Calculator Man
I plugged in Laussane SWI, lane and wind speed and got .09. If you do more research you will find calculators that use temperature and humidity in the formula. I didn't know what either of these values were for the Laussane venue so I used the calculator I posted.
I think a lot of prfessionals would argue that even .06 in a sprint is a lot of time, not to mention .09.
This is not come out of nowhere. X ran 10.0x and 44.5 at NCAAs within an hour, plus ran the winning leg on the 4x400 after preceeding days of trials. Given the 100 and 200, which are a little short and long for him, the 200 expectation is high. He ran this off of strength (look at the last 25m) because he is not as smooth as some others but is more powerful. Also, big improvements when young are not surprising and, for the first time in a long while he does not have the distraction/physical demands of football.
The calculator is not taking into account that this is a tight track, so lane 8 is more like lane 6 (X had the choice of 4 or 8 and took 8 because 4 is so tight). Also, the wind adjsutment is a crapshoot because the angle of the wind is not know. For instance, if it is 0.4 on the straight, it could be 1.0+ on the curve or -0.5. It usually is the case that the wind in the 200m is not quite the help it is in the 100 because of the angle and the constraints of the curve (you cannot hit peak speed so that the wind resistence is not having as much effect).
Now, the analyses that I have seen indicate that the 19.32 on the Atlanta track was aided by: 1) slight altitude; 2) wind; 3) high humidity (water vapor is less dense that N2 and O2) and temperature; and 4) an "overly hard" track, overly hard in the sense that it exceeds the allowed parameters and is faster. The net adjustment is something like 19.40 or 19.42; thus, the adjustments are similar and the mark is about 0.3 slower than the "untouchable" 200 record (I used to think that I might not see that record broken, but given altitude and good wind, X might be capable of it soon).
26mi235
I was not trying to be scientific. In response to another poster I used the calculator to show that the elevations at Lausanne do provide a significant benefit to sprinters. I am not taking anything away from Carter on this excellent performance. I would enjoy watching him repeat it many times.
I understand your point about tracks and wind and it is an important one.
The scientific studies that went into the creation of the calculators say that the conversions are not pure physics theory but also use information derived from statistical analysis. It is still SWAG and I think that was your point.
With regards to Carter's statement about lane choice, I thought he said the lanes were tight (not the curves) and so his choice gave him more "elbow room". I ran 3rd leg on my schools 440yd relay and always picked the outside lane because I had a tendency to drift when accelerating on the turn. But, I guess Carter would be the one to answer that.
The X-Man set high school records and ran 20.02 as a freshman in 2005. How is he coming out of nowhere?
10.28 in high school
20.69 200m indoor national high school record
Also, about Michael Johnson...he ran 10.09 in 1994 and "only" ran 21.30 in HS.
The X-Man is simply a better athlete and will break the 200m record within 2 years.
MJ showed that the record would be beat. We are witnessing a "Bannister effect".
Alan
ArcticBrew wrote:
Calculator Man
I plugged in Laussane SWI [altitude], lane and wind speed and got .09.
But this is what you said "Running at 2000 ft elevation and in lane 8 has a considerable impact on time. 0.09 seconds according to the theories."
Altitude and lane onlu make up a difference of 0.063. (check the calculator).
Altitude, lane and wind make the difference 0.092
ArcticBrew wrote:
If you do more research you will find calculators that use temperature and humidity in the formula. I didn't know what either of these values were for the Laussane venue so I used the calculator I posted.
I think a lot of prfessionals would argue that even .06 in a sprint is a lot of time, not to mention .09.
I disagree.
You disagree with what?
If you are arguing the semantics about the calculator usage that was never my point and I will give that one to you.
If you are saying a six one hundredths difference in a 200m sprint time is not significant please, tell me how you justify that statement.
If you look at the top 10 200m runners of all time, with the exception of Michael Johnson's #1 ranking, the step difference between the other rankings is .05s, .02s, .02s, .01s, .02s, 0s, .02s, and .02s. I would expect each of those athletes to think .06s is significant.
ArcticBrew wrote:
You disagree with what?
If you are saying a six one hundredths difference in a 200m sprint time is not significant please, tell me how you justify that statement.
It's my opinion. No different than your opinion is your opinion.
ArcticBrew wrote:
if you look at the top 10 200m runners of all time, with the exception of Michael Johnson's #1 ranking, the step difference between the other rankings is .05s, .02s, .02s, .01s, .02s, 0s, .02s, and .02s. I would expect each of those athletes to think .06s is significant.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean?
so I can deduce one thing from all the posts...Gay ran an incredible curve and X chased him down. There.
Those are the differences in the sprint times for #2 thru #10 top ranked 200m runners of all time. Each of the differences is less than .06s.
Performances contribute to points in IAAF current world rankings. Wind speed is used when calculating points but, I do not think altitude is being used (it is currently under consideration, however). World rankings are worth money. .01s is significant on this list because that can affect a ranking. If I were a professional sprinter I would be trying to get into every top level high altitude competition I could.
If you said that less than .005s is not significant I would agree with you.
I am not stating opinion. I am stating what the IAAF and other T&F governing bodies consider significant when comparing times and performances.
ArcticBrew wrote:
I am not stating opinion. I am stating what the IAAF and other T&F governing bodies consider significant when comparing times and performances.
You're looney..... and wrong.
The IAAF and other governing bodies does not say this, nor does their scoring tables imply anything like you've said.
As far as IAAF scoring goes, altitude is not figured in the equation; only time, place and wind. 0.4m/s wind changes the results score 2.4 points out of 1286 (6 x 0.4ms = 2.4)
Carter's performance score will be = Results score (1284) + Placing score (130) = 1414
Gay gets 110 placing points, Bolt 90, and Spearman 75.
Gay's performance score will be 1273 + 110 = 1383, which will be averaged with his current standing of 1344
Neither altitude nor lane assignment figures into the results score. The 2.4 points for wind figure into all 4 sprinters equally.
What figures most is that Carter has the highest Results score of the year and he defeated Gay, Spearman, and Bolt, so he will leap to the top of the 200m rankings.
1. (1.) Wallace SPEARMON 84 USA 1356
2. (2.) Tyson GAY 82 USA 1344
3. (3.) Usain BOLT 86 JAM 1299
4. (4.) Chris WILLIAMS 72 JAM 1287
5. (5.) Justin GATLIN 82 USA 1281
6. (6.) Stéphan BUCKLAND 77 MRI 1272
7. (7.) Tobias UNGER 79 GER 1250
8. (8.) Rodney MARTIN 82 USA 1248
9. (9.) Omar BROWN 82 JAM 1236
9. (9.) Aaron ARMSTRONG 77 TRI 1236
11. (11.) Daniel BATMAN 81 AUS 1233
12. (12.) Jaysuma SAIDY NDURE 84 GAM 1229
13. (16.) Christian MALCOLM 79 GBR 1219
13. (13.) Ronald POGNON 82 FRA 1219
13. (13.) Uchenna EMEDOLU 76 NGR 1219
I rest my case.
Chuck Darwizzle wrote:
[quote]What? Okay! wrote:
It is obvious you're some pimply skinny distance dweeb jealous of how much ass sprinters get compared to distance runners
who wants black ass anyways??
Calculator Kid. Give it up. AB said "Running at 2000 ft elevation and in lane 8 has a considerable impact on time." A .06 seconds benefit according to your own post. He proved his point and you helped him. I think myself and many other people on this board would agree that .06 seconds is significant in the sprints. LOL
WhyRest wrote:
Calculator Kid. Give it up. AB said "Running at 2000 ft elevation and in lane 8 has a considerable impact on time." A .06 seconds benefit according to your own post. He proved his point and you helped him. I think myself and many other people on this board would agree that .06 seconds is significant in the sprints. LOL
That's the oldest trick in the book - posting under multiple names in order to fabricate support. There are no others who would think that 6/1,000th of a second is a meaningful gain. Just stick with ArcticBrew for now on.
Calculator man wrote:
There are no others who would think that 6/1,000th of a second is a meaningful gain.
Tell that to Justin Gatlin.
By the way, it's not 6 thousandths, it's 6 HUNDREDTHS, which IS a big, significant deal when you're talking about sprinting.
Methinks you need to recheck how to use the decimal point button on your Texas Instruments.
Robert DeNiro?
Calculator Man
You said .06 seconds in your initial post, not .006 seconds (i.e. six one thousandths). I told you if it was less than .005 seconds I agree with you because it would not round up to a .01 second change. Are you okay with that?
Thanks for the support Chuck.
Excuse me, hundredths.
Justin Gatlin runs the 100. That calculater gives the benefit of 600m (2000') altitude for the 100m 0.019 s. -- again not significant.
ArcticBrew wrote:
Thanks for the support Chuck.
You forgot to thank "WhyRest" LOL.
Calculator man wrote:
Excuse me, hundredths.
Justin Gatlin runs the 100. That calculater gives the benefit of 600m (2000') altitude for the 100m 0.019 s. -- again not significant.
Again, tell that to Justin Gatlin. I brought his name up as an example for a good reason. His 9.76 was later rounded (correctly) to a 9.77. Had he had a few extra thousandths, Asafa Powell's name would not still be listed as sharing the world record.
And YES, 0.019 (almost 0.02s) IS SIGNIFICANT IN THE SPRINTING EVENTS. You are obviously a distance runner and cannot wrap your mind around this concept, but 0.02 seconds, in the elite level, is HUGE.