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

moron

look up komen's last lap in his 7'20 or his 12'39

moron

if they spent the season running only 1500s off only 5k/10k training, they woud asymptote to 3'53

idiot

he is not that much different from komen, with komen showing 3'29 compared to 3'32

what part of your numbskull thinks kennster is going to devastate komen's 1500 ??

idiot

start your watch from when defar passes bell & stop it when clock appears & do the maths

ukathleticscoach wrote:

The op has got the last lap times wrong and any one who thinks youtube can give them an accurate lap reading is mistaken

Hmmmm. Malmo got an accurate split of 57 using two different methods form youtube and he timed the lap himself.

Why don't you try yourself?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

They would not crush the rest of the world over 1500m either although they might do well. If they could they would or at least would need to change their training. Likewise if KB trained for middle distance he would be a lot closer to the best, although its still horses for courses and his is longer distance

The op has got the last lap times wrong and any one who thinks youtube can give them an accurate lap reading is mistaken

VIPAM used the information from the video graphic and the commentary, which was stopped at the 2 mile startline, not the finishline.

You certainly can get accurate splits from youtube videos, provided the original video production was good.

ukathleticscoach go ahead and time it.

seeing is believing. wrote:

Hmmmm. Malmo got an accurate split of 57 using two different methods form youtube and he timed the lap himself.

Why don't you try yourself?

I see I was beaten to the post.

malmo wrote:

2) The video shows the split clock stopped early at the 2 mile startline.

3) You could look at the stopped time graphic and compare the time to the live time graphic. The difference is 3.4s. Add 3.4 to 53.7 and you get 57.1.

4) You could go old skool and time the damn last lap yourself. I got 57.1s.

http://www.online-stopwatch.com/split-timer/

Or get really old skool and use a watch.

5) You could compare the stopped time graphic 14:59.23 to the final results 15:02.51. The difference is 3.28. Add 3.28 to 53.74 and you get 57.02.

So all the posters who said it was 55 or 56 are absolutely wrong, Malmo? If the meet timer accidently stopped the clock early, whose to say the actually time they crossed the line was spot on and not off by a few hundredths of second? Oh my goodness and you had the arrogance to post down to the thousandths of a second 57.02, smelling your aren't you Malmoron.

DonkeysRear wrote:

So all the posters who said it was 55 or 56 are absolutely wrong, Malmo?

Yes.

DonkeysRear wrote:

So all the posters who said it was 55 or 56 are absolutely wrong, Malmo? If the meet timer accidently stopped the clock early, whose to say the actually time they crossed the line was spot on and not off by a few hundredths of second? Oh my goodness and you had the arrogance to post down to the thousandths of a second 57.02, smelling your aren't you Malmoron.

There's a good reason why you choose to stalk anonymously, and this post is another of a long list of them.

Yes, all people who said it was 55 or 56 are wrong. WAY WRONG.

The timer that was stopped early wasn't the official clock, as are none of the event scoreboard timers or media timers. It is a video graphic to enhance your viewing experience.

"whose(sic) to say the actually time they crossed the line was spot on and not off by a few hundredths of second?"

It's not anymore accurate or less accurate than the split times that you see on the jumbotron at any other meet. But the timer DID stop the clock at the 2 mile startline.

I see, it's arrogance to subtract 14:59.23 from 15:02.51 then add the difference to the graphic split time of 53.74 to get 57:02? Arrogance?

You're on tilt, and the obsessive stalking is creepy.

Vivian Cheriyot already defeated Defar in Lusanne 3000 meters.

The finish is almost 57, not close to 53. The timing does something funny as they stop the one clock at two lines (20m?) up the track, and that is what the listed lap time is based on (56.9 is the split, but Defar's split is probably slightly faster as she was almost a meter behind Dibaba at 4600m.

'You certainly can get accurate splits from youtube videos, provided the original video production was good'

I'm suprised as an experience athlete that you think that.

As you know a timing official at any track meet is always stood, or sat level the exact position on the track at which they are taking the time. ie No angles are involved which will provide an accurate reading

Any filming of a track race is not going to be positioned in exactly this correct position to elimate errors. Likewise with any automated timing devices

In addition you and I are not qualified time keepers. Only the official time keeper and official race time are likely to be exact. If this was not the case how come the IAAF they don't use youtube to finally verify Coe's 1:41.73 time. Try putting that to the IAAF!

Even if you see the times given on the official clock in the corner on youtube videos have you not noticed how many time this is adjusted officially afterwards, say wheen a WR is set. Plus these adjustments for the totals are nothing compared to when people decide to time laps especially when they decide to put their own stopwatch on a tape where the timing may be out from uploading copying etc

I don't think I know much more about timing races than you do. What I do is put my trust in the experts in the field who are the official race timekeepers

'start your watch from when defar passes bell & stop it when clock appears & do the math'

I could do that but it's not accurate. I thought you were a stats man, work out the many variables

As I've said try putting Coe's time up from youtube to the IAAF to finally clarify his 1:41.73. I'm sure you think you know better than them as well

By the way when are you going to stop being a philistine and read that book called We

I'm trying to help you and reading that book will be far cheaper than seeing your shrink. Do the math(s)

From Track and Field News:

It was a riveting finish, one of the fastest ever by a pair of runners, as Dibaba's otherwise brilliant last-lap 57.38 was trumped by Defar's amazing 56.9 (with a 28.6 last 200).

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'start your watch from when defar passes bell & stop it when clock appears & do the math'

I could do that but it's not accurate. I thought you were a stats man, work out the many variables

Sure it's accurate What's not accurate about it?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'You certainly can get accurate splits from youtube videos, provided the original video production was good'

I'm suprised as an experience athlete that you think that.

As you know a timing official at any track meet is always stood, or sat level the exact position on the track at which they are taking the time. ie No angles are involved which will provide an accurate reading

I don’t get your point? The official times are determined by the rules of the sport. It is not because of the lack of accuracy of the timing devices.

You can download the video and put it through free video editing software like MovieMaker for review.

The timing graphic went out with over a lap to go then reappeared at 14:10 into the race. Using the brain that god gave you could easily determine the time with a lap to go.

1) Starting the video with a lap to go and counting frames as soon as Dibaba’s torso crosses the line. Four clicks later Defar’s torso crossed the line. That’s 0.13s

2) Counting frames until the timing graphic reappeared at 14:10, and then counting to 14:12.0, because I like nice round numbers, that was 196 clicks.

3) 196/29.7 = 6.60s

4) 14:12.0 – 6.60s = 14:05.4

5) Put the video forward to 15:02.0 I then counted frames to the finish. Defar’s torso hit the line 15 frames later. That’s 0.5. 15:02.5 also appears in the timing graphic.

6) Dibaba’s torso hit the line 10 clicks later. 0.33s. The graphic shows 15:02.8

7) 15:02.5 – 14:05.4 = 57.1s That’s the difference between when Dibaba’s torso hit 4600 and when Defar’s torso hit the finish.

8) 57.1s. hmmm that’s a very familiar number. Exactly what I timed with a stopwatch and exactly what I got using two other deductive methods.

9) Since Defar started 0.13 after Dibaba she ran the final lap in 56.97s. Dibaba ran 57.4s.

10) Now let the video run to 3:31:56. The OFFICIAL results are

1. 15:02.51 Meseret Defar

2. 15:02.87 Tirunesh Dibaba

Times from the video

1. 15:02.5 Meseret Defar

2. 15:02.8 Tirunesh Dibaba

'I don’t get your point? The official times are determined by the rules of the sport. '

Why do you think those rules were introduced

'Since Defar started 0.13 after Dibaba she ran the final lap in 56.97s. Dibaba ran 57.4s'

The fact you times differ so widely from the ops proves my point. ok yours are probably closer

What are you going on about some software you use. Get real who else is doing that. I think you just like arguing the toss

You are seeing the torse cross the line at an angle. Even if you are using the smae angle next time the quality of tmost videos and distance away are going to make them not accurate.

If it was accurate the IAAF would save some money and just use the video of all races

You can do what you want I'll stick with the official figures. If I take my own times I know its just an approximation

What?

Times differs so widey from the ops proves your point? Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

What angle? How are the videos not accurate? This has nothing to do with special software. It is about reason, logic and common sense. The times are embedded in the video. They are accurate. Or you can simply use a stopwatch to time the splits. Simple. The results are the same no matter how you slice it.

What does this have to do with anything? No one is suggesting that takings splits off of a video is going to replace official timing systems. You're just looney.

I did a quick look lat night without going through the thread. Now I see malmo's commentary and his timings/assessment are identical to those that I got. Note that I said it was about 20m early that the timer put up a 'finish' time and kept the clock running for the 'rest'. malmo clarifies that this is the 2-mile line (18.69meters from the line), so that fits exactly.

I also get the expected time from the stop point (2-mile start) to the end at average lap speed of 7.017 mps as being 2.66 seconds and the differential to Defar from Dibaba as 0.14 seconds.

If you can't understand why the difference between the ops and your time from the same video makes such timing unreliable then what does that make you?

'What angle' The angle the camera is filming from which is not level with the line

Why did you mention your software if its not relevant?

On the one hand you claim your method is accurate and on the other you say its not as accurate as the IAAF method and will not replace it.

Maybe you and Ventolin (same person?) are right. He never talks rubbish!

Just admit your method is not accurate!

ukathleticscoach, you're nuts. Give up. You aren't even engaged in the conversation at all.

The ops time? I assume you mean the "original poster's" time? The original poster, VIPAM, didn't provide a time other than repeating the time given by the video and the video commentary that was erroneous when someone within the broadcast staff pushed the split button early 14:59.23 into the race. There is nothing inaccurate about 14:59.23 other than simple human error of when the button was pushed. The button was pushed EXACTLY 14:59.23 into the race, just before the 2 mile startline. There is nothing inaccurate about that. The software used by the broadcast team calculated the split from the 4600m instantaneously and the image appeared on the screen (53.74). There's no mystery as to what happened, ukathleticscoach. Everyone else can see it except for you.

Here is an image of the finish. There is no parallax angle that will distort the ability to discern the moment of finish. It is one frame past when the "5" tenths appeared, which makes it 1/30 of a second, or 0.0333 more than 15:02.5 = 15:02.533. (since MP4 is assembled at 29.7 frames per second it is actually 1/29.7 longer, or 0.03367s longer if you want to be really precise)

(1)

(2)

You can note that Dibaba finished 10 frames after Defar.10 frames is 0.3367 later, or rounded to 0.34s

15:02.53 + .34 = 15:02.87 (what was the official time? i can't hear you?)

Times off of the youtube video were 15:02.53 and 15:02.87. The official times of the race were 15:02.51 and 15:02.87. The 0.02 differences are only in the ability of seeing the high speed photofinish image. It is amazingly accurate to use the youtube video to determine the time.

Here is the frame-by-frame sequence of the moment when the split timer was erroneously pushed, just before the 2 mile startline.

The first image (1) is when 14:59.2 first appeared on the live timer. The 2nd image is one frame later (0.033s) when the split timer was erroneously pushed at 14:59.23. (2) You can see that the 400m split is appearing in the upper left corner. The split time and the 400m lap split time remained in the graphic as the LIVE clock continued running.

1.

2.

Here 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.

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

End of story. Accurate.