I couldn’t count strides in the 2nd vid because it was too choppy on my phone...
... but check out the smoke from the starter’s pistol.
I couldn’t count strides in the 2nd vid because it was too choppy on my phone...
... but check out the smoke from the starter’s pistol.
Just slowed it down, and got 42.x.
Either short, windy, or both.
I hope he runs more 100’s soon!
Benjamin at ~41.95 strides.
Unlikely.
I wish I could see Baker, to compare to previous races.
Not sure if there are splits but you can watch the video and count the steps (there is a clear line indicating 100m). Might be exactly 44, but that's in the first 100m of a 200 and on a curve. Perfectly reasonable he'd just under 43 in a straight 100m.
Norman's stride is noticeable longer than everyone else's 1/3rd of the video. His stride shortens up on the straight.
NJ fan wrote:
Not sure if there are splits but you can watch the video and count the steps (there is a clear line indicating 100m). Might be exactly 44, but that's in the first 100m of a 200 and on a curve. Perfectly reasonable he'd just under 43 in a straight 100m.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBqbKtJvyUY
I love all the dumb arbitrary numbers y'all spout for "stride length" you sound like a bunch of cadence freaks and need to be at 180!!
Here's a great analysis for those wanting to learn more. As coach Seagrave would say, knowledge is power, and power is speed!
thoughts and prayers wrote:
so we're willing to accept all these distance athletes running incredible PR's in lockdown but not a sprinter?
the dude is quick.
Not everyone is on board with recent distance runners times.
Being a former Fort Worth resident. What track is that?
My first thought was no way.
Both Norman and Benjamin have demonstrated that they have sub-10 ability. Both have run sub-20 in the 200m, which is the primary event of neither athlete who are both top-3 all time in races over 400 meters. If any of you have doubted that Norman had the capability to run sub-9.90, you are idiots. Get off the boards. He clearly is capable of a 19.5x 200m, and even his 19.70 200m PR is a CLEAR indication of his sub-10 ability over 100 meters.
The skepticism/envy demonstrated by posters here is such a disgrace to the sport. People should be happy for them, I'm glad that the two of them have stayed sharp, and I am not surprised by either of their performances, though Benjamin's 10.03 is a more impressive demonstration of speed compared to what I would have expected for him this year.
Again, Norman has had 9.8 ability for years. His coaches have simply not allowed him to run the event. Which leads to people misconstruing his lack of international competition in the 100m as his lack of ability to run internationally competitive times in the 100m. The results of this meet do NOT run contrary the to indications from both athletes over the past several years. And they both smoked Ronnie Baker, who has run 6.40 in the 60m and 9.8x in the 100m??? Give me a break.
wejo wrote:
Being a former Fort Worth resident. What track is that?
My first thought was no way.
After reading the thread and thinking about the wind, I think it's legit. The wind is the only questionable thing.
In time trial races like this do people ever just wait for the wind to pick up?
What is everyone doing in Fort Worth? Less restrictions than California?
Still want to know what track it was.
Don’t forget halloway
wejo wrote:
wejo wrote:
Being a former Fort Worth resident. What track is that?
My first thought was no way.
After reading the thread and thinking about the wind, I think it's legit. The wind is the only questionable thing.
In time trial races like this do people ever just wait for the wind to pick up?
What is everyone doing in Fort Worth? Less restrictions than California?
Still want to know what track it was.
The IAAF is very picky about listing results outside of sanctioned competitions because their data is used for world rankings which feed into a lot of things. Lately they have been posting results really quick, sometimes within 12-hours. If they post Norman's 9.86, I guess it's legit no matter what anyone thinks
wejo wrote:
wejo wrote:
Being a former Fort Worth resident. What track is that?
My first thought was no way.
After reading the thread and thinking about the wind, I think it's legit. The wind is the only questionable thing.
In time trial races like this do people ever just wait for the wind to pick up?
What is everyone doing in Fort Worth? Less restrictions than California?
Still want to know what track it was.
The video shows the track is next to a highway in a rural area. That should narrow the options down.
Looks like McNair Stadium, but I left Texas years ago.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
I actually remember that bend. Was any split taken?
~10.20/9.50 per PJ Vazel
Several things that stick out to me:
1. Richardson ran 11.56 with a 2.7 wind. She ran 10.9 a week ago. Perplexing she could run so poorly and Norman so fast with less wind.
2. Gatlin ran 6.8 in a 60m...with wind...after dropping a 9.9 season opener a week ago in Clermont. Any guess what you have to run through 60m in order to run 9.9? Let me tell you...it’s faster than 6.8! Oh...and it was with wind...6.8 people!
3. If the stride counts mentioned are correct and you believe they are true and accurate and the times are true and accurate, then we are assuming 2 guys just covered 100m in fewer strides than all but one other person, ever...in practice.
I am not arguing the talent of these two athletes and yes, they are the future. They will both run fast. However, considering likely scenarios, using basic logic, I would argue these times are not accurate and more than likely were due to timing error or measurement error. It’s just not logical that one of the best 100m times ever run legally was achieved in a glorified practice run...in a season opener...in an off event...with one of the fewest total stride patterns ever recorded.
We all love our sport and want to believe, but if you really consider all factors, this is likely an invalid performance. I’m not saying they can’t do it, just stating they likely didn’t do it today.
I could swear he had just under 42 steps. It's much easier to get a 200m start wrong than a 100m start. Either you start at 110m or 100m. What line is going to suggest 90m? I can believe wind was greater than advertised in Texas but not a wrong start/finish line in the 100m. Michael Norman last ran 100m in 10.27 in high school. He's run 19.70/43.45. The latter doesn't mean much for the 100m. Jeremy Wariner also ran 43.45 and didn't break 20 or come close to 10. But 19.70 would predict sub 9.9. And he is young and getting better. Remember that he had a great rivalry with Lyles going way back. To reach Lyles' time in the 100m wouldn't have surprised me. The one question was whether he'd get to run this distance. He is a likely future world record holder at the 400m.
The performance is now posted by the IAAF, which means real or unreal...its being counted as 'real'.
https://www.worldathletics.org/records/toplists/sprints/100-metres/outdoor/men/senior/2020
The various pro-Norman AND the haterade on this thread is...tedious. But this is has gotta be considered par for the course for virtually any message board, let alone Letsrun.
What both the haters and the fanboys need to hear loud and clear is this: taken at it's word a 9.86 100m Dash time with a registered +1.6 wind converts to probably around a 9.94 still wind ("basic") time. Which is great, but let's be real; there are "a lot" of mid 9.9 basics out there. "A lot" being a subjective concept; but always keep in mind only 8 make it into a Championship final and these days you likely need to be sub 10 basic just to have a shot at the final. So, yes it's a VERY legit time if accurate, in every sense. But running a 9.86 with a +1.6 is a different ballgame than breaking 9.90 with minimal to no wind, which is typically what it takes these days to make a medal stand in the 100. Those guys making the final of the championships in the 100, but "bringing up the rear" in the race; those guys are legit talents. But when compared to the guys on the medal stand...they are usually considerably back from them in talent or execution; and more often than not both.
Now, there's plenty to discuss off of all that. You could argue that Normans result IMPLIES possible greatness because of the circumstances (in essence a time trial). Or you can wonder if he could possibly repeat the results in less advantageous situations (he had a nice Texas wind there for him). By all means, have at it in discussions, but it should probably be noted that unless Norman makes a DRAMATIC decision to shift his entire focus and become a 100/200 guy, then ultimately it's all conjecture and a bit moot. In that context, Norman's 9.86 isn't all that unlike Michael Johnson 10.09 from 1994, which for ages has been message board fodder for whether or not Michael Johnson was a sub 10 capable sprinter (and for full disclosure, Johnson ran that with a +2.0).
Something I consider more of an interesting question; when can you start asking if Norman should legitimately consider switching from the 400 to the 100? Does 9.94 basic ability mean he should start considering it? To me, the answers no, but if people are that high on the result then maybe I'm missing something. Bolt went 10.03 in 2007 with a +0.7 wind before turning 21; at what point did everyone agree he should go 100/200 exclusively? Before that result? After? How does that compare to Norman's situation, if at all?
Lyles, of course, went 9.86 last year with a little less wind and with -probably- a much worse start (but in a more standard competition scenario and a guy to chase). Here's an ironic and completely hypothetical situation; a guy in the hunt for the 400m world record (Norman) switches to the 100 for Tokyo and holds the lead at 95 meters in the Tokyo Final only to be passed by another guy (Lyles) with a worse start but better finishing ability who never really competed seriously over 400m.