looking at the sprint results of tokyo v. munich makes it look like about .5-.75 sec/lap.
looking at the sprint results of tokyo v. munich makes it look like about .5-.75 sec/lap.
giving 1:41:3 for Snell. he is up there as I have always
claimed. Anyone disagreeing is a clown.
Many of you have valid points. But you can't really compare sprints on a cinder track to distance events on a cinder track. I believe that a modern rubberized track has made EVERY track event faster. However, for distance events this benefit will be greater due to the greater fatigue of distance running. This is just my theory, but it is also based on my experience running on both cinder and rubber. I believe that for a mile or more the benefit might be as great as 1-2 seconds a lap, depending on the event. And for sprints, maybe a couple tenths of a second, which in sprints can be huge.
Shawn H wrote:
Many of you have valid points. But you can't really compare sprints on a cinder track to distance events on a cinder track. I believe that a modern rubberized track has made EVERY track event faster. However, for distance events this benefit will be greater due to the greater fatigue of distance running. This is just my theory, but it is also based on my experience running on both cinder and rubber. I believe that for a mile or more the benefit might be as great as 1-2 seconds a lap, depending on the event. And for sprints, maybe a couple tenths of a second, which in sprints can be huge.
So, you show up a week before Bannister's milestone race, build a fancy, modern, bouncy track and he runs 8 seconds faster!? There's no question that today's tracks are faster, but 8 seconds in the mile!? El Gs WR wouldn't be if he'd ran that race on a cinder track cause instead of 3:43 he would have run a 3:51?
Peer Mediator wrote:Coe has also said on occasions that a good cinder track was worth 0.5 secs per lap, and that it was worth 1 sec too
watch the vid
he is now saying 1.5s
Clarke has also made conflicting statements
but in the vid of "maestro" he is vehement it cost 1s/lap
It comes down to the condition of the track, the weather and the distance. On a warm day with a well kept track over a mile it is worth as little as half a second per lap
nonsense
it is never as low as 0.5s
epstein, the noted sports journalist/author consulted biomechanics experts & their consensus was 1.5%, which looks a good number for a distance race on a pristine track, 1st race of meet & therefore no chewed up track
as meet progresses, subsequent races are likely to suffer more than 1.5% as track gets chewed up
On a cold, wet day on a poor track over 10000m it will be worth a lot more, maybe a second and a half
cold has nothing to do with it, unless you are considering fractional increase in density of dirt with reduced temperatures
cold is more detrimental from just fact no distance runner likes cold weather
wet is far more important
that turns dirt into sludge
the difference as coe said in great milers vid, coud be 2s or more/lap
No one can make a sweeping general conversion that covers all dirt tracks in all countries, during all weathers and different eras. So no one person's claim can be gospel, hence the conflict between even a single person's comments. It doesn't take much thinking to establish that fact
no
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0we have a 1.5% consensus from biomechanical experts, which presumably applies to a pristine track
The 1.5 secs is being generous to Bannister. He's an old man and is celebrating the 60th anniversary of his famous run; it's the done thing to big him up. Coe is also taking into consideration the weather in Oxford that day, cold and windy, and the fact the spikes would have been much heavier in those days. So it doesn't mean Coe believes Bannister was capable of 3:53
his run was likely 3'55-high using 1.5% as i presume it was 1st race on track, or at least early one run at 6 pm
he can have at least 1s off that for cold weather
And the spikes and weather and condition of the track would have been very different between Bannister running in 1954 and Ryun running in a warm , dry climate in 1967, which is basically the old chestnut that Venty is moving towards proclaiming
this is again your own delusional paranoia
Ryun, along with lots of other guys like ron, keino, hayes, tommie, etc suffered because of running on dirt
And if Coe ran a 1:44.98 on dirt, followed by a 46.4 relay on the same day, then with your 1.5 secs per lap conversion, surely he wasn't in 1:42 mid form, but in 1:42 flat form!?
no
i give that as ~ 1'43-flat using 1.5% figure & a little more off it for maybe not being 1st race on track
Basically you're saying that he ran a 1:42.0 followed by a 44.9 relay an hour later!
no
see immediately above
Tracks have gotten faster- "old" all weather tracks were harder and slower than they are now.
ventolin^3 wrote:
like i said
he was in likely 1'42-mid shape in '80
there was nothing impressive that year apart from a boycotted gold & an expected beating of wohl's 2'13.4
Who could have beat him in 1980!
How many golds did medals did your guy Ryun win! He should have run like a man and at least tried to go with Keino
Ryun gets another .5 per lap, making him a 1:38, 3:40 guy now!!!
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Ryun gets another .5 per lap, making him a 1:38, 3:40 guy now!!!
Nah, with 1.5%, he's still a 3:47 guy. With proper pacing and pacemakers, maybe it's worth the AR.
Agree with every word. Too many posters have never run on a dirt track. I ran on both in the 1970s - some races against Coe -and there is no comparison. In my first race on a synthetic track I did a pb 1500 by over 3 seconds - and my "home" cinder track at Witton Park in Blackburn was reckoned to be one of the fastest in the UK at the time.
Synthetic tracks are standard for the duration of a meet ; even the best dirt/cinders got chewed up at the end of a heavy afternoon or evening of competiiton and were very much influenced by the weather.
mark b wrote:
Agree with every word. Too many posters have never run on a dirt track. I ran on both in the 1970s - some races against Coe -and there is no comparison. In my first race on a synthetic track I did a pb 1500 by over 3 seconds - and my "home" cinder track at Witton Park in Blackburn was reckoned to be one of the fastest in the UK at the time.
Synthetic tracks are standard for the duration of a meet ; even the best dirt/cinders got chewed up at the end of a heavy afternoon or evening of competition and were very much influenced by the weather.
I second the comment above. You put a bunch of runners on a dirt track over a long meet and it is pretty much a sand dune when the later events are run. Further, think about a 10K with say 20 competitors with LONG spikes and that makes lane 1 very soft very fast.
When the 3 mile (yes pre 5K) would come around at the end of the college meet you found yourself running on the outside of the lane or even lane 2 to get traction.
I'm old enough to remember running cinders as a kid at Hayward Field. They are slow. Whether 1.5 a lap, I don't know. Easily testable, with the same athletes running on each surface. Six seconds a mile wouldn't surprise me. Less energy return, and the foot strike is less stable.
Shawn H wrote:
Many of you have valid points. But you can't really compare sprints on a cinder track to distance events on a cinder track. I believe that a modern rubberized track has made EVERY track event faster. However, for distance events this benefit will be greater due to the greater fatigue of distance running. This is just my theory, but it is also based on my experience running on both cinder and rubber. I believe that for a mile or more the benefit might be as great as 1-2 seconds a lap, depending on the event. And for sprints, maybe a couple tenths of a second, which in sprints can be huge.
Unbelievably, Bob Hayes drew the inside lane at the 100 final of the 64 Olympics - the churned up inside lane where all the distance runners ran!
He still equalled the world record of 10 seconds - one wonders what he would have run on a modern track, especially some recent one that were laid especially fast for the Bolts of this world to perform.
runner who professes wrote:
I'm old enough to remember running cinders as a kid at Hayward Field. They are slow. Whether 1.5 a lap, I don't know. Easily testable, with the same athletes running on each surface. Six seconds a mile wouldn't surprise me. Less energy return, and the foot strike is less stable.
Agreed. You can all put asterisk symbols by your times indicating your mile and 3 mile would be 8 and 24 seconds faster if it were ran on a one of today's super tracks. It would look something like this:
Mile: 4:10*
3-mile: 14:30*
*Cinder track adjusted
You could even take off more time if you ran your event at the end of the day and lane 1 was even more chewed up:
Mile: 4:05*
3-mile: 14:15*
*Cinder track adjusted and lane 1 was "chewed up"
yyy wrote:
giving 1:41:3 for Snell. he is up there as I have always
claimed. Anyone disagreeing is a clown.
Snell didn't run his 1:44.3 on dirt, it was grass, which he himself said he believed was faster than dirt.
I ran my lifetime PR for 100 on a grass track. Very good grass tracks are still slower than synthetic, but not by a huge margin. I'd guess a second per lap, but it'd sometimes be less when the track is in top shape.
Read the post again. The key sentence is (and I capitalize for emphasis) "for a mile or MORE the benefit might be as great as 1-2 seconds a lap, DEPENDING ON THE EVENT. The mile probably wouldn't benefit by more than a second, or maybe 1.5 at the most. The 10,000 meters, on the other hand . . . And why does everyone keep bringing up the great Bannister. Remember, before HE broke four minutes, it was a HUGE mental barrier just to go under four. AFTER he broke it, EVERYONE who broke it thereafter will forever be MENTALLY inferior to the first guy who did it, even if he was not the greatest miler of all time in terms of time.
runner who professes wrote:
I'm old enough to remember running cinders as a kid at Hayward Field. They are slow.
^ This.
Tommie Smith's 19.50 is really an 18.75! First and only sub-19 in history.
MIC ITW wrote:looking at the sprint results of tokyo v. munich makes it look like about .5-.75 sec/lap.
they weren't same calibre guys in both meets
- 100 : hayes wouda crushed borzov over 100
- 200 : borzov was probably 1/10th better than carr
- 400 : larrabee was likely coupla tenths better than matthews
Mr. Obvious wrote:Ryun gets another .5 per lap, making him a 1:38, 3:40 guy now!!!
fool
only if you use coe's conversion of 1.5s/lap
who is other than coe ???