Serious or not? Discuss.
Serious or not? Discuss.
looked well on the way to a sub 20, hopefully he's okay.
The form looked good, but he's limping. at least putting weight on it
I think he'll be good for a 43, but we won't see him on the circuit for a bit im guessing.
upper right thigh area?
I think he may be done. 2016 was 5 years ago. Series of injuries, one of them very serious. Turns 29 soon. Very small window left to comeback within.
jabouko wrote:
looked well on the way to a sub 20, hopefully he's okay.
The form looked good, but he's limping. at least putting weight on it
I think he'll be good for a 43, but we won't see him on the circuit for a bit im guessing.
upper right thigh area?
Sub 20 (maybe) on a straight 200m. The winner Blake’s previous best was 20.38. Guessing that’s in the 20.2-20.3 range on a standard 200m.
Sprint42 wrote:
jabouko wrote:
looked well on the way to a sub 20, hopefully he's okay.
The form looked good, but he's limping. at least putting weight on it
I think he'll be good for a 43, but we won't see him on the circuit for a bit im guessing.
upper right thigh area?
Sub 20 (maybe) on a straight 200m. The winner Blake’s previous best was 20.38. Guessing that’s in the 20.2-20.3 range on a standard 200m.
Meant to say - Blake’s 19.89 is probably in the 20.2-20.3 range on standard track.
fair enough, the sprints seemed a little faster on this track. Hearing that its van Niekerks right hip that got tight
I'm stunned that a straight 200 is that muh faster than a 200 on a turn.
What is the accepted conversion?
I'd say it's worth 20.1-20.15
rojo wrote:
I'm stunned that a straight 200 is that muh faster than a 200 on a turn.
What is the accepted conversion?
The difference is not that much. Blake's top speed and special endurance are better in 2021 than in previous years. Blake's 2nd leg in Canada's 4x100m a few weeks ago made that clear.
200 conversion factor is .5 for straightaway.
coachkritter wrote:
200 conversion factor is .5 for straightaway.
Source?
Tommie Smith's 19.5h +1.9 straight course run in 1966 was .32 better than his 19.82a in Mexico City, the first sub 20 with a bend and for a long time the only one. Give it a .3 for the olympics and a tenth for the altitude, minus a .2 for the hand time and .5 isn't unreasonable for a conversion to sea level.
There's really not much else to base it on. But it takes a lot more force to turn than you may realize, and that's force not used to make you go forward. The feeling of acceleration when you hit the straight isn't totally imaginary, even though you rarely actually accelerate.
I think the conversation is .2 to .3, if you look at the wr by Tyson Gay, he ran 19.41 as a 19.58 runner. You can also look at zarnell Hughes who ran 19.93 in this race but is in 20.1 shape right now. The bend doesn't take .5 secs out of runners, even bolt who is very tall so he has a hard time running the curve split 9.92 on the bend.
Tommie Smith's world record was worth about 19.93 when converted for hand time and wind. Wind is worth double because its pushing you the whole race.His closes 200m run to that race was 20.14 electric timed, worth 20.18 no wind.
You may also need to use more than .24 to convert to fat, it is likely much harder to time a straight 200m.
Bad Wigins wrote:
There's really not much else to base it on. But it takes a lot more force to turn than you may realize, and that's force not used to make you go forward. The feeling of acceleration when you hit the straight isn't totally imaginary, even though you rarely actually accelerate.
I've seen you chime in on math before Bad Wigins, so there's a good chance you already know this. In case you (or anyone else) doesn't know:
While I have no idea how it impacts "forward speed", athletes running a 200m curve will need to exert a perpendicular force (90 degrees to their left) that's about 30% of their mass (using 11m/s in lane 4). It obviously depends on the lane and their speed, but for a male sprinter will pretty much always be 25-35%. Using v in metres/sec and r as the radius of the lane (wikipedia "running track"), the athlete needs to maintain a force that is (v^2)/(9.8r) times their mass (or weight if you prefer. For Blake, that's probably 55-60lbs worth.
This a guess, but I suspect the strong majority of that force is generated by the lean of the athlete. I don't recall ever seeing data on the angle sprinters will be leaning over during a 200m curve. Has anyone else?
He was limping oddly for someone with a quad/hip injury.
America's fury wrote:
He was limping oddly for someone with a quad/hip injury.
Agreed. It looked more like a knee joint strength issue to me.
Why would anyone agree to this mickey mouse event? It's too risky with the unstable surface and shortened finish area. Oh, yeah...money.
FrustratingEvent wrote:
Why would anyone agree to this mickey mouse event? It's too risky with the unstable surface and shortened finish area. Oh, yeah...money.
because adidas wants their sponsored athletes to put on a show that they have spent quite a lot of money on?
money doesn't come free. sponsored athletes have to work for it and pay their dues (shocking)
Rastus wrote:
I think he may be done. 2016 was 5 years ago. Series of injuries, one of them very serious. Turns 29 soon. Very small window left to comeback within.
Yeah, I feel the same way.