The conversion is .24, and the winds and weather have improved dramatically.
Your assessment is fair, but if you would have seen the workout in person, and heard
all of their times, you would have written a story also. I am like you though, I do
not report practice times, they are laterally mea
Very good point.
> -Original Message-
> From: P.F.Talbot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 1:45 PM
> To: malmo
> Cc: Track list
> Subject: RE: t-and-f: Greene on fire in Sydney
>
>
> IT DOESN'T HAVE TO! It just has to reac
> In a message dated 9/15/00 7:19:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> << Actually, the standard I have heard is .24. As an official, I consider
> myself relatively good at seeing the smoke and hitting my stopwatch, and
.24
> has usually been just about right. >>
>
> Sorry, but if you're REALLY goo
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO! It just has to react equally slow to both the start
and the finish.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, malmo wrote:
>
> THAT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The human body simply cannot react that fast!
>
> malmo!TM
> Another self-anointed "Award-Winning" Pundit for the Sydney2000TM Olympics
THAT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The human body simply cannot react that fast!
malmo!TM
Another self-anointed "Award-Winning" Pundit for the Sydney2000TM Olympics
> Murphy is right .. If you start the watch when you actually see the smoke
> from the gun .. And then stop it when you actually see t
one word explains it all
Gamesmanship!
Good Training,
Michael Rohl
Walt Murphy wrote:
> Sorry, but if you're REALLY good (and it's not that hard to do), you'll be
> within 1 or 2 one-hundredths of a second of the official time. It's
amazing
> what you can do when money's on the line. I've been in many a contest to
see
> who could come closest to the actual auto-
--- Ed & Dana Parrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, the standard I have heard is .24. As an official, I consider
> myself relatively good at seeing the smoke and hitting my stopwatch, and
> .24 has usually been just about right.
Isn't it .24 for 200m (from across the track) and .14 for 1
In a message dated 9/15/00 7:19:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Actually, the standard I have heard is .24. As an official, I consider
myself relatively good at seeing the smoke and hitting my stopwatch, and .24
has usually been just about right. >>
Sorry, but if you're REALLY good (and
> --- Ed & Dana Parrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, the standard I have heard is .24. As an official, I consider
> > myself relatively good at seeing the smoke and hitting my stopwatch, and
> > .24 has usually been just about right.
>
> Isn't it .24 for 200m (from across the track)
> RT wrote:
>
> >Sanity check time:
> >1) "not recorded electronically" means hand time to me. Hand times are
> >rounded up to the next 10th, or 9.8.
> >2) the standard adjustment for comparison used to be what, .14?
> >That would make it equivalent to a 9.94 electronic.
> >3) extremely unlikely
RT wrote:
>Sanity check time:
>1) "not recorded electronically" means hand time to me. Hand times are
>rounded up to the next 10th, or 9.8.
>2) the standard adjustment for comparison used to be what, .14?
>That would make it equivalent to a 9.94 electronic.
>3) extremely unlikely to have a wind
>Maurice Greene has unofficially broken his 100m world record, after a
>sensational training session at Sydney's Olympic Stadium.
>The US sprinter clocked 9.78secs, 0.1secs inside his own world mark on just
>his fifth hard sprint of the afternoon.
>The time for his training run was not recorded e
13 matches
Mail list logo
