Given that it is nearly impossible to gauge exactly when he crosses the 100m mark, this is just an estimation.
I hand-timed from the video 13.7s. Given that the line could be a step or two in either direction, he ran somewhere in the range of 13.5-13.9.
stop watch wrote:
Given that it is nearly impossible to gauge exactly when he crosses the 100m mark, this is just an estimation.
I hand-timed from the video 13.7s. Given that the line could be a step or two in either direction, he ran somewhere in the range of 13.5-13.9.
Yes it’s just an estimation, but why try to guesstimate when you can pin this down to a much tighter window by simply using the resources available to you?
By using the 90m mark against the clock you can get the accuracy to within a tenth of a second (plus or minus). Through an iterative process, simply freeze images of Solinsky at 26:47.0 (right leg before the line) and 26:47.1 (Left leg after the line) so can frame his space in time to about 0.1. So let’s split the difference and use 26:47.05 for the 90m mark. (Note: the reality here is that at 26:47.0 he is further in his stride on the right foot than the image of the left foot. At 43 strides per 90m his strides should take him 0.32s, which may or may not change the estimation of the center point over the 90m line)
26:59.60 - 26:47.05 = 12.55 for the final 90m, which extrapolates to 13.94 for the final 100m. It’s pretty safe to assume the margin of error is +- 0.1s, maybe +-0.15s.
The point here isn't that they got it wrong, it's that they got it wrong to a degree that anyone with a few working brain cells should have known was wrong as soon as they typed "12.1"
Saying Solinsky ran the final 100m in 12.1 is on the exact same scale as reporting that athlete ran the last lap of a race in 47.3 when they actually ran 54.0. It’s so blatantly wrong it doesn't pass the giggle test.
YOU don't pass the giggle test.
Back in the early 1980's there was an article in The Runner remarking on how fast the 10,000 championships were being finished in. They reported the European Championships being won by Alberto Cova, one of the fastest finishers in history, running 13.0 for the last 100. At Worlds the next year he finished a little faster.
Seb Coe's last 100 in the 1984 1500 looked really fast but again it was 13.0. His previous 100 was faster-12.7.
These were some of the fastest kickers of there time. Solinsky never had superior closing speed, very good but in college he perfected the long fast last 1200 in 3:00 to win rather than waiting for the last lap. I know he's a much different runner now but he's not closing any 10,000 let alone 26:59 when he's ahead and running 12.4. Lets have some common sense.
Scorpius wrote:
YOU don't pass the giggle test.
Okay.....
malmo wrote:
stop watch wrote:Given that it is nearly impossible to gauge exactly when he crosses the 100m mark, this is just an estimation.
I hand-timed from the video 13.7s. Given that the line could be a step or two in either direction, he ran somewhere in the range of 13.5-13.9.
Yes it’s just an estimation, but why try to guesstimate when you can pin this down to a much tighter window by simply using the resources available to you?
By using the 90m mark against the clock you can get the accuracy to within a tenth of a second (plus or minus). Through an iterative process, simply freeze images of Solinsky at 26:47.0 (right leg before the line) and 26:47.1 (Left leg after the line) so can frame his space in time to about 0.1. So let’s split the difference and use 26:47.05 for the 90m mark. (Note: the reality here is that at 26:47.0 he is further in his stride on the right foot than the image of the left foot. At 43 strides per 90m his strides should take him 0.32s, which may or may not change the estimation of the center point over the 90m line)
26:59.60 - 26:47.05 = 12.55 for the final 90m, which extrapolates to 13.94 for the final 100m. It’s pretty safe to assume the margin of error is +- 0.1s, maybe +-0.15s.
The point here isn't that they got it wrong, it's that they got it wrong to a degree that anyone with a few working brain cells should have known was wrong as soon as they typed "12.1"
Saying Solinsky ran the final 100m in 12.1 is on the exact same scale as reporting that athlete ran the last lap of a race in 47.3 when they actually ran 54.0. It’s so blatantly wrong it doesn't pass the giggle test.
Image:
http://i41.tinypic.com/dzumfs.jpgImage:
http://i41.tinypic.com/2rmtc1l.jpg
Well, that is a good way to prove that even the 12.1s claim for 90m would have been wrong. I didn't see the point of making it more accurate, when clearly if I can hand-time it over 13s, then 12.1 is way off.
Kudos to you for taking the time to do that. You should submit those photos to T&F News and make them print on the next cover . . . We are dumbasses!
stop watch wrote:
Well, that is a good way to prove that even the 12.1s claim for 90m would have been wrong. I didn't see the point of making it more accurate, when clearly if I can hand-time it over 13s, then 12.1 is way off.
Kudos to you for taking the time to do that. You should submit those photos to T&F News and make them print on the next cover . . . We are dumbasses!
Thank you, but my point wasn't really to show you that you could be more accurate by example, that was an added bonus. My point was that any idiot should've been able to recognize that 12.1 was wrong even without reviewing the video.
Had it been reported as 13.1, that would have raised an eyebrow, but it wouldn't have risen to the level of absolute idiocy like the 12.1. I mean, 13.1 could've happened, even though that was still highly improbable, and would have been one of the fastest finishing 10ks ever recorded since the stopwatch was invented. "13.1" would have warranted a stern "doesn't that seem a little bit fast? Recheck your splits before publishing this, please." Coming up with "12.1" invokes a more colorful conversation -- "who the f*** took these goddamn splits?"
Correction: Coe's last 100 in the 84 1500 final was 13.1. The previous 100 he hit 13.0
...according to TnF News September 1984.
George Webbs wrote:
Correction: Coe's last 100 in the 84 1500 final was 13.1. The previous 100 he hit 13.0
...according to TnF News September 1984.
You make a correction citing a TnF News fact on a thread saying TnF News` stats are unrelieable.
When asked, WR holder Donovan Powell declined to comment on the issue.
Some TnF News stats are unreliable, therefore all TnF stats are unreliable. I get how this game is played. Fun.
malmo wrote:12.55 for the final 90m, which extrapolates to 13.94 for the final 100m. It’s pretty safe to assume the margin of error is +- 0.1s, maybe +-0.15s.It's actually closer to 14 flat. The transition mark is at 89.5 M, so 90 even is about here in your screen saves: http://i40.tinypic.com/33y25qu.jpg
malmo wrote:
We don't agree. Alan is right way more than he's wrong. e's a 99 percent free-throw shooter who just missed thrre in a row. Hence the cold streak comment.
well malmo, I said "we agree" twice: once on whether or not it is possible or believable that Solinsky ran a 12.1 last 100, and secondly on whether or not Alan is more wrong than right on here.
On the first one we clearly agree. And the second apparently we don't, but I am not surprised in the least that you decided to focus on a possible disagreement. I've said it time and time again: even when one tries to agree with malmo, he'll tell you that you are wrong!
malmo wrote:
The point here isn't that they got it wrong, it's that they got it wrong to a degree that anyone with a few working brain cells should have known was wrong as soon as they typed "12.1"
Saying Solinsky ran the final 100m in 12.1 is on the exact same scale as reporting that athlete ran the last lap of a race in 47.3 when they actually ran 54.0. It’s so blatantly wrong it doesn't pass the giggle test.
Well then, if what you wrote above is true, and I agree with it, one should ALSO think that someone with a "few working brain cells" could also figure out that the 12.1 split listed for Solinsky was definitely not true, even though they read it on the internet . Yet somehow Alan, your supposed "99% free throw shooter" of LetsRun statements, thought it was "believable"!?!
Sorry Malmo, a person who is very knowledgeable in athletics and physiology (much more right than wrong) finding the 12.1 split believable would be like a "99% ft shooter" suddenly, not on purpose, shooting a FT 20 feet over the backboard and into the 20th row. It has never happened, nor will ever happen. True?
Time to reassess your evaluation of alan's opinions. Start with some of his nutrition threads.
I have to agree with Malmo's point. Its surprisingly unprofessional for someone writing for a T&F magazing to write "12.1" and not have it raise eyebrows and do some further due diligence to make sure that is right or not. I think of Bob Beamon's WR in 68'. Even if somehow it was true, if you were a reporter in some back office seeing that number come off the wire, it warrants some phone calls and follow ups to be sure that is right.
Jason Bernstein, Haverford chumpster, you're not tearing anyone a new asshole.
didn't you swear off letsrun for an entire year?
Remember kids...never let facts get in the way of trying to make a point on the interets!
Word.
Point is this: Elites will run faster at the end of races than normal good runners because they are elites. The end of the race has little to do with actual footspeed and more do with just not slowing down and having the endurance to run the last lap or last 100m as close to your top speed as possible. I'm sure there are many non-elite 5k guys who have better top speed but simply don't have the endurance to hold it or come close to it at the end of races.
Everyone one of us could have likely gotten killed in a 100m dash by an assortment of our high school athletic colleagues from the football, basketball, or baseball team, but it's our endurance that allows us to hold onto the speed we do have over longer distances.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
Point is this: Elites will run faster at the end of races than normal good runners because they are elites. The end of the race has little to do with actual footspeed and more do with just not slowing down and having the endurance to run the last lap or last 100m as close to your top speed as possible.
Yes Alan, we get it, but it doesn't allow Chris Solinsky to run 12.1 at the end of a race.
14.1 is fast. 13.1 is ultrafast. 12.1 means California finally legalized marijuana.
Goat Fan wrote:
Jason Bernstein, Haverford chumpster, you're not tearing anyone a new asshole.
Another meek cockroach scurries for cover when the lights come on.
malmo wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:Point is this: Elites will run faster at the end of races than normal good runners because they are elites. The end of the race has little to do with actual footspeed and more do with just not slowing down and having the endurance to run the last lap or last 100m as close to your top speed as possible.
Yes Alan, we get it, but it doesn't allow Chris Solinsky to run 12.1 at the end of a race.
14.1 is fast. 13.1 is ultrafast. 12.1 means California finally legalized marijuana.
My bad....marijuana is KY's largest cash crop...unofficially of course!
Alan
malmo wrote:
Saying Solinsky ran the final 100m in 12.1 is on the exact same scale as reporting that athlete ran the last lap of a race in 47.3 when they actually ran 54.0. It’s so blatantly wrong it doesn't pass the giggle test.
Misreporting a 54 as a 47.3 is terrible, but using a scale like this in this case is ridiculous.
I do agree that 12.1 is blatantly wrong, and that it was more likely somewhere between 13.7-14.
Watch somebody run a 54 400, and watch somebody run a 47 400. You can tell a whole lot more of a difference than watching a 12.1 compared to a 13.7
