I understand that a 10m time isn’t one of those that you can plug into a calculator and get an accurate 100m time, but I’m sure there’s at least a standard of some sort. A guy can’t run 10m in 3 seconds and expect to run a good 100m time.
I won’t speak for Mort but I know I’ve had some GREAT guys over 10m who couldn’t even make the travel squad for 100m. Come to think of it, when my wife was at her best she could run 10m with many <10.8 men but obviously she was no where close to being able to run that over 100m. I actually stopped timing 10m years ago because I wasn’t able to get any valuable data from it. The test is so short that even the smallest variance can lead to ‘off’ performances.
I have a guy that runs a devastating 10m and beat a 6.8x/10.61 guy by a good margin at 10. With my great coaching he ran like 11.8 losing by 1.2 in the 100 despite being up by over a meter at 10.
Yeah, had a guy that was devastating over 10m and still reasonably quick over 30. He had hip extensors weaker than some people in a Pilates class - so bad we almost classified it as a dysfunction. Once upright he could not sustain his acceleration.
One thing I’ve found through extensive testing of a number of elite and sub-elites is that often times a faster 10m time leads to a slower 30m time. I’m making this statement from the standpoint of being within the same run (i.e. I have timing gates set up at 10m, 20m, and 30m). In other words, if an athlete did 5 tests, I’d often find that their fastest 10m split was on their slowest 30m time.
Anyone else notice this phenomenon? Kinda makes you re-evaulate the test.
One thing I’ve found through extensive testing of a number of elite and sub-elites is that often times a faster 10m time leads to a slower 30m time. I’m making this statement from the standpoint of being within the same run (i.e. I have timing gates set up at 10m, 20m, and 30m). In other words, if an athlete did 5 tests, I’d often find that their fastest 10m split was on their slowest 30m time.
Anyone else notice this phenomenon? Kinda makes you re-evaulate the test.
Does that have anything to do with the drive phase? In the first 10m if they have a faster 10m they are using shorter quicker steps and transitioning to early? I know sometimes they would say Carl Lewis and Bolt had a bad start but really they were just racing people shorter who could make more contacts in the shorter distance.
I imagine is also has to do (to some extent) with some sort of energy distribution as many people notice that a very very slight letting up at the start (most people will overdo it if they think about it, it seems) results in faster times.
I imagine is also has to do (to some extent) with some sort of energy distribution as many people notice that a very very slight letting up at the start (most people will overdo it if they think about it, it seems) results in faster times.
I’m not sure if it’s energy distribution (although it certainly could be) but I’ve noticed this too. It’s a very fine line though as you said and about 50% of the athletes that I work with never get it. Their intensity regulator either needs calibration or is as sensitive as Joan Rivers face.
yeah my claim to fame in sprinting, also came at the 10m mark…i was beating a guy at around 12m to be exact who ran a 6.60 in the race…i was very close behind him, coming in at around 7.20
i can only say from personal experience that training “for” the first 10 meters is a bad bad thing. when i did it i kinda used different movement patterns which led to very fast 10, 15 meters but then set me up very bad for the rest of run.
so i guess if you force a very fast 10m your technique or posture or whatever will not equal the one you need for a fast 100m or even 60m.
its a bit like the 60m specialists that suck at 100m, eh?
Most “60m specialists” aren’t winning the 100m race at 60m, so I’m not sure it is that, Nick.
A lot/most of the top Jamaican guys don’t run indoors at all and even most of the Americans don’t once they are pro. Who knows if that is beneficial or not.
yeah my claim to fame in sprinting, also came at the 10m mark…i was beating a guy at around 12m to be exact who ran a 6.60 in the race…i was very close behind him, coming in at around 7.20
Yep…I believe it. My wife beat a MALE sprint Olympian to 10m during a 30m test at LSU…after that though it was all down hill though
Most “60m specialists” aren’t winning the 100m race at 60m, so I’m not sure it is that, Nick.
A lot/most of the top Jamaican guys don’t run indoors at all and even most of the Americans don’t once they are pro. Who knows if that is beneficial or not.
huh? i dont get you…i said GB has alot of good 60m guys and no good 100m guys, (except Dwain.)
Look at Rogers of the USA, he’s a 60m specialist, did nothing in the 100m.
Most “60m specialists” aren’t winning the 100m race at 60m, so I’m not sure it is that, Nick.
A lot/most of the top Jamaican guys don’t run indoors at all and even most of the Americans don’t once they are pro. Who knows if that is beneficial or not.
huh? i dont get you…i said GB has alot of good 60m guys and no good 100m guys, (except Dwain.)
Look at Rogers of the USA, he’s a 60m specialist, did nothing in the 100m.
GB’s 100m guys are still pretty good, not quite the American or Caribbean levels, but I agree with Davan about how the American and Caribbean athletes don’t compete a lot indoors.
I think the main difference between the Americas 100m guys and GB’s 100m guys has to do with elastic strength/power training. It also seems they are taught to claw and pull at maxV. I won’t mention the other reasons. Still there is no reason for the 4 or 5 guys they have running around 6.55 for 60m not to be running be sub 10s, one only needs to average .87s over each of the next 4 10m segments.
and i am fully aware of the other reasons trust me…GB guys are clean…it is crazy rigid over there with testing…
Im saying though, a 6.45-55 should not equal a 10.15+ but more often than not it does for GB guys…
lol, I just re-edited my post about how those guys at worst coming off of at least 6.55s 60m should be able to run 9.99s even in horrible race.
I think it has to do with the GB lifetime ban and in some european countries it’s a crime to use PED’s and compete. Therefore use of supplements is even scaled back.
Yep they all seem to go 10.15s and to me that indicates a training problem, because they are averaging .90s per 10m segment over the last 40m. Just look at 100m data Mike provided us from the US Olympic Trials.
