Women's 5000m Fastest Last Lap Ever: do you know of any female closing faster then this 53.7 (video)

runthecountry wrote:

Malmo - I did just read through the entire thread earlier this morning - I was not saying that 56.9 to 57.4 was the range you would come up with after analyzing the video, I was merely allowing that much difference for hand timing errors with a stopwatch (about .24 seconds, and doubling it to be generous).

For reference, I just timed it again and got Defar in 57.04. Probably a little slow because you can anticipate the finish line in the bell lap, but at the actual finish, it just pops into the right hand side of the picture right at the end.

1) The 0.24 comes wholly hand-timed events. it is the reaction time of the timer from the retort of the gun, plus the margin of error of anticipation of the finish. you don't double it. Both the start and finish of the split times is anticipatory so the margin of error is very tight. Also you can repeat the timing over and over.

You prbably got the time of the leaders, first Dibaba at 4600 then Defar at 5000, which is what I got when I applied the stopwatch to it. By the way, you can use an old-fashioned stopwatch, or a virtual one online, it still gets the same result.

The whole point is moot anyway. You can simply use the onescreen graphics to determine the time. You have the time that they stopped the split timer early and the associated split. You also know the actual results. A couple of quick additions and subtractions and you get the results. If you want you can download the video and view it frame for frame to get the difference between Dibaba and Defar at 4600m. A couple more quick calculations and you get the precise lap splits.

The entire process, including downloading the video, from youtube only takes 10 minutes. Don't believe me, then do it yourself and time it.

malmo wrote:

The whole point is moot anyway. You can simply use the onescreen graphics to determine the time. You have the time that they stopped the split timer early and the associated split. You also know the actual results. A couple of quick additions and subtractions and you get the results. If you want you can download the video and view it frame for frame to get the difference between Dibaba and Defar at 4600m. A couple more quick calculations and you get the precise lap splits.

True enough.

VIPAM, I don't mean to humiliate you any further than it seems you have been (and not just in this thread), but in an attempt to educate you (which at times seems futile), I will give you a rule of thumb which might prevent this kind of mistake: For a last lap in a race, look at the world record for the gender in question for 800 meters and divide by 2. It would be rather unusual for a last lap to be much faster than this. To illustrate, the mens's 800 record is 1:41.01, so divide by 2 and you get 50.505. You won't see many last laps faster than this. It does happen, rarely, and never off anything but a relatively pedestrian pace. For the women, the 800 record is 1:53.28. You won't see many last laps faster than 56.64, so it is a good rule of thumb, even if not perfect.

'Living in 1999 in the 2011 age sucks, ukathleticscoach. Either get a better internet connection or get a new computer, but quit blaming the technology, and me, for a fault that isn't there.'

When did I blame technology? Problems can occur, as not eveyone is a time rich nerd like you but the main error is in trying to time it by hand when you cannot clearly see the race. Ever notice how timing officials are right near the line. They don't sit in the stands 50m back which is the view you are getting from the camera filming this

By the way you are arrogant beyond belief how do you know what sort of computer I have or, internet connection. If you were had actual as opposed to self perceived intelligence you would know that youtube along with all other site slows when more people are using it

Ever noticed how letsrun is always crashing when anything happens?

For the last time are you a qualified timing official? If your method is so foolproof why would the IAAF not take it up. Because it's a crock. It's not accurate enough because of human error

Are you single by the way, or are you infact Ventolin, an even worse fate. There is some hint of desperation in your pathetic bragging about how 'update' your computer is

I also wonder if you are as brave as you act here, face to face?

ukathleticscoach, the more you post the further you did yourself into a hole.

You are ignorant. youtube does not 'slow' the video. You either get an exact replica of what it is streaming to you or else your cache becomes full and it freezes until the processes with your computer are cleared for it to proceed, but it doesn't slow down. Since no one is having problems with streaming then what you are seeing is an exact replica of what was uploaded to youtube. What was uploaded to youtube is an exact replica to what was recoded on digital, and finally what was recorded on digital is an exact replica of what was viewed in real time.

You've been told that if you have buffering problems then just download the video to your computer and play it. No one else is having problems except you. If no one else is having problems but you then it's either YOUR computer or YOUR internet connection that's having problems.

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=74662

What does being a timing official have to do with whether or not you can get accurate splits off of the video? It's been demonstrated to you in many different ways that you can get accurate splits off of a video. What does this have to do with the IAAF? Don't you see how ridiculous you sound?

I've given you the accurate splits. I've given you step-by-step instructions on how to do it yourself, yet you persist in saying they aren't accurate. Heck, when told to just get out a goddamned stopwatch and time it yourself you flat out refused to do it.

If they aren't accurate then please tell me what the accurate splits are?

I don't know what is more idiotic. Your posts, or me responding to them. I'm voting on the latter. But since it's in my nature to be helpful to the weak of mind I keep trying to help you anyway.

Now I know what it must be like to work for an ISP provider taking tech calls all day from their customers.

I timed it in 57.19 not 53....

The airplane DOES take off ...

Saul Goodman wrote:

That was like 56-57. Impressive, but not 53.

To clarify: look at the youtube clock when they cross 4600 and finish.

Also, when the announcer says 53.7, the clock had stopped at 14:59. When they show the results, the winning time was 15:02.

Is this still active? And someone actually thinks there was a sub 54 lap at the end of this race? Uneffingbelievable. There are many ways to prove the closing lap was more like 57, all of which have been posted already, so I'll just jump on in and say:

Are you out of your effing mind, ukathletics coach? There are 13:45 guys (probably even some 13:30 guys) who couldn't run a 53 of 15:20 pace, you think they would have lost to these two?

When did I saw I had a problem with my internet connection. I was talking in general

In any case that's not the main problem

Like most people on here you choose to pick on one small part of somebodies argument.

What about the human error factor. You are not a qualified as a time keeper and in any case the camera is placed too far away and not using the zoom when they go through the bell

You might get close (and I know your time is probably closer than the rest) but its not accurate. The quality of the video is awful as usual, that has nothing to do with the computer.

Here are the time people (you claimed everyone agreed with your time) got:

53.7

56-57

55-56

57.02*

57.1* both you!

53 !

56.9

This is easy though:'

ere is an image of the vid with one lap to go, Dibaba leading. There is no LIVE timer graphic. But I do know that I can count frames forward until the graphic reappears. Also I can 4 count frames until Defar hit the line. 4 x 0.03367 = 0.134s, so that makes her 0.134s faster than the leader-to-leader last lap split.

Image:

http://oi53.tinypic.com/2i20idv.jpg

The next step is easy, just count 196 frames forward to the 14:12.0 mark. Divide 196 by 29.7 (frames per second) and you get 6.599s. Subtract 6.599 from 14:12.0 and you get 14:05.409 at the 4600 mark. That’s 57.109 to the finish. Subtract 0.13468 from 57.109 and you get 56.97 for Defar’s split. Dibaba’s split is simply 15:02.87 minus 14:05.409 = 57.46s

Which world do you live in where you have time for all that crap

I could have told you they didn't do 53 even without looking at the video. Kelly Homes fastest was 53.8!

Responding to personal insults does not exactly show you in a good light. ok I responded in kind but surely someone with your superior intellect would be above all that. I wonder if you as so brave when you are not hiding behind you super duper computer! Bragging about your computer is at HS level

Before this I actually thought you were ok and enjoyed reading your training advice and pf stuff but apparently its right what people say about you.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Here are the time people (you claimed everyone agreed with your time) got:

53.7

56-57

55-56

57.02*

57.1* both you!

53 !

56.9

I don't even know why I',m responding to you. You keep repeating falsehoods as as if they were truths and nobody will notice. I will put in bold type the posters who actually made an effort to time it.

53.7 VIPAM said this. He was only repeating what was on the screen Vipam did not time it

56-57 Saul Goodman said "it was like 56-57" Conjecture. He did not time it

55-56 Speechless said "55-56 last 400m those two ladies kick just as fast as most elite men." This was conjecture. Speechless did NOT time it

57.02* I got this by using the time graphic

57.1* I timed it with a stopwatchleader at 4600 leader at 5000

53 ! No one said this, quit making up shit!

56.9 Track and Field News & me both said that Defar ran 56.9

56.9 26mi235

56.9-57.1 runthecountry timed it and got between those times each time.

57.19 Rbyme timed the last lap (leader to leader)

So of all the people who actually analyzed it we came up with marks between 56.9 and 57.19, depending on whether or not they were timing the leader or timing Defar specifically. I'm going to ask you, one more time, where is the inaccuracy of timing from the video?

57.02* I got this by using the time graphic. This is leader to leader (4600, 5000)

57.1* I timed it with a stopwatch leader at 4600 leader at 5000

56.9 Me & Track and Field News said that Defar ran 56.9

56.9 26mi235

56.9-57.1 runthecountry timed it and got between those times each time.

57.19 Rbyme timed the last lap (leader to leader)

That's just using your stopwatch on the video and everybody got the same numbers. Now if you wanted to use the graphic from the video you can get the same results. Even you can get the calculations right.

I'll lay out everythign for you nice and neat so that you can run the calculations yourself. Consider it a math question that will graduate you from the 7th grade if you pass. An open book math question. You can have your friend, your mom, your priest, David Honea or even Steven Hawking help you, but you have to solve this problem with the correct answers. You have 10 minutes. Good luck and Godspeed.

-----------------------------------------------------

Information given.

Results

15:02.51 Defar

15:02.87 Dibaba

Inadvertent split time before the finish and "lap" split.

14:59.23

53.74

------------------------------------------------------

Question #1: The final lap split on the video graphic was 53.74. What was the actual final lap?

I'll help you out.

a) First determine how early the split clock was stopped.

15:02.51

- 14:59.23

??:??.?? <<< your answer here

b) Now add the difference to the 400m split time from the graphic

53.74

+ ?.??

??.?? <<

Question #2: Tirunesh Dibaba was leading with a lap to go. What was her last 400?a) Let me help you. This is a trick question. Since we know that the last 400 split for the leader and we know what the final results were, then Dibaba's last lap must be the leader's last lap plus the difference between 1st and 2nd place. Do you agree?15:02.87 -15.02.51 0.?? seconds <<< your answer hereb)??.?? leaders last lap (question 1b)+ ?.?? answer to 2a??.?? Dibaba's last lapQuestion #3: What was winner's last lap?a) 57.02b) 57.38c) 53.74d) can't be determined from the information providedI'll help you. Since the Meseret Defar was the winner and she was not in the lead with a lap to go then all you need to do is subtract how far she was behind at 4600 from the leaders last lap split (1b).Answers1a) 3.28s the split timer was inadvertently stopped 3.28s before the finish1b) 57.02s the leader's last lap (Dibaba at 4600, Defar at 5000) was 57.022a) 0.36s Dibaba finished 0.36s behind Defar2b) 57.38s Dibaba's last lap was 57.383) the answer is d. Since you don't know how far Defar was behind at 4600m you can only determine that she ran faster than 57.02. If you wanted to download the video to your computer you could put it through a free movie-editing application like Windows Live Movie Maker http://tinyurl.com/MovieMakerFree to determine how far Defar was behind Dibaba with a lap to go. To play the video, go back and forth to copy the data from it, download a copy to your desktop if you want, and make all of the calculations takes less than 10 minutes. The answer is 56.9 To argue with a stubborn mule who is really bad at math, refuses to use a stopwatch, and does not understand the wonders of the technology he's using will take hours.

Alf Shrubb wrote:

This is a 53 last lap and they only went at about 300mts.

And as with Goucher, Dave Bedford was leading well into the last lap and he finished around 14 seconds behind - and he had the European record at the time!

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

There is your 53 - ok they probably meant 53.xx

You are just spitting hairs going through the different times I gave people put up. Unless everyone got within a tenth that's not accurate enough for me. That's not to say your time is not reasonable accurate although I bet if you sat behind 3 trained time keepers your time would be further out than theirs. You sound like the sort of person who would tell them how to do their job a well

You would think it's me who put up the 53 time the way you are getting your short, shorts in a twist!

The 53.8 Kelly ran was in 1996, as was her 200m PB of 24.8. If you read her biography she writes about running sub 24 for a 200m in a session just before the 2004 Olympics. Perhaps she would have run faster if she'd competed at the distance when she was in her best shape.

Read her biography! Wes Duncan is my physio!

I'm not having that sub 24 unless Malmo timed it on youtube

i'm aware she said she ran a 400pb tt in the training camp before athens ( i didn't hear about it being a 200, but i'm referring to stories bandied about right after athens, not her book which came out much later & haven't read ), but i have never heard mention of what it was

that's why i called it a 53, as i figured she may have got it as low as 53.0, but woud be quite surprised if she got into the 52s ( as in retospect, that woud give her ~ same 400 ability as jelimo & as holmes has indisputably better overdistance ( 1500 ) endurance ( gold at it with a 3'57 run lot in lanes 2/3 ) ) as she wouda made mincemeat of jelimo's 1'54-flat

Poor Kara Goucher. Is her 400 speed that slow? :-(

VIPAM wrote:

I just ran across this epic battle between Tirunesh and Meseret and was stunned by the last lap in 53.7! It raises the question what is the fastest last lap you've seen in a women's 5000m off a decent pace?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltq12LTARtw&feature=player_detailpage

that is a great video. I watched twice. thanks.

Sorry, this is just stupid in drawing conclusions and implications from malmo's post (and mine; we get identical results from doing the same two timings and independently -- I did not see his until after I posted. I am a USATF official, although I almost time these days as the process is almost perfect with electronic timing, which makes your statement about why the IAAF isn't using malmo's method as hilariously irrelevant except that is shows how unsuited you are for this discussion. I am rarely this dismissive but you have earned your piece.

i'm sure she had quite decent 400 speed

it's a bit difficult to work out her line of fit, as her bests are spread out over a few years & i think she hardly scraped the surface of her 5k/10k ability ( 30'55 in peking conditions has gotta be helluva lot quicker in temperate weather ) & she had that awesome 66'57

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Goucher

my feeling is that perhaps a prelim for her at her peak, maybe in '07, if she had only run these particular distances all year off same training, to nearest 0.25s for 400/800 is

59.25 / 2'04.50 -> 4'03.7 , 8'29.8 , 14'37.3 , 30'29.6 , 67'11

i think she had 59s speed which is very respectable

VIPAM, usually you chime in multiple times in threads you've started. You are strangely silent here. A penny for your thoughts...OK, perhaps I've overpaid...