Who's Faster?

[masomenos]

No, that was Powell's running time for 40 yards. His reaction time was not included.

And the fastest currently possible 40-yard time -- based on the fastest first 10 meters ever, the fastest second 10 meters ever, the fastest third 10 meters ever and 65.76 percent of the fastest fourth 10 meters ever -- would be 4.15 seconds.

So that's just a time based on Powell's first forward movement and not a time based on when the electronic timer at the race began? Unless someone is taking a frame by frame look at the race with a computer controlled timer that correlates to each frame I don't know how they'd come up with that information. If you're getting the info from an article then I'd love to look over it.

Also when you're taking the times you don't just take all the times at face value and then take 65% of the final split. Since all the splits are from different races you have to take them and figure out their individual 10 yard equivalent, which is something like 94% of each split. And then for the first 10 yard split you have to take into account the starting speeds effect on the time of the split, so you have to divide it into two 5 yard splits, take the first 5 at face value and take the final 5 at the 94%.

 

[AdamJT13]

So that's just a time based on Powell's first forward movement and not a time based on when the electronic timer at the race began?

That is correct. In elite track events, the runners' reaction times are measured by pressure-sensitive devices in the starting blocks. Anything less than 0.100 is an automatic false start. Powell's RT was measured at 0.150.

Unless someone is taking a frame by frame look at the race with a computer controlled timer that correlates to each frame I don't know how they'd come up with that information. If you're getting the info from an article then I'd love to look over it.

That's exactly what they do. At some events, the IAAF brings a biomechanical team in to measure every nanosecond and stride for each runner. But at most events, it's done with video analysis. Powell's splits were done by Pierre-Jean Vazel, a former IAAF employee who now coaches Olu Fasuba, the African record-holder currently ranked eighth in the world in the 100 meters.

Also when you're taking the times you don't just take all the times at face value and then take 65% of the final split. Since all the splits are from different races you have to take them and figure out their individual 10 yard equivalent, which is something like 94% of each split. And then for the first 10 yard split you have to take into account the starting speeds effect on the time of the split, so you have to divide it into two 5 yard splits, take the first 5 at face value and take the final 5 at the 94%.

What are you talking about?

It's not that complicated. We know that 40 yards is 36.576 meters. We're given the runners' times at 30 meters and 40 meters. All we have to do is figure out the time it took to go from 30 to 36.576 meters. And you can do that by taking the fourth 10-meter split (from 30 to 40), multiplying by .6576 and rounding up. That will always be accurate to the hundredth. For example, if Powell covers the first 30 meters in 3.68 seconds and the next 10 meters in 0.86 seconds, we know that it took him 0.57 seconds to go from 30 meters to 36.576 meters -- which puts him at 4.25 seconds for 40 yards.

When Powell matched his own world record in the 100, he covered the first 30 meters in 3.66 seconds and the next 10 meters in 0.87 seconds, which makes his 40-yard time 4.24 seconds.

When Maurice Greene ran a 9.82 even after slowing down with a pulled quad (at Edmonton in 2001), he hit 30 meters at 3.62 and ran the next 10 in 0.89, making his 40-yard time 4.21 seconds.

 

[masomenos]

What are you talking about?

Oh see I think there may have been a slight misunderstanding, I wasn't taking one individuals times, I was taking the best possible times based on the records I had found. So for instance the best 10 yard split is ran by a different person than the best 20 yard split and so on. I was just finding the absolute fastest time a person could run given that they were able to achieve all of those records which was 4.08.

I still think you need to correct for the 10 yard split though when converting it from 10 meters. Because the player is not at a constant (or slightly increasing) speed the 10 meter time doesn't convert correctly. Let me see if I can explain my reasoning on this. Whether a runner is being timed in 10 yards or in 10 meters the first few hundredths of a second are going to carry him the same distance; a runners first accelerating strides can only be so fast. However because there's greater distance in the 10m than the 10yd the runner is given more time to accelerate. By dividing the start into sections you decrease that amount of extra acceleration space and are able to take into account the starts being identical. Does that make sense at all? Am I entirely off base in this thinking?

Thanks for explaining all that track info though, I really had no idea.

 

[TwentyOne]

Actually, when you've posted that the world Johnson's time was 4.38, and therefore someone else's time can't be faster based on the "fact" that he was a fast starter and was the world record holder at one point...even though several college football players do so every year at a well-organized and electronically timed event...

I didn't say that someone's couldn't be faster i said i can't believe that Powell was faster. That is an argument about 1 person at 1 event. Why do you try to put some kind of generality into it?

Again my argumentation was strictly about Powell's time not about other college players. If i had something to write about them/their 40yd times i would do so.

I was capable of comprehending what you wrote...

No offense but to me it doesn't look so. To me it looks more like you thought that i was refrering to the college players times and that they aren't legit - which again, i didn't.

 

[AdamJT13]

Oh see I think there may have been a slight misunderstanding, I wasn't taking one individuals times, I was taking the best possible times based on the records I had found. So for instance the best 10 yard split is ran by a different person than the best 20 yard split and so on. I was just finding the absolute fastest time a person could run given that they were able to achieve all of those records which was 4.08.

That's what I was talking about. Using a composite of the best splits ever would be 4.15 seconds.

I still think you need to correct for the 10 yard split though when converting it from 10 meters. Because the player is not at a constant (or slightly increasing) speed the 10 meter time doesn't convert correctly. Let me see if I can explain my reasoning on this. Whether a runner is being timed in 10 yards or in 10 meters the first few hundredths of a second are going to carry him the same distance; a runners first accelerating strides can only be so fast. However because there's greater distance in the 10m than the 10yd the runner is given more time to accelerate. By dividing the start into sections you decrease that amount of extra acceleration space and are able to take into account the starts being identical. Does that make sense at all? Am I entirely off base in this thinking?

The acceleration already is accounted for by rounding up after multiplying the fourth 10-meter split by .6576. And we know it's accurate to the hundredth because anything else wouldn't be feasible.

For example, Powell's 0.86 would break down to 0.57 for the first 6.576 meters and 0.29 for the next 3.424 meters. That's an acceleration from an average speed of 11.537 meters/second to 11.807 m/s. If it was 0.56 and 0.30, he would be SLOWING DOWN from 11.743 m/s to 11.413 m/s. And if it was 0.58 and 0.28, his acceleration would be from 11.338 m/s to 12.229 m/s -- briefly reaching an incredible top speed that he'd never again come close to reaching despite continuing to increase his average speed through the 70-meter mark (his top 10-meter speed was 11.905 m/s). Therefore, we know for certain that the breakdown for 30 to 40 meters was 0.57 for the first 6.576 meters and 0.29 for the next 3.424 seconds, which matches his rate of acceleration during the race.

 

[TwentyOne]

That article is incorrect.

That's a bit of a stretch.

Ben Johnson's running time through 40 meters was 4.24 seconds. He had a reaction time of 0.13 seconds, and his total time was 3.80 for 30 meters and 4.66 for 40 meters. That makes his running time 3.67 seconds for 30 meters and 4.56 for 40 meters. Forty yards is 36.576 meters. He covered the 30th to 40th meters in 0.86 seconds, which means he covered the first 6.576 of that in 0.57 seconds, putting him at 4.24 seconds at the 40-yard mark.

That's nice mathmatics but you interpolate to get his 40yds time. So this is not his actual time.

But we are not far away from each other. You are talking about pure running times. So 4.24 + 0.13 = 4.37. I'll give you that 0.01 sec ;-) Btw: can you give a source for your information?

You see, it's a bit of a stretch to say that the article is incorrect when on closer inspection it seems to be very accurate.

 

[superpunk]

Yeah.

Mods, shut this thread down immediately before Alexander objects again.

I'll get to work on a "Greg Ellis Sucks" thread that he'll happily approve of.

Alexander was a proud contributor to the greater good of that thread. We warmed his icy heart with tales of Fammke Janssen.

No, it was something else entirely....:

 

[tomson75]

I don't know if that can be true.

"In 1988 Ben Johnson ran a then world record of 9.79 seconds to win the Olympic Gold medal. Subsequent breakdowns of his 'roid induced run timed him as he reached the 40 yard mark. (By the way his times at 50 and 60 meters were faster than the current world records at that distance.)

His time? 4.38 sec" Source

Ben was always the best starter among sprinters and unbeaten on the first 60m. so i can hardly imagine that powell would have taken 1.3m away from him on the first 40 yds when his endtime is only 0.02secs better then Johnson's.

I didn't say that someone's couldn't be faster i said i can't believe that Powell was faster. That is an argument about 1 person at 1 event. Why do you try to put some kind of generality into it?

Again my argumentation was strictly about Powell's time not about other college players. If i had something to write about them/their 40yd times i would do so.



No offense but to me it doesn't look so. To me it looks more like you thought that i was refrering to the college players times and that they aren't legit - which again, i didn't.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the laws of physics only applied to track stars...perhaps you should have informed the rest of us.

You suggested that this wasn't possible, and I used the example of college football players doing the very thing you said couldn't be done by Powell. I put that particular generalization "into it" becasue this is a football forum, and this particular thread was originally discussing the speed of two particular football prospects...quite a stretch. Sorry if my interjection ruined your lame theory. I was merely trying to suggest that it is, indeed, very possible for these inconsistencies to occur, and the fact that football players have consistently run faster 40 splits than the world record holder apparently did more than justifies that.

This is why I originally asked you to clear up your argument. I wasn't trying to be rude. I simply didn't think what you were saying made much sense and wanted to know what it was you were actually trying to convey. I'm sorry you don't believe my comprehension skills aren't up to par with your ability to express thought...I'll work on that.

 

[AdamJT13]

That's a bit of a stretch.

It's not a stretch at all. Anyone who says Johnson's 40-yard time was 4.38 seconds and compares that to a football player's 40-yard time simply doesn't understand the fundamental difference between a football 40 and a track race.

That's nice mathmatics but you interpolate to get his 40yds time. So this is not his actual time.

Wrong -- it HAS to be his 40-yard time, to the nearest hundredth (which is as accurate as is kept). I already posted the breakdown of what would have to happen for that time to be off by even 0.01 -- either he would suddenly slow down drastically for two steps before speeding up again even more drastically, or he would have to go from an unusually slow speed to his fastest possible speed for two steps before slowing down again, then speeding up again.

Btw: can you give a source for your information?

You see, it's a bit of a stretch to say that the article is incorrect when on closer inspection it seems to be very accurate.

"Scientific Research Project at the Games of the XXIVth Olympiad - Seoul 1988'', Bruggemann, G. and Glad, B. (eds), IAAF and Charles University, Prague (1988). That was the official biomechanical team commissioned and endorsed by the IAAF for the 1988 Olympics.

You can also find the same information cited in "Biomechanics of Sport and Exercise," a book that's in the library of the International Olympic Committee and is available on the IOC's Web site.

 

[koolaid]

Ginn is faster,
but without question Hester is the better return man

 

[TwentyOne]

It's not a stretch at all. Anyone who says Johnson's 40-yard time was 4.38 seconds and compares that to a football player's 40-yard time simply doesn't understand the fundamental difference between a football 40 and a track race.



Wrong -- it HAS to be his 40-yard time, to the nearest hundredth (which is as accurate as is kept). I already posted the breakdown of what would have to happen for that time to be off by even 0.01 -- either he would suddenly slow down drastically for two steps before speeding up again even more drastically, or he would have to go from an unusually slow speed to his fastest possible speed for two steps before slowing down again, then speeding up again.



"Scientific Research Project at the Games of the XXIVth Olympiad - Seoul 1988'', Bruggemann, G. and Glad, B. (eds), IAAF and Charles University, Prague (1988). That was the official biomechanical team commissioned and endorsed by the IAAF for the 1988 Olympics.

You can also find the same information cited in "Biomechanics of Sport and Exercise," a book that's in the library of the International Olympic Committee and is available on the IOC's Web site.

Adam thanks for the info about the web site.

I have never questioned college player 40 yds times and i didn't compared Powell's or Ben's time to any college players times. That's something you misunderstood.
Second, i don't like to be called wrong when what i said is right. We may argue about your interpolation has to be really close to his real time - i have no problem with that. But to say that your projection has to be right and what i said/wrote is wrong an not leaving any kind of scope sounds just arrogant to me.

So I would like to stop here with our argumentation because imo it is going out of perspective. I posted my statement because i am interested into exchange of ideas and not into getting into a conversational fist fight with you. So thx again for the link, i'll have a look at it. Maybe i'll find some interesting information there.

 

[TwentyOne]

.....Sorry if my interjection ruined your lame theory.....

Where is the lame theory? If you followed the thread you should have noticed that the time Adam posted was a pure running time without the reaction of Ben. With that Ben's time for the 40yds is 4.24 +0.13 = 4.37. I posted he was clocked at 4.38. Same with Powell's Time: 4.24 + 0.15 = 4.39 for the first 40yds.

To me those times seem to be correct because they coincide with the ones i know.

I really don't undestand your problem. You misundestood my initial post. It seems you finally did and now you trying to offend me. Get over it.

 

[AdamJT13]

Adam thanks for the info about the web site.

I have never questioned college player 40 yds times and i didn't compared Powell's or Ben's time to any college players times. That's something you misunderstood.

I didn't say YOU did. I said anyone who does think Johnson ran a 4.38 40 and uses that to try to disprove a football player's 40-yard time is misinformed.

Second, i don't like to be called wrong when what i said is right. We may argue about your interpolation has to be really close to his real time - i have no problem with that. But to say that your projection has to be right and what i said/wrote is wrong an not leaving any kind of scope sounds just arrogant to me.

It doesn't matter if it's interpolated or not. It HAS to be correct to the nearest hundredth, unless you think runners who are gradually increasing their overall speed would suddenly slow down or speed up by incredible -- if not impossible -- proportions, then do just the opposite two steps later, only to resume their gradual acceleration immediately after that.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Not really. In the game, other factors may come into play like vision and ability to shift body weight, but you asked about speed. Ginn is faster.

Yeah... how about blocking scheme etc..

 

[CATCH17]

Please stop comparing clocked 40 times, I'm talking about REAL game speed, there is a difference.

Even in real game speed its neck and neck. Ginn may have Hester by a step if that.

Im a fan of the U too so my bias is towards Hester but I believe Ginn will be a much better pro.

 

[JonJon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyHitta31
Who would win in a fight between Mike Ditka and a hurricane?

Chuck Norris