Unfassbar schnell: Neuer 100m-WR: 9,72

wirklich interessieren sollte ob das alles "menschlich" ist oder nicht, sollte man sich vielelicht mal den ein oder anderen wissenschaftlichen Artikel dazu durchlesen, der die Grenzen sportlicher Leistungsfähigkeit und die Vorhersagbarkeit von Verbesserungen diverser Weltrekorde thematisiert...bspw. den folgenden, in diesem  Peronnet und Thibault, die bereits 1987(!) - teils spekulativ, teils mathematisch abgeleitet - vorhersagen über Weltrekorde in den unterschiedlichsten Disziplinen tätigten:

 

How Good Can We Get?
Using mathematical models to predict the future of athletics
J. R. Mureika
Department of Computer Science
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-2520

There are numerous rewards which world class athletes covet in their
quests for glory, be they National titles, World Champion status or Olympic
Gold. Perhaps one of the top honors, though, is that of the World Record:
the symbol and defining mark that the highest level in one’s event has been
achieved.
World records have risen and fallen throughout the history of Track and
Field, and the past 2 years have certainly been no exception. In fact, a significant
portion of the men’s Track marks have been re-written since 1993. Of
current interest are the progressions of the middle distance kings, Hicham El
Guerrouj in the 1500m and mile, the ongoing battle for supremacy between
Daniel Komen and Haile Gebrselassie, and the unforgettable, unquestionable
dominance of Wilson Kipketer in the 800m. At the time of this writing,
Maria Mutola has set a new indoor 800m WR, while Komen and Geb are
still waging their war of attrition under the roof. The sprint records are yet
again on the verge of being knocked down a few notches. Marion Jones has
her sights set on Irina Privalova’s 60m mark, and is mumbling about 10.5s
clockings this summer. Similarly, Maurice Greene’s ground-breaking in the
indoor sprints, as well as his February 28th 9.99s dash Down Under (the first
ever sub-10s clocking on Aussie soil, with a -0.6 m/s wind, no less!), seem to
be indicative of the shape of things to come.
On this note, we have to ask ourselves: ”What are the shape of things to
come?”. A record is set, a record falls. Can this process go on indefinitely?
It seems obvious to answer ’no’ to such a question, but we are then posed
with a corollary: exactly how good can we get?
The answer to this question has been the subject of various research works
over the decades (see the references), and in the following few paragraphs, I’ll
sum up the findings of one paper which I have found particularly fascintating.
This interesting and insightful work is an article by Fran¸cois P´eronnet and
Guy Thibault, then of McGill University, researched in 1987 and published
in 1989. They posit a mathematical model which reproduces an athlete’s
power output over a given distance of running, using variables representing
various metabolic energy-yielding processes. This is in turn based on a model
developed by Arthur Hill way back in the 1920s.
The Aerobic and Anaerobic Physiological Variables
Peronnet and Thibault studied variations in the following quantities in
athletic performances since the early part of the century: capacity of anaerobic
metabolism (raw strength), maximal aerobic power (peak endurance),
and the reduction in peak aerobic power with increasing race duration (roughly
overall endurance). They found that while the first two of these increase in
an essentially linear fashion over the years for all events, the latter of the
three remained effectively constant. That is, while improvements in training
techniques have helped to improve anaerobic and aerobic capacity, the rate
at which maximal exertion drops has not changed much.
By studying these trends in the energy-yielding processes, Peronnet and
Thibault were able to pin down possible future performances for both men
and women. In particular, since the reduction in peak aerobic power does
not change, by placing reasonable ”plateaus” on the first two aerobic and
anaerobic variables for human beings, the ”ultimate” performances in track
could be guestimated.
Comments on altitude/enhanced performances and initial data
The predictions in Tables 3-5 were made based in part on WRs dating
before and up to 1987, when the study was performed. Tables 1 and 2
present the marks as of 1987, and provide a comparison with today’s equivalents.
Earlier models which have attempted to predict future performances
incorporated these altitude performances, which served to skew the results,
since the “aided” sprint marks from 1975 actually surpassed the 1987 “sealevel”
best performances. While I have included altitude performances in the
records of Tables 1 and 2, Peronnet and Thibault used ”sea-level WRs” in
their calculations. For example, Mennea’s 1979 WR of 19.72s in the 200m
was run in Mexico City (at altitude), while the ”sea-level” record was Carl
Lewis’ 19.75s in 1983 (Indianapolis). This is also the case with Lee Evans’
43.86A from the 1968 Olympics, compared to the next fastest time, Butch
Reynold’s 44.10s (Columbus, OH, 1987).
Similarly, the 9.83s 100m WR used in the study (it had not yet been
stricken) was in retrospect 10 years ahead of it’s time, based on the “natural”
progression of the short sprint (albeit, some of today’s training aids may
be somewhat questionable). In fact, had it not been for Carl Lewis’ 9.93s
clocking behind Ben’s 1987 WC race (and various other stricken Ben marks),
Mel Lattany’s (USA) 9.96s from Athens, GA, in 1984 should have been the
mark used for initial data. This might cause the predicted 100m times to be
slightly overestimated.

The Model Predictions: Then and Now
Tables 3 and 4 present the projected WR marks for men and women
through the years 2000, 2028, and 2040, as calculated by Peronnet and
Thibault. In physics, it’s always interesting to see how good (or how bad!)
one’s model actually is when compared to the real life situation it’s trying to
emulate. When the original paper was written, the turn of the century was
at least a dozen years down the road. In contrast, today we have a much
better idea of how the record books may look in 2 years time!
The most obvious discrepancies of their model arise in the sprints, most
likely due to inaccuracies in pervious records (hand times, timing accuracy,
or... miscellaneous). Both the women’s 100m and 200m predictions for 2000
were surpassed a year after they were made by one Florence Griffith-Joyner.
Although, the alleged 10.49s WR is subject to much debate (at least by those
of us who study wind effects on sprints!). In the event that this mark was
wind-aided, the current 100m WR should probably be in the low 10.6s range,
but still be awarded to Flo-Jo (10.61s, Indianapolis, 1988).
The men’s 400m estimate of 43.44s was also surpassed in 1988 by Butch
Reynolds. Despite the 9.83s mark used as initial data for the 100m, the predicted
record of 9.74s is surprisingly close to becoming reality (perhaps even
as early as this summer?). In fact, this raises an interesting question. If such
a clocking were to come about shortly, then based on the previous section’s
discussion (i.e. 9.83s), is it safe to assume that it is ”natural”?...
We can’t discount the possibility of a 1:39.88 800m sometime soon, either.
Rumor has it that the name Kipketer could figure prominently. And,
last but certainly not least, in their calculations for the 200m WR, no initial
data could have let Peronnet and Thibault predict Michael Johnson! Based
on their study, a 19.32s deuce should not have occurred until about the year
2015. The only logical explanation for this, of course, is that Johnson was
sent here from the future for some reason we cannot yet understand, but
whose purpose will soon be evident....
Performances further down the road are a bit more subjective, and we
can’t for sure tell whether or not they are vast overestimates, or naive underestimates.
An 18.92s 200m is foreseen sometime around 2040. Others
have forecast an 18.97s sprint as early as 2004 [reference 2]. In fact, in my
own work on sprint curve-running [ref. 3], I projected that a sub-19s clocking
wasn’t necessarily that far out of reach, based on Johnson’s WR. So, whether
or not these are somewhat over-optimistic is open to debate.
After breaking the 4-minute mile, Roger Bannister ventured to say that
a 3:30 clocking could be realizable by the year 1990. As much as El Guerrouj
might be interested, it doesn’t quite seem possible at this time. Peronnet and
Thibault set this mark as attainable just shy of the mid-21st century. Although,
the 3:41.96 is slightly more accessible. The 12-minute barrier in the
5000m was cited to not be challenged until the 2030s, but a sub 14-minute 5k
for the women might come much sooner. Likewise, a sub-2 hour marathon
is predicted by the year 2028, as is the breaking of the 4-minute mile barrier
for the women.
Note that the predictions of the women’s performances extends only to
the year 2033, as opposed to 2040 for the men. This arises due to the less
accurate and less numerous data obtained for women’s WRs throughout the
century. As a result, the authors contend that the predictions for women’s
records are probably underestimated in certain cases.

To the Limit...
Many suggest that we cannot keep improving indefinitely. Certainly, there
are physiological (not to mention physical) limitations on the human body
that would prevent this. Based on the evolution of their model, Peronnet
and Thibault took a stab at what could be the ultimate performances in athletics.
These are presented in Table 5, and put forth a number of interesting
speculations. For the men, there will be no sub-9s 100m; we shall never clock
a 1:29 800m; there will always be an insurmountable 3-minute barrier for the
mile. The 5000m will go sub-12, but will barely drop another minute, and
the marathon record will max out a mere 18 minutes below its current value.
Many of these predictions seem to suggest that athletically, women may
not progress beyond the present level of the men. As mentioned earlier, Peronnet
and Thibault stress that due to insufficient data relative to the men’s
marks, the predictions for women’s performances may be underestimates,
and that their performances may actually approach the limiting values for
men. So, contrary to their findings in Table 5, we may someday be talking
about the first sub-10s women’s sprint or 1:50:00 marathon.
Thus ends the gaze through the looking glass. Like all mathematical models,
the findings of this study should be taken with a grain of salt. They’re
not meant to accurately represent the way things will be, but rather the way
they might be, based on present data. Fundamentally, we should not place
limits on ourselves. With them, we can only run faster in our dreams, forever
constrained by infinitely high walls. Without them, we can chase our dreams
into reality, and the impenetrable barriers are ours to break.
Acknowledgements
I thank Fran¸cois P´eronnet for proof-reading the article and offering comments.
Dr. P´eronnet is now with the D´epartement d’´education physique
`a l’Universit´e de Montr´eal (peronnet@ere.umontreal.ca), and is currently on
leave at l’Universit´e Joseph Fourier in Grenoble, France. I also thank Natasha
Bayus of the University of Southern California for insightful and motivational
discussions on the subject.

            1987 WR                                 1997 WR
100m 9.83s (Ben Johnson, CAN) 9.84s (Donovan Bailey, CAN)
200m 19.72A (Pietro Mennea, ITA) 19.32s (Michael Johnson, USA)
400m 43.86A (Lee Evans, USA) 43.39s (Butch Reynolds, USA)
800m 1:41.73 (Sebastian Coe, GBR) 1:41.11 (Wilson Kipkepter, DEN)
1000m 2:12.18 (Sebastian Coe, GBR) 2:12.18 (Sebastian Coe, GBR)
1500m 3:29.46 (Said Aouita, MOR) 3:27.37 (Noureddine Morceli, ALG)
Mile 3:46.32 (Steve Cram, GBR) 3:44.39 (Noureddine Morceli, ALG)
2000m 4:50.81 (Said Aouita, MOR) 4:47.88 (Noureddine Morceli, ALG)
3000m 7:32.1 (Henry Rono, KEN) 7:20.67 (Daniel Komen, KEN)
5000m 12:58.39 (Said Aouita, MOR) 12:39.74 (Daniel Komen, KEN)
10000m 27:13.81 (Fernando Mamede, POR) 26:27.85 (Paul Tergat, KEN)
Mar. 2:07:12 (Carlos Lopes, POR) 2:06:50 (Belayneh Dinsamo, ETH)

Table 1: Men’s World Records

                1987 WR                                 1997 WR
100m 10.76s (Evelyn Ashford, USA) 10.49s (Florence Griffith-Joyner, USA)
200m 21.71s (Heike Drechsler, DDR) 21.34s (Flo. Griffith-Joyner, USA)
400m 47.60s (Marita Koch, DDR) 47.60s (Marita Koch, DDR)
800m 1:53.28 (Jarmila Kratochvilova, TCH) 1:53.28 (Jarmila Kratochvilova, TCH)
1000m 2:30.6 (Tatyana Provodikina,SOV) 2:28.98 (Svetlana Masterkova, RUS)
1500m 3:52.47 (Tatyana Kazankina, SOV) 3:50.46 (Qu Yanxia, CHN)
Mile 4:15.8 (Natalja Artemova, SOV) 4:12.56 (Svetlana Masterkova, RUS)
2000m 5:28.69 (Maricica Puica, ROM) 5:25.36 (Sonia O’Sullivan, IRE)
3000m 8:22.62 (Tatyana Kazankina, SOV) 8:06.11 (Wang Yungxia, CHN)
5000m 14:37.33 (Ingrid Kristiansen, NOR) 14:28.09 (Jiang Bo, CHN)
10000m 30:13.74 (Ingrid Kristiansen, NOR) 29:31.78 (Wang Yungxia, CHN)
Mar. 2:21:06 (Ingrid Kristiansen,NOR) 2:21:06 (Ingrid Kristiansen, NOR)

Table 2: Women’s World Records

            2000 2028 2040
100m 9.74s 9.57s 9.49s
200m 19.53s 19.10s 18.92s
400m 43.44s 42.12s 41.59s
800m 1:39.88 1:36.18 1:34.71
1000m 2:09.72 2:04.81 2:02.86
1500m 3:25.45 3:17.45 3:14.27
Mile 3:41.96 3:33.29 3:29.84
2000m 4:45.15 4:33.89 4:29.41
3000m 7:22.54 7:03.91 6:56.87
5000m 12:42.72 12:09.39 11:56.19
10000m 26:43.63 25:32.27 25:04.01
Mar. 2:05:24 1:59:36 1:57:18

Table 3: Predicted future men’s WR, based on 1987 records (from [1])

                2000 2028 2033
100m 10.66s 10.46s 10.44s
200m 21.46s 20.95s 20.90s
400m 46.85s 45.34s 45.18s
800m 1:51.16 1:46.95 1:46.53
1000m 2:27.74 2:22.03 2:21.45
1500m 3:47.93 3:38.91 3:38.00
Mile 4:10.79 4:00.83 3:59.82
2000m 5:22.19 5:09.27 5:07.96
3000m 8:11.98 7:50.61 7:48.46
5000m 14:19.33 13:41.56 13:37.75
10000m 29:38.41 28:19.04 28:11.04
Mar. 2:18:43 2:12:20 2:11:41

Table 4: Predicted future women’s WR, based on 1987 records (from [1])

            Men Women
100m 9.37s 10.15s
200m 18.32s 20.25s
400m 39.60s 44.71s
800m 1:30.86 1:42.71
1000m 1:57.53 2:12.50
1500m 3:04.27 3:26.95
Mile 3:18.87 3:43.24
2000m 4:11.06 4:41.48
3000m 6:24.81 7:11.42
5000m 11:11.61 12:33.36
10000m 23:36.89 26:19.48
Mar 1:48:25 2:00:33

Table 5: Predicted ultimate performances for men and women (from [1])

 

Source: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/9803/9803034v1.pdf

 

Fake  

wir sind ganz offenkundig anderer Auffassung. Ich nenne #54 einfach nur naiv. Und du kennst die Geschichten/Zusammenhänge um die letzten 100m-Sieger bzw. ihre Trainer? Und dann verbessert jemand in einem derartigen Stil, derart mühelos, schon lang vor der Ziellinie jubelnd den Weltrekord? Da fällt mir keine andere Vokabel ein als eben naiv.
Gruß
Talisker

"mir ist es sowas von Scheißegal, ob die Dopen oder nicht"

"Selbst wenn er gedopt haben sollte - was ich nicht ausschließen kann, genauso aber keiner (bis jetzt) hier sagen kann, dass er es hat - ist mir das total egal."

Eher verminderte Rassenunterdrückung.  

http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,572553,00.html

und auch

http://www.faz.net/s/...C1A4CA7EE9DC8C32DA~ATpl~Ecommon~Sspezial.html

Ist doch peinlich. Aber die Kohle besiegt die Peinlichkeit.
Gruß
Talisker

und altmodisch.
Und werde auch nicht jubeln können, wenn demnächst z.B. ein Fussballspiel dadurch entschieden wird, wer dem Schiedsrichter mehr gezahlt hat.
Beschiss hat im Sport nichts zu suchen.
Gruß
Talisker

sich mit sportfernen Leuten differenziert über Sport zu unterhalten, wenn bei ihnen weder Verständnis noch Interesse für diesen zu erkennen ist. Das zeigt auch die Auseinandersetzung mit die jeweilige sportliche Disziplin näher erläuternden Postings...
So ist ja dann auch viel einfacher nur schwarz oder weiß zu sehen - analog wie meist in politischen Diskussionen....BILD-Niveau eben.

 

die älteren Herrschaften noch den Armin Harry im Kopf, der 1960 die 100 Meter in 10,00 Sekunden gelaufen ist?

Da muss einmal gefragt werden, was die heutigen 100-m-Läufer mit einem Sportler von vor 45 Jahren gemeinsam haben?

Die heutigen Zeiten sind für meine Begriffe kein Fake, sondern es hat etwas mit der Gestalt, Dynamik und Motorik eines Athleten zu tun.

Beispiel Usain Bolt - Größe: 1,96 m ... Gewicht: unter 90 kg ... da sollten die grauen Zellen doch ein wenig mehr Kreativität zeigen ...

Und bitte nicht ständig das Thema Dopping in die Postings streuen ...  

Was der Mensch nicht erklären kann, wird verdammt und ist Teufelszeug. Ich weiss zwar auch nicht, ob dgedopt oder nicht,aber ich nehm die Leistung einfach mal so hin und find sie großartig. Wenn nichts bewiesen wird, ist es halt so. Was mich aber ärgert, dass der Typ nicht voll durchgelaufen ist, sondern 10m vorher anfängt zu jubeln. Wer weiss, ob er jemals wieder so einen Lauf hat. Da wer noch echt was drin gewesen und er hat sein Potenzial nicht voll ausgeschöpft. So etwas find ich immer schade. Beim Fussball wird ja auch gemeckert, wenn das Ergebnis über die Zeit gerettet wird.
Heute für mich das Highlight: Die 10Km der Männer  

Kann es sein, dass Du zu sportnah bist (siehe #81), um objektiv und sachlich zu bleiben (siehe #85)??

"Es ist sinnlos sich mit sportfernen Leuten differenziert über Sport zu unterhalten, wenn bei ihnen weder Verständnis noch Interesse für diesen zu erkennen ist." mal auf mich.
Alles klar, sportsstar.
Gruß
Talisker

bis zum Schluss durchgezogen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...

Der hätte locker ein 9,5 rennen können!!!   WAHNSINN

Da kommt selbst der "Road-Runner" nicht hinterher! :-)

Sincerely,

Warren B.  

 

und schnelle Menschen da auf Jamaika:

Leichtathleitk, Frauen, 100 m
Jamaika-Trio triumphiert

Peking (RPO). Jamaikas Sprinterinnen haben im 100-m-Endlauf in Peking einen Dreifach-Triumph gefeiert. Shelly-Ann Fraser spurtete in 10,78 Sekunden überlegen zur Goldmedaille, ihre beiden Mannschaftskolleginnen Sherone Simpson und Kerron Stewart belegten zeitgleich in 10,98 Sekunden Rang zwei.

Nach minutenlanger Auswertung des Foto-Finish konnte die Jury keinen Unterschied zwischen ihnen ausmachen, in 10,979 lagen sie auf die Tausendstel gleichauf. Es war das erste Sprint-Gold für Jamaikas Frauen und der erste Dreifach-Triumph für eine Nation auf der 100-m-Distanz, seit 1912 drei Amerikaner Gold, Silber und Bronze gewonnen hatten.

  http://www.rp-online.de/public/article/sport/...Trio-triumphiert.html

Gruß
Talisker

insbeosndere vor dem Hintergrund deines allgemeinen Posting- und Meldverhaltens, hört sich irgendwie aberwitzig an...

@Talisker
nein, war auf Happy, Zombi und satyr bezogen...sie bekunden ja fast bei jedem Großereignis, von Fußball evtl. mal abgesehen, ihr sportliches Desinteresse. Doch sobald etwas nicht in ihr Schablonendenken hinsichtlich des Sports passt und obendrein gar noch negative publicity erfährt, wird gemäß dem Mainstream gemosert und verurteilt á la "faul", "raffgierig" oder eben "gedopt". Wenn man dann (anfangs) versucht etwas (sachlich) zu erläutern, wird dieses irgnoriert, übergangen und weiter gepoltert - somit sind dann für mich weitere Diskussionen zum Thema sinnlos...eigentlich. Ich Depp geh aber dennoch immer wieder darauf ein..

Wie will man mit jemandem diskutieren, der solche Aussagen in den Raum stellt?

"mir ist es sowas von Scheißegal, ob die Dopen oder nicht"

"Selbst wenn er gedopt haben sollte - was ich nicht ausschließen kann, genauso aber keiner (bis jetzt) hier sagen kann, dass er es hat - ist mir das total egal."

:-)

in langer und kürzerer Version, und vor allem ein sehr schönes Slowmotion-Video, wo man sieht, wie Bolt, als die anderen bereits langsamer werden, noch weiter sein Tempo sprintet:

Video of 100m final at Olympic Games 2008 (1 minute 16 seconds video). Download and watch right now.

Video of 100m final at Olympic Games 2008 (30 seconds video, good quality). Download and watch right now.

Video of 100m final at Olympic Games 2008 (Slow motion replay). Download and watch right now.

Quelle: http://www.sprintic.com/

 

 

 

 

habe echt keine Lust mehr auf eine Sportdiskussion mit dir...du hast Recht und ich meine Ruhe - Deal?!

der Bolt ist nicht in der SPD... Denke immer daran!

Wenn der dicke Beck 100m laufen könnte, dann wären Happy, satyr und Zombi hellauf begeistert.

ciao B.L.  

Ich bin in diesen Thread erst mit Posting 81 eingestiegen...

Und sei doch nicht gleich beleidigt, nur weil Widerspruch zu Deiner bekundeten "Doping ist mir scheißegal"-Mentalität aufkommt :-)

Endlich hast Du Dein Lieblingsthema SPD sogar hier noch untergebracht.
(Aber beim Lügen warst Du schon kreativer: http://www.ariva.de/Na_endlich_Auch_Greenpeace_pro_Atomstrom_t340101)