Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 63

Thread: Rio men's 200m

  1. #51

    Re: Rio men's 200m

    The track is quite similar to what was used at Owen's time. I think De Grasse was the wrong candidate for this experiment though, as he is known to never get anywhere near his best in training. I would estimate that the dirt track may be about 0.2-0.3s slower than a modern synthetic track. Certainly not 1.3s as in this film (1.1s difference between his PB and the 11.0 he was timed at plus 0.2s because it was hand-timed)

  2. #52

    Re: Rio men's 200m

    I thought that dirt looked like some of those synthetic horse tracks but better packed, is it a coarse sand?

  3. #53

    Re: Rio men's 200m

    It's a cinder track

  4. #54

    Re: Rio men's 200m

    In those days cinder tracks were compact like todays tennis clay court and hand timing is 0.3-0.4s off todays official timing.

  5. #55

    Re: Rio men's 200m

    I think hand timing on a cinder track should give about the same result as electric timing on a synthetic track, as the slower track surface is offset by the reaction of the time keeper to the gun. That's why there was no major jump in world record progression for the 100m when synthetic tracks and FAT was introduced together at the 1968 Olympics.

    The 1964 Olympics were won in 9.9ht (10.06 FAT) on a cinder track and the 1968 Olympics in 9.95 FAT on a synthetic track. Both times were world records.

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Charlotte N.C.
    Posts
    2,249

    Re: Rio men's 200m

    Quote Originally Posted by robin1 View Post
    I think hand timing on a cinder track should give about the same result as electric timing on a synthetic track, as the slower track surface is offset by the reaction of the time keeper to the gun. That's why there was no major jump in world record progression for the 100m when synthetic tracks and FAT was introduced together at the 1968 Olympics.

    The 1964 Olympics were won in 9.9ht (10.06 FAT) on a cinder track and the 1968 Olympics in 9.95 FAT on a synthetic track. Both times were world records.
    Indeed, interesting questions point towards the difference in stiffness/ground reaction force potential between the synthetic tracks over the years. What might the times over the last +40 years of synthetic track times been today at Eugene, Berlin, Rieti...

  7. #57

    Re: Rio men's 200m

    Makes one wonder at times just how far we've really come in terms of the upper limits of human performance.

    I'd be lying if I said I didn't think of Ben Johnson while watching the 100 in Rio. The man ran in the 9.7s almost 20 years ago and may have dipped into the 9.6s if things turned out differently.

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Charlotte N.C.
    Posts
    2,249

    Re: Rio men's 200m

    Quote Originally Posted by ollie View Post
    Makes one wonder at times just how far we've really come in terms of the upper limits of human performance.

    I'd be lying if I said I didn't think of Ben Johnson while watching the 100 in Rio. The man ran in the 9.7s almost 20 years ago and may have dipped into the 9.6s if things turned out differently.
    I don't think it's very controversial at all to state that Ben would have been sub 9.7 even on the tracks of the late 80's early 90's had his career continued unobstructed. Charlie always indicated that Ben was showing no signs of regression up to 1988. Of course this stands to reason because he ran his lifetime PB in Seoul. As a consequence, if we then consider what his limit of human performance may have been and then calculated what he would have achieved on the tracks of most recent history, it continues to be uncontroversial to consider that he would have been close to, if not below, 9.60.

  9. #59
    Administrator Angela Coon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,739

    Re: Rio men's 200m

    Quote Originally Posted by ollie View Post
    Makes one wonder at times just how far we've really come in terms of the upper limits of human performance.

    I'd be lying if I said I didn't think of Ben Johnson while watching the 100 in Rio. The man ran in the 9.7s almost 20 years ago and may have dipped into the 9.6s if things turned out differently.
    I assure you that there is a controversy and it's profound. Perhaps we are not reading about it or watching much about it. Didn't you all know that if you are not reading about an issue in the paper or watching a political story on You Tube it does not exist? (yes, I am joking)

    Athletics is an awesome sport. None of the current, past or future athletes deserve to or have deserved to deal with this chaos of the political handlers.

    The answer is a collective movement among the athletes. Until then things will not improve. We need agents for change in the sport.

    By the way Ollie. Ben ran those times almost 30 years ago. LOL. In 2018 it will have been 30 years since Seoul.

  10. #60
    Administrator Angela Coon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,739

    Re: Rio men's 200m

    Reality is not controversial it's fact.

    There are lots of excellent reasons why our National broadcasting system and America's National broadcasting system failed to discuss anything about 1988 during Rio.

    The discussion of those excellent reasons is controversial. So controversial there is an attempt to erase the history of all of it.

    Who heads up that attempt?

    Who wants to discuss this story?

    An Olympic gold medal is still cool even if you really are not the fastest man alive in terms of the political manipulating that has to go on to sustain bank rolls. OUCH. Now that's a controversial statement. I take it back for the record.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •