Powell 9.82 (+0.6) = 9.85 corrected

Bueller? Bueller?

Coach D?

I guess he's having a tough time having to formulate a substantive response, as he seems to have exhausted the well of name-dropping and dogma-parroting from which he has drawn in the past.

Take his normal RT of 0.15s and its a 9.76s run in June.9.79s basic. His actual running took 9.606s.

Not bad at all and certainly a much better run than his typical 9.85s basic run. That should have been clearly seen in the effort given.

I don't know if it's right to "correct" to an athlete's average reaction time.

After all, the athlete is in control of his/her reaction time, unlike wind or elevation (altitude).

That would be like "correcting" each 10m segment of a race to the average that the runner has produced for that 10m segment.

But yes, if he'd had a decent RT, all other things being equal, he would have run a better time.

Can you post some data on his RT's from other good races? Are you sure his average is .15?

Still, what you're talking about is his putting together his perfect race, with elements of which he has proven he is capable--like a .15 RT. Fair enough.

But what I'm talking about is his doing something he HASN'T proven that he can do--change his top-end form so that he can stay with Gay and Bolt at top speed.

Yes, I know that he has "blazed" some 4th-leg relay splits. But they only look "great" because there aren't any data from a recent Bolt or Gay 4th-leg relay split (or are there?).

I'd like to see Powell run well--you're right, with a better RT in this race, it would have been much better!

Stop trying to correct times. He ran 9.82. That means he ran 9.82, not 9.85.

As I've already said, no one cares about what he didn't run. You don't see people talking about how Bolt ran a correct time of 9.63 or something in Berlin, do you?

I have followed his races over the years and can tell you that anything over 0.160s is unusual for him, and over 0.180s is nearly unheard of. He is on point with his RT consistency.

Anyway, just to give you his most recent significant races (where RT is given):

Berlin 2009, from H1 to finals:

0.120/0.130/0.133/0.134s and recall that he carried an injured ankle much of last year.

2010.......

Doha Heat and Finals: 0.148/0.164s

Oslo (heat and finals): 0.135/0.138s

Ostrava H &F: 0.170/0.132s

The normal range for Asafa is 0.130 to 0.165. This I know from years of seeing results.

What kind of sport is short-distance running when they change your finish times based on weather conditions? Whatever.

Infama--

Thanks for that!

Flaking out in the blocks--strange! It must have been weird timing from the starter, or something, given how many guys also had crap RT's.

Well, now I can't wait for his next race. As far as I'm concerned, this year will be all about the race series he has been putting together, even if Gay and/or Bolt run a fast time.

Unless it's a WR or 9.59, of course.

Nobody's changing the finish times, just trying to account for consistent variables so that his various times can be compared to one another.

If someone runs 10.7 with no wind and all of a sudden runs 10.6 with a +2m/s wind, it doesn't mean that they have improved.

I agree. But in the marathon, they don't "adjust" your times like this if it's too windy or if there is a tail wind. I think it's a bit cheezy.

The marathon is not assessed down to 1/100th of a second!

Its a different event!

In any case the adjustment is not about changing the official time. Its about assessing near term potential. Based on what I see, barring injury, Asafa will be capable of a legal 9.6s clocking by August. His technique change and improvement path suggests this. Therefore when it happen, people like me who pay attention will not be shocked.

I've often wondered about wind during a marathon, particularly as it relates to drafting!

Say an amazing marathoner is cruising along at 12 mph, into an 8 mph headwind, giving an airspeed of 20 mph.

Drafting will afford a significant advantage at that speed, and drafting is available in a marathon, at least for most of the way. So, it could be argued that any headwind effects in a particular race are spread over whatever number of runners happen to be in a group in which there is one pulling, and others drafting, unless one runner leads the whole way, including to the finish. Because the effect is thus diluted, it is not accounted for.

Then there are the out-and-back marathon courses, which speak for themselves.

I know that marathon course certification does involve things like grades and elevation changes.

100m & 200m, drafting plays little role, unless the wind is at a particular combination of angle and speed, and two runners are very close together.

Also, wind "data" are windowed over a much smaller time in the 100/200 than they would be in the marathon. You could/can get an insane wind if you wait for just the right moment, or just the right 10s, so the effect is more dramatic.

As far as headwind goes, because marathoners run, say, half as fast as sprinters, the friction due to the wind will be more than twice as great on a sprinter than a marathoner, as the relationship of air friction to airspeed is non-linear.

Plus, just the practical unwieldiness of measuring wind over a marathon course (that is not out-and-back)and over a marathon time makes it impracticable.

Are there any marathons run around a track?

Sprint Geezer wrote:

As far as headwind goes, because marathoners run, say, half as fast as sprinters, the friction due to the wind will be more than twice as great on a sprinter than a marathoner, as the relationship of air friction to airspeed is non-linear.

All other things being equal (they aren't really) aerodynamic forces change with the square of the velocity. The energy effects of those forces change with the cube. So a sprinter travelling twice as fast as a marathoner will experience four times as much force, and the energy cost will be eight times greater.

(physics)#Power

Yes.

From charliefrancis.com, where there are actually people who know something about sprinting, and nobody criticizes Powell's form (preparation is a different matter):http://img580.imageshack.us/i/roma2010asafa100.jpg/Also, as I pointed out a couple of days ago, Gay IS NOT healthy:

It was pretty obvious that SOMETHING was wrong from what was said before (after 9.88 enroute to 19.41).

Some things like this will be obvious if you've been there as an athlete or coach, and the won't be if you're a poser that hasn't been there.

Now back to the NCAA meet...

Obvious? What a load of B.S.

Assuming he does have a problem with his back, you NEVER specified what "injury" you thought he had. You just picked some vague suggestion about injury that is universally true about any sprinter at any time.

They are ALWAYS suffering some form of injury or imperfection.

Now THAT is obvious if you've been there as an athlete or coach.

NOTHING was obvious about Gay's back. What evidence did you have? None. You are such a blowhard Coach D.

More hot air from Coach D.

And even if he does have some sort of back problem (not exactly an injury, just a "condition"), I guess all that GREAT early 400 work didn't serve him very well now, did it? I thought it was supposed to be for base, to allow you to progress to speed and power work.

He hasn't even done any speed work? More evidence that he naturally has speed and turnover, and should have been concentrating on starts and accelerations.

So what HAS he been doing? No speed work. Obviously no starts.

"It could have shocked my body."

No kidding.

THAT IS WHY HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRAINING DIFFERENTLY THAN HE HAS BEEN.

Again, I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Oh wait, yes I did.

Notice the lack of substantive response from Coach D to the original post concerning Powell and his average run in Rome.

YOU be the judge.

Evidence-based reasoning vs hot air.

Again, there is nothing wrong with Powell's form if he wants to run 9.85

There is something wrong with his form if he wants to run 9.58

If you knew anything about the sport, you would know that Gay did exactly the same thing last year.

He ran 19.58 in New York, and said afterward he hadn't started to do any speedwork yet.

And he ran 9.69.

Furthermore, Coach D, if you watch the Manchester race, you'll see that he runs well at speed.

His whole form tightened up towards the end of the race, however. That didn't look to be related to one hammy, that looked exactly like a runner who was fatigued.

To those of us who have been there, THAT was obvious.

Again, where's all that benefit from all those 400's?

And how exactly does "after 9.88 enroute to 19.41" indicate that "something was wrong"?

In fact what does that even mean? Grammatically it makes no sense.

Finally, Gay is "willing to do anything" he can to stay healthy?

Uh-oh. Coach D, your phone is ringing.

Now that I've got you on the line Coach D, I never said that speedwork was not of benefit to Gay.

I said he shouldn't have been concentrating on doing 400's.

First off, 400's are not speedwork.

Second, I still maintain that he should have been concentrating more on starts and accelerations--THAT is where he needs to put in the most work.

Of course he needs to do speedwork, but not at the training expense of starts and accelerations. He appears to have natural speed.

Look D, I actually think we agree on more things than we disagree.

Here are 2 straightforward questions for you:

Specifically, what do you think Powell needs to do to run faster?

Specifically, what do you think Gay needs to do to run faster?

The type of answers I'm looking for are those that describe what aspect(s) of their respective races afford each of them the opportunity to improve, and how they should go about achieving that improvement.