive days with the low temperature that week being 7 whole degrees above zero) Ana Holland and the rest of the Colorado high school girls performances of note should all be commended for dealing with training in adverse conditions. Not to say that other parts of the country haven't had to deal with the weather as well but 2 number 2's and a number 1 in the national high school girls sprint rankings along with a number 2 in the 1500 is nothing short of incredible from where I sit looking out of my window as the snow keeps falling.

Also what might be good for the goose seems to also be good for the gander. Check out the results of the Don Gatewood Invitational at the Evie Dennis Multi-Purpose Field in Northeast Denver, CO where the powerhouse high school track team from Chandler, AZ is said to be perfomning this weekend, although going from 90+ to 55 degrees farenheit might make for an interesting adjustment.
eman
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby Marlow » Wed May 01, 2013 12:47 pm

JumboElliott wrote:Eh. That's more than 2000 feet lower than Mexico City.

Which, if I remember correctly, you thought 'ruined' T&F afterwards.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21077
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby sprintdoc » Wed May 01, 2013 2:33 pm

All these amazing Colorado sprint times. Just like Jeremy Rankin (07-09 Colorado prep) has gone to be an amazing sprinter outside of Colorado. Not! When he raced Ryan Bailey back at his peak in Albuquerque at the Great SW race (altitude) he was beaten badly and was nearly a half second slower than when he was in Colorado! Winds can be much more in HS than they are reported to be so I just never trust most Colorado times due to both wind and altitude.

Not to diminish some outstanding young talent being discussed but I hate seeing athletes get marks that they can't hit anywhere else as it leaves them frustrated when they run slower even if it potentially is a better effort.
sprintdoc
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby 26mi235 » Wed May 01, 2013 4:24 pm

Yes, for the altitude effect - it took Allyson Felix years to match her end-of-high school 22.11 at Mexico City. A nuber of people used that mark to indicate that she had not made progress.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby bushop » Wed May 01, 2013 5:47 pm

26mi235 wrote:Yes, for the altitude effect - it took Allyson Felix years to match her end-of-high school 22.11 at Mexico City. A number of people used that mark to indicate that she had not made progress.
Just like the thousands of wondrous high school hand-timed sprint performances that ruined many a sprinter's experience.

"Tommy ran a 10.24 at the Flair County Championships. I know 'cause I timed 'em!" said Tommy's mom.
bushop
 
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: near the toys and tape measures

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby JumboElliott » Wed May 01, 2013 6:01 pm

Marlow wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:Eh. That's more than 2000 feet lower than Mexico City.

Which, if I remember correctly, you thought 'ruined' T&F afterwards.

No, if anything ruined anything, it was the 80s.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby gktrack » Sun May 05, 2013 9:27 am

Another CO high school leader with altitude, Marybeth Sant 11.38 (1.2) at 1525m altitude yesterday. Didn't see Ana Holland in the results for this meet.
http://co.milesplit.com/meets/127871/results/247853
gktrack
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:42 pm

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby sprintdoc » Sun May 05, 2013 12:01 pm

This latest result from Sant - the 11.32 is exactly what I am citing. Two weeks ago at Hayward Field with similar win she ran 11.80 with warm temps as well. We are vastly under rating the effects of altitude on times in the sprints. Sant is a talented sprinter headed to Oregon next year but is noooooo where near a 11.32 sprinter.
sprintdoc
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby eman » Sun May 05, 2013 2:45 pm

sprintdoc wrote:This latest result from Sant - the 11.32 is exactly what I am citing. Two weeks ago at Hayward Field with similar win she ran 11.80 with warm temps as well. We are vastly under rating the effects of altitude on times in the sprints. Sant is a talented sprinter headed to Oregon next year but is noooooo where near a 11.32 sprinter.


I fell like I am being bated here but I'll dive in anyway.

Well your statement that Marybeth Sant is nowhere near being an 11.32 sprinter is true in that she only ran 11.38 with a +1.2 wind reading at the St. Vrain Invitational track meet in Longmont, CO on Friday May 3rd. But my question to you is this; Marybeth was born in Colorado and has lived here her entire life, exactly what is she and every other sprinter in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming and parts of Arizona and Texas supposed to do about having to run at altitude, move? Or maybe not run so fast thus sparking the disbelief of the occasional Track & Field News Bulleting Board poster.

But I'll let you decide for yourself. Here are the 2 races in question and either the other girls in the two races are in on the hoax and are just holding back so that Marybeth can look good or maybe she is just that fast at altitude?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdn_V0VkJtg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zTbL5v7bts
eman
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby 26mi235 » Sun May 05, 2013 3:46 pm

It is just that a 11.32 at 5000 feet is about the same as a 11.5x, but the headline number stays 11.32, and that is misleading.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby sprintdoc » Mon May 06, 2013 10:49 am

Not even 11.5. More like 11.7. I am of the believe that altitude has more of an impact than the TFN charts grant it. Especially in the area of slower marks compared to elites. A girl that is running 2 seconds slower than men's WR has more of an impact on her race than say Bolt would on same track. Additionally the thinner air makes fatigue factor easier to negotiate as someone like a talented HS girl would face late in a 200 or 400 especially and thus get a bigger boost than an elite male would. That's been my experience in following high altitude HS prep marks for past 15 years out of Colorado and a few other high altitude states. She is a talented sprinter but shouldn't be hailed as if she were running these times at sea-level.

I saw a a HS junior from Seattle area, Hannah Cunliffe ran a nice virtual sea-level double in a collegiate meet at Cal in the Brutus Hamilton meet last week - 11.67 (0.5) and 23.85 (2.0) and in my mind is a superior sprinter than Sant but doesn't have the glitzy altitude marks.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/sta ... 428aaa.pdf
sprintdoc
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby 26mi235 » Mon May 06, 2013 12:44 pm

Assuming a 0.4 second effect for a mere 1500m is rather over the top, it seems to me. That would imply that Mexico City should have a differential of 0.8. While the stronger men might have a bit smaller a differential, we did not see 9.4 marks in '68. Furthermore, most of that differential would be at the high-end speed, where wind resistance, rather than acceleration, is the key action 'resisting' force and that would imply long jump and triple jump marks that are really spectacular, and aside from Beamon's somewhat dubious 8.90 (wind stronger than 2.0), there are not many great marks at high elevation.

Another implication is that women at Mexico City would get a differential of as much as 1.6 seconds - AF's 22.11 -> 23.75. Also, if the differential was that much different you would see a lot of college sprinters getting marks at altitude because the correction factor used by the NCAA would be way too small. Instead, you see relatively few altitude marks.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby gh » Mon May 06, 2013 1:08 pm

26mi235 wrote:... aside from Beamon's somewhat dubious 8.90 (wind stronger than 2.0), there are not many great marks at high elevation....


You mean people like Evans and James who are still in the all-time top 10 after 40 years, and Mennea after 30, aren't represented of the altitude phenomenon?

The only reason the all-time lists aren't dominated by such marks (in the affected events) is the paucity of major meets run at super-high altitude. If Mexico City had a DL every year you'd see no end of holy-shit marks.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby 26mi235 » Mon May 06, 2013 1:13 pm

Yes, but the posited effect of 0.4/100m at 5000 would imply a delta of (at least, since 400 is faster than girl 100s) 0.40 x 2 x 4 = 3.2 seconds, and we would likely be chasing 42s from those Games. Just doing 0.10 for a differential gives a boost of 0.10 x 2 x 4 = 0.80 and that value seems realistic given that they were 45-flat kind of guys racing at their absolute peaks (and the 4x400 was very good, but not 2:4x).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby sprintdoc » Mon May 06, 2013 5:48 pm

What would Bolt run at such an altitude if in championship race? Sub 9.25 especially if the track were of modern elite meet quality.

I don't claim to know an exact formula however my own studies of these times compared to athletes performing at sea-level come out about .35 to .4 slower has proven to be consistent athlete after athlete.

As for impact on 400's I do think at some point it is negated as well the slower the runner due to the oxygen levels but not venturing into all the science involved to determine that.

I also have often wondered the impact of training at faster speeds when doing top end speed type training at high altitude as Colorado HS athletes would do (at least elite HS level ones would) to impact improved performance. This training I believe plays role in current high performance of some of the Colorado athletes but again hard to define impact. Should sprinters have high altitude training phases like distance runners? When a sprinter like Sant comes to Oregon we will have an opportunity to study her progression but there are too many variables to know for certain the impact.
sprintdoc
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:57 pm

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby 26mi235 » Mon May 06, 2013 6:22 pm

The Big Gold Book gives a value of over 9.50 -- an adjustment of 0.75 for Mexico City and JRM's calculator gives a similar adjustment (~0.07). You are proposing adjustments of almost five times as much; that adjustment is far away from any other factor I have ever seen. Even gh, who thinks that the adjustment factors understate the effect does not think that the error is 400% -- I would guess that he would say that it is no more than double the 0.07 value. If you limit the elevation to the value that started this discussion you get an effect of .48% rather than 0.7+%; Nothing remotely close to the 3.3% you are suggesting.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby eman » Mon May 06, 2013 10:44 pm

If the altitude effect is as great as is being argued in this thread why are there not more times on the all time lists run at altitude?

If you look at the top 10 list for high school girls you see Aleisha Latimer and Ashley Owens both of whom resided in Colorado Springs, CO while in high school which sits at roughly 1800 meters above sea level. Yet both of the times that qualified Aleisha and Ashley for the list were run at sea level.

Why did they not run faster times in the 100 meter dash while in Colorado then they were able to run at sea level?
eman
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby GoCard37 » Fri May 17, 2013 2:08 pm

sprintdoc wrote:Not even 11.5. More like 11.7. I am of the believe that altitude has more of an impact than the TFN charts grant it. Especially in the area of slower marks compared to elites. That's been my experience in following high altitude HS prep marks for past 15 years out of Colorado and a few other high altitude states. She is a talented sprinter but shouldn't be hailed as if she were running these times at sea-level.

I saw a a HS junior from Seattle area, Hannah Cunliffe ran a nice virtual sea-level double in a collegiate meet at Cal in the Brutus Hamilton meet last week - 11.67 (0.5) and 23.85 (2.0) and in my mind is a superior sprinter than Sant but doesn't have the glitzy altitude marks.


I am sorry Sprintdoc, but what you are saying is absolutely ridiculous! So ridiculous that I created an account just to respond to you. You have absolutely no data backing up what you are saying and no logic, and the sad thing is you are being so critical of kids.

First of all Marybeth made it to the USA Indoor Championship FINALS and ran 7.36! Competing against pros!

She won Simplot the last two years, beating Hannah in 2012, and ran 7.42. She ran 11.86 last year in NC into a .4 headwind at sea level. (Her beast was 11.65 with a +1.3 w in CO) That's not much of a difference. Her 11.8 this year at Oregon was her 2nd 100m of the year. She is extremely well trained and has a ton of experience.

Furthermore, I grew up in CO and then went to college and ran in California. I can tell you that there was never ever a noticeable difference in my performance at Sea level vs. altitude! I ran the 60m up at UW and then went and had what I felt like was a better race in NM at Altitude and ran .02 slower. I have had good and bad races at both altitude and sea level. To say and 11.38 is really an 11.7 bc of altitude is absurd! You show extreme biases, and clearly have a preconceived notion that there aren't good sprinters in CO. When someone in Texas runs a 10.low no one freaks out but when someone from CO does its bc of altitude?? You clearly don't understand the complexities of the sport and that there are a LOT of other factors that effect peoples performances.

In terms of Jeremy Rankin, I watched him run from the time he was in 8th grade till now. He is a truly talented kid, but has struggled with some severe injuries and bad coaches that really did not help him. You also fail to mention when he went to NY and beat Rynell Parsons and YOHAN BLAKE at SEA LEVEL!!!
101st Millrose Games
Event 29 Boys 60 Meter Dash Junior
Finals
1 Jeremy Rankin USA 6.68
2 Rynell Parson USA 6.73
3 Yohan Blake JAM 6.75

Yohan has great coaches, a great support system, great weather, great training partners and great drugs. Jeremy hasn't had a consistent coach, he has moved 3 times and had 3 serious injuries in the last 5 seasons.

Your talking about kids so keep it positive man. And do some more research before you say ridiculous stuff.
GoCard37
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 1:10 pm

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby 26mi235 » Fri May 17, 2013 4:20 pm

He comes to the conclusion, or he is of the opinion, the the difference in running times are so large as to be not credible just using common sense. If he is correct you would see a higher proportion of sprint best at modest altitudes, not only Tucson, but even Atlanta would probably be a bit different than sea level.

Further, I think I did these calculations recently in response to his claims that we would be getting huge gains made (they would have just possibly broken the next second barrier in Mexico City (1968). The reasoning seems to be based on the cases he knows. But there is almost certainly selection bias in those cases because he notices them and then does some calculations. However, he notices them because they are the ones that show big effects not the null or little benefit results.

Also, the reduction in air drag would imply that the offsetting effects of reduced resistance and the more difficult getting O2 in would not be off setting but that there would be a clear benefit helping 800 times. I know of no data (not anecdotes) showing such a systematic effect.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16313
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: nice 1-day prep sprint triple

Postby gh » Fri May 17, 2013 4:31 pm

eman wrote:If the altitude effect is as great as is being argued in this thread why are there not more times on the all time lists run at altitude?....


That's easy to answer: because there are, relatively speaking, so few races run at altitude. And only very-very rarely in the top-end championship/invitational meets that provide the bulk of the fast times.
gh
 
Posts: 46298
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 8 guests