What is the most accurate conversion factor between 100 and 60m times? If you run 100m in X, you should be able to run 60 in what fraction of X? Clearly more than .6 when the start is factored in, but just how high is it for the average distance runner who can use blocks but does not have reason to practice starts?
This is covered in speedendurance.com
Sprinter Type wrote:
This is covered in speedendurance.com
Right. There also isn't really a "most accurate" conversion. One conversion may be accurate for one runner, while another may have an entirely different strength and weakness of the phases of his 100m and need a different conversion factor.
For example, two runners I coach ran 7.56 and 7.70 last indoors. The 7.56 runner opened outdoors with a 11.59. The 7.70 runner ran 12.4 to open outdoors because she has a really excellent start but mediocre top end, so her 60m looks artificially fast. This illustrates the inaccuracy of blindly following a conversion, which would have predicted wrong for both of those two runners, but in opposite ways.
If you're a 100m runner, you should be doing flying 30s at max and have times for that every few weeks. Using that is the most accurate way to convert your 60m to a current 100m.
I find about 1.35x your flying 30 time added onto your 60m time is a very accurate prediction. Or 4.04x your flying 10m added onto your 60m time.
Using the examples of my athletes above from last year, using the method of the flying 30m times from practice combined with their 60m time was off by less than 0.10 for each of them, so within the range of a good day versus bad day.
The CW wrote:What is the most accurate conversion factor between 100 and 60m times? If you run 100m in X, you should be able to run 60 in what fraction of X? Clearly more than .6 when the start is factored in, but just how high is it for the average distance runner who can use blocks but does not have reason to practice starts?
the empirical conversion based on same quick RT of ~ 0.12s
( very quick but not too quick to get the 0.099s dq )
for equally good 100/60 guys/gals is :
60m = ( 100m time + 3.00 ) * ( 1/2 )
( I suggest as an example you look up bolt's 60m split in his 9.58 along with RT & adjust his 100m time to one with 0.12sRT & similarly whatever the 60m split was to that with 0.12sRT )
i'd also suggest 95% of even elite 200 guys/gals wreck their 200 clockings by blasting the curve too hard
100m splits have been taken in 200s
a theoretical ( not empirical ) formula for "ideal 200" based on "ideal" 100m split on curve, assuming something like a 0.12 - 0.14s RT
( you shoud still aim for the 0.12 but it is kinda dumb to get dq'ed for a 20s race for want of 0.02s, so perhaps drifting out to 0.14s is not unreasonable )
200m = [ 2 * ( 100m split ) ] - 0.95s
( look up mj's 100m split in his 19.32 & flo-jo's in her 21.34 )
on this basis, the "idiot" bolt with an utterly suicidal 9.92 split on the bend in his 19.19, threw away good shot at 19-flat
( i don't recall the RT )
9.92 bend is 18.89 !!! pace
his stretch as result was a pedestrian
9.27 = 19.49 pace
that bend killed him &/if/but he'd gone out at nearer 10.00s, he couda come back for something like 19-flat !!!
( remember, bend is against centripeto-fugal forces of v^2 which become v^3 considerations when converted to energy expenditure, so the difference between a 9.92 & 10.00 bend is utterly immense !!! )
Runnerdnerd wrote:For example, two runners I coach ran 7.56 and 7.70 last indoors. The 7.56 runner opened outdoors with a 11.59. The 7.70 runner ran 12.4 to open outdoors because she has a really excellent start but mediocre top end, so her 60m looks artificially fast
there is absolutely nothing amiss with your 7.70 gal nor her top end
she ran the absolutely predicted 100m time off 7.70 as predicted by formula
it means her start/pick-up/top-end/deceleration are "perfect" for her current talent/ability level
however, as for your 7.56 gal to run 11.59 means
1) she ran that 7.56 in her sleep &/or 1 leg &/or fall during race
or
2) she ran that 11.59 downhill with a following tsunami + hurricane + tornado
her last 40m of 11.59 - 7.56 of 4.03s is the last 40 expected of a gal who has
11.06s !!!
finishing last 40 !!!
does your 7.56 gal look to have 11-flat closing speed ???!!!
calculo wrote:
60m = ( 100m time + 3.00 ) * ( 1/2 )
apologies
saves doing basic math for everyone, OP asked for juxtaposition ->
100m = ( 2 * 60m time ) - 3.00
probably should combined these 2 threads
The 'Ronnie Baker' Conundrum
calculo wrote:
Runnerdnerd wrote:For example, two runners I coach ran 7.56 and 7.70 last indoors. The 7.56 runner opened outdoors with a 11.59. The 7.70 runner ran 12.4 to open outdoors because she has a really excellent start but mediocre top end, so her 60m looks artificially fastthere is absolutely nothing amiss with your 7.70 gal nor her top end
she ran the absolutely predicted 100m time off 7.70 as predicted by formula
it means her start/pick-up/top-end/deceleration are "perfect" for her current talent/ability level
however, as for your 7.56 gal to run 11.59 means
1) she ran that 7.56 in her sleep &/or 1 leg &/or fall during race
or
2) she ran that 11.59 downhill with a following tsunami + hurricane + tornado
her last 40m of 11.59 - 7.56 of 4.03s is the last 40 expected of a gal who has
11.06s !!!
finishing last 40 !!!
does your 7.56 gal look to have 11-flat closing speed ???!!!
I never said the 7.56 athlete was a girl. He is a male decathlete. His flying 30 time is under 3 seconds at the end of the season, so yes, his top end is comparable to an average 11.1 or 11.2 guy.
I used these two as examples since I have data from them from last indoors and outdoors and they are opposite ends of the spectrum: one starts much better than her top end, and the other starts way worse than his top end.
If they were to race, she would beat him to 30, he would catch her somewhere around 35 or 40, then he pulls away at about .15 seconds per 10 meters for the remaining 60m or so in a 100.
His start is actually technically sort of ok, he just has no high torque power out of the blocks for some reason. It shows in drills we do too, bad at things like standing long jump, pretty solid at things like bounds and other faster plyos.
It's really hard to predict seeing as the major energy systems change after 60 meters.
Results are in: former high school JV 800m phenom with ~13.5s 100m speed clocked in around 8.3x for 60m.
Runnerdnerd wrote:I never said the 7.56 athlete was a girl. He is a male decathlete. His flying 30 time is under 3 seconds at the end of the season, so yes, his top end is comparable to an average 11.1 or 11.2 guy
what is this nonsense ?
who on earth quotes male & female data & doesn't distinguish them at outset ?
calculo wrote:
The CW wrote:What is the most accurate conversion factor between 100 and 60m times? If you run 100m in X, you should be able to run 60 in what fraction of X? Clearly more than .6 when the start is factored in, but just how high is it for the average distance runner who can use blocks but does not have reason to practice starts?
the empirical conversion based on same quick RT of ~ 0.12s
( very quick but not too quick to get the 0.099s dq )
for equally good 100/60 guys/gals is :
60m = ( 100m time + 3.00 ) * ( 1/2 )
( I suggest as an example you look up bolt's 60m split in his 9.58 along with RT & adjust his 100m time to one with 0.12sRT & similarly whatever the 60m split was to that with 0.12sRT )
I didn’t realize how old this thread was when I clicked on it and I was absolutely blown away to see calculo again. What a throwback.