Hey what do you guys think a good time for a 10m start would be for a guy looking to run 11 flat in the 100m?
10m Start
-
-
Member
-
KeymasterHey what do you guys think a good time for a 10m start would be for a guy looking to run 11 flat in the 100m?
How are you timing and what’s the start method. Are you from blocks, 3-point, rolling, standing, etc?
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Member
Right now I’m using a SPARQ timer, starting with a 3-point stance, and it starts on my movement. My best time so far is 1.97 seconds.
-
Keymaster
Movement of the hand, foot, torso? For distances as short as 10m it makes a big difference. Hand pressure timing is the only way I’ve found to get a consistent split under 15m.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
Oh…also found using a 1m fly works well. So you run 11m but time 1-11m.
As for time, I suspect that something is wrong because that time is on the slow side for a 10m split of someone hoping to break 11.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
1.97 for 10m. Linford Christie did 1.95s to run 10.14 but this includes reaction time. Ahsford and Dreschler (1988 womens 100m final)recorded just over 2s over 10m with reaction time and ran 10.83, 10.85 respectively. It can be done. Better if you also knew your 20 and 30m splits. Ahsford and Dreschler did 3.13, 3.12 and 4.15, 4.14 respectively. If you do 30m in 4.2 then you stand a chance of getting under 11. Refer to Development of Maximum Sprinting Speed by Frank W. Dick.
I prefer hand pressure although my colleagues prefer foot pressure. Hand pressure (i.e. release) reflects a time more closely after reaction from a gun.
-
Keymaster
Christie’s 1.97 includes both reaction time AND movement time. Movement time is the time between initial force application and actual movement of the body. When you do it with a beam in the way that is described above it doesn’t accurately reflect movement time which is where the HUGE discrepancy comes in.
…or maybe I just have a bunch of guys who are faster than Linford 😉
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Christie’s 1.97 includes both reaction time AND movement time. Movement time is the time between initial force application and actual movement of the body. When you do it with a beam in the way that is described above it doesn’t accurately reflect movement time which is where the HUGE discrepancy comes in.
…or maybe I just have a bunch of guys who are faster than Linford 😉
And you’re gonna have some guys longer than Edwards and Powell soon too! :coolsmile:
-
Member
Movement of the hand, foot, torso? For distances as short as 10m it makes a big difference. Hand pressure timing is the only way I’ve found to get a consistent split under 15m.
It starts when any part of my body crosses the infrared beam. I would say most of the time my head breaks the beam right as I start.
-
Member
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.
-
Keymaster
It starts when any part of my body crosses the infrared beam. I would say most of the time my head breaks the beam right as I start.
I understand that but there’s still a time lag between the force applied to the ground and the movement that triggers the beam. If you timed a 10m sprint using pressure sensitive starting blocks (like they use in IAAF) this would add the movement time on to your 10m time. The way you do it, reaction time AND movement time are subtracted from the total time.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
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.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
If you start it the same way then you can at least see if your improving your time over the ten meters, but i think it would almost be impossible to predict a 100m time off just the first 10m. If you keep seeing an improvement in your time then you will know your doing something right with the training.
-
Participant
A couple of things
1. 10m testing times are useful when applied to other testing criteria such as 30m, 60m, SLJ, STJ, etc… Ask yourself why are you measuring 10m times and its application to training and improvements in training and performance. Obviously in track and field it’s application is a sprint start and more specifically initial acceleration. If someone’s 10m time drops, but his 30m and 60m test scores don’t then it’s likely his 100m or 200m times won’t be significantly different than before. Meaning you are likely, but not certainly spending way too much time in the blocks or first 4 steps of acceleration in training. A 10m time with corresponding 5m segment times in a 30m test is a better evaluation of initial acceleration anyways (10-15-20-25-30) and a 30m time has a better correlation to predicting 100m times.
2. It’s best measured from the initial movement to initiate action (hand pressure, block pressure, etc..) as Mike stated, however keep the mechanism to start timing the same.
-
Participant
[quote author="beau_zo_brehm" date="1221992519"]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.[/quote]
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. -
Participant
[quote author="Mike Young" date="1221992808"][quote author="beau_zo_brehm" date="1221992519"]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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]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.
-
Keymaster
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.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
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.
-
Member
I’ve found that my start times are better when I simply relax, instead of trying to violently attack the track.
-
Keymaster
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.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participantyeah 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 🙂
-
Participant
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? -
Participant
its a bit like the 60m specialists that suck at 100m, eh?
Yeah, Great Britain has quite a few of those!
-
Participant
-
Keymaster
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 🙂
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
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.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1222217232"]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.[/quote]
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.
-
Participant
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…
-
Participant
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.
https://elitetrack.com/?ACT=25&fid=37&aid=253_AUIaMDjQ5MpDAlF6hAaM&board_id=1
-
Participant
training error or 10.00-15 is the true limit for 99% of talented sprinters?
-
Participant
training error or 10.00-15 is the true limit for 99% of talented sprinters?
I tend to think it’s training error in this instance.
-
Participant
I disagree…Malcolm Arnold was a fantastic coach, Colin Jaskson was one of the greatest sprinter athletes of all time. I fail to see how his training methods arent correct or how he couldnt adjust for other athletes…Jason gardner could run sub 6.50 consistantly, but ran 9.98 i believe only once and averaged 10.15 the year he ran sub 6.50 about 6 times…
Something other than coaching or training methods must be the issue here…
-
Participant
I disagree…Malcolm Arnold was a fantastic coach, Colin Jaskson was one of the greatest sprinter athletes of all time. I fail to see how his training methods arent correct or how he couldnt adjust for other athletes…Jason gardner could run sub 6.50 consistantly, but ran 9.98 i believe only once and averaged 10.15 the year he ran sub 6.50 about 6 times…
Something other than coaching or training methods must be the issue here…
I don’t see how you can point to something other than training when someone runs 6.50 and 10.15. Like dbandre said, 6.50 + .90 splits the rest of the way is 10.10. Hell even I can string up a few .95 splits w/o wind and I suck.
-
Participant
I disagree…Malcolm Arnold was a fantastic coach, Colin Jaskson was one of the greatest sprinter athletes of all time. I fail to see how his training methods arent correct or how he couldnt adjust for other athletes…Jason gardner could run sub 6.50 consistantly, but ran 9.98 i believe only once and averaged 10.15 the year he ran sub 6.50 about 6 times…
Something other than coaching or training methods must be the issue here…
I don’t want to get into the PED discussion, because I think training error can come from many different sources and the Europeans who are heavily influenced by the likes of Mero and Bosch in terms of research focus too much on stride rate and pulling once they reach MaxV, they also push too long. I could be wrong about this, but I don’t think I am. Colin Jackson was a hurdler and thus turnover focus doesn’t help a hurdler since the number of steps they take in a race is exactly the same from about 10m to 100m in the 110mH race, but rhythm does count for something and rhythm helps one maintain velocity.
The biggest difference is his athletes lose velocity in a race at a greater rate than non-elite sprinters do (ie.. they don’t trust momentum). They lose as much as .15s/10m between maxV and the last 10m of a race.
-
Participant
so what are we saying, that Malcolm Arnold got their training plans wrong?
-
Participant
Speed end or Power End would seem to be these athletes problem no? For a 110 hurdler, this quality must be had in abundance. So why would it be a training error for some of his athletes, and not for others…
-
Participant
so what are we saying, that Malcolm Arnold got their training plans wrong?
Maybe his time has passed is how I look at it. Just about the same way I view Bobby Kersee and host of other Giants in track and field. Bobby can still do a great job with hurdlers, but no one else has responded well to his workouts, despite his 3 or 4 medalists from the Olympics. Crawford was so run into the ground he ran 21.X to finish last in his last 200m race and Felix cut her year short after the Olympic loss in the 200m, but it’s so painfully obvious she’s now the best 400m runner in the world.
-
Participant
Speed end or Power End would seem to be these athletes problem no? For a 110 hurdler, this quality must be had in abundance. So why would it be a training error for some of his athletes, and not for others…
Elastic strength and power would be the problem. Maybe Malcolm doesn’t train Jason or Craig like he trained Colin either.
-
Participant
[quote author="Nick Newman" date="1222219875"][quote author="davan" date="1222217232"]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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
Why would you test over 10m? Only because you have 20m to run in. Otherwise you would use longer distances i.e. 100m or at worst 60m. Here’s a thought…if we test people over 110m do you think they would improve over 100m more? Still 10, 20, 30-m tests allow a scientist to gauge biomechanical strengths and weaknesses. Fantastic 10m performance may use up too much ATP, effectively reducing leg stiffness as speeds increase and as the runner adopts a more upright position. Optimum 10m performance is all that is required.
Re: biomechanics. Focussing on improving 10m performance too much might ruin overall performance. I reckon I was the fastest human over 10m running 1.6-1.65s consistently but to do so I had to adopt this strange running style (copied something from the internet). This running technique was completely useless over 15m though and you look like a goose.
Regular 60m sprinters may not be developing the techniques required to accelerate beyond 60m (look at Gatlin and Flo-Jo). If they do have that technique then they may lack the race practice to allow a smooth transition into the technique. Yes, it seems training the claw and pull at MaxV is essential in this zone.
-
Participant
[quote author="dbandre" date="1222220215"][quote author="Nick Newman" date="1222219875"][quote author="davan" date="1222217232"]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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
Why would you test over 10m? Only because you have 20m to run in. Otherwise you would use longer distances i.e. 100m or at worst 60m. Here’s a thought…if we test people over 110m do you think they would improve over 100m more? Still 10, 20, 30-m tests allow a scientist to gauge biomechanical strengths and weaknesses. Fantastic 10m performance may use up too much ATP, effectively reducing leg stiffness as speeds increase and as the runner adopts a more upright position. Optimum 10m performance is all that is required.
Re: biomechanics. Focussing on improving 10m performance too much might ruin overall performance. I reckon I was the fastest human over 10m running 1.6-1.65s consistently but to do so I had to adopt this strange running style (copied something from the internet). This running technique was completely useless over 15m though and you look like a goose.
Regular 60m sprinters may not be developing the techniques required to accelerate beyond 60m (look at Gatlin and Flo-Jo). If they do have that technique then they may lack the race practice to allow a smooth transition into the technique. Yes, it seems training the claw and pull at MaxV is essential in this zone.[/quote]
Are saying that pulling or clawing/pawing is a good thing? At 60m, acceleration is finished or nearly finished for most sprinters. At worst a 6.55s 60m runner just finished his 50-60m split in .87s, he shouldn’t drop below .9s until at least the 80-90m segment and no worse than .93s for the final segment. 6.55 + .87 + .88 + .9 + .93 giving that runner at worst a 10.13s run, while the typical run would be a .85 + .86 + .89 + .89 for 10.03s and the GB guys have a hard time doing what should be done in the worst case scenario. I think Williameson dropped under 10.10s once of all the GB sprinters besides Chambers this season.
-
Participant
yeah your right about the times…i would guess however, that up until 70-80m for Gardner he was running under 10 seconds equivalent…so how is it an elastic strength problem and not a speed end problem for him?
His 40m-80m shows great elasticity doesnt it?
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1222217232"]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.[/quote]
It’s not a complicated concept.
Rodgers runs indoors for $$ because he didn’t have a contract until he got the indoor title. We’ll see if he continues to run now that he has a contract.
At the US champs, he definitely wasn’t leading the races at 60m. My point was that the British guys aren’t running that poorly in the 100m relative to their 60m (compared to what say most of the other people running similar 60m times right now run). They generally run 6.6s with some 6.5s. A lot of guys go 6.5x and don’t get under 10. Since it is indoors though, 6.5x will get you a lot further on the world level than an equivalent 100m time because of the level of competition.
-
Participant
I’d be more interested in seeing what their 60m splits en route to these 100m times are because they aren’t running devastating 60s in the big races and then falling off hard.
Possibly there is some sort of planning issue once they move from indoors to outdoors that needs to be addressed.
-
Participant
yeah, i would also like to see those splits in the 100’s. Id guess they are running around 6.6-7’s in those races…
so, yeah planning could be an issue but Arnold plans really well so im sure.
-
Participant
i mean, his athletes always peak very well at the right time (indoors). Colin obviously was one of the very best indoors and out (still indoor WR holder) and always peaked well also…
i can not imagine or see how, he longer knows how to plan right for his athletes…I beleive the athletes are either blame or they simply are not physically able to get much lower in the 100m.
-
Participant
yeah your right about the times…i would guess however, that up until 70-80m for Gardner he was running under 10 seconds equivalent…so how is it an elastic strength problem and not a speed end problem for him?
His 40m-80m shows great elasticity doesnt it?
Elasticity allows you to maintain speed as it aids reactive power. You could train speed endurance and it would help, but when you become stride rate and pawing oriented you lose the ability to store and use elastic energy proficiently. Thus you start to rely on strength more and more instead of letting momentum help. I think you’ll find the GB sprinters running with about 47-48 maybe even 49 steps per 100m and at 10.15s that’s 4.7 steps/sec that’s a giant difference to 4.4-4.5/steps per sec that 10.0x run. I just reviewed 2 Pickering tapes and he takes 48 steps in 10.21 (2008) and 10.29 (2007). Pickering shows what I think is classic british and european sprinting in running 100m races, I also think it’s typical of the way most american HS’ers are coached to since the European Community pumps out much of the published research on sprinting. When you have giants in the research community like Mero, Komi, Bosch, and Klomp putting out research, reviews, and books focusing on rate being the limiting factor in sprinting speed it’s hard to reverse such a culture.
To me a 100m should be ran as such in a descriptive since. Smaller to larger ranges of motion in acceleration, longer to shorter ground contacts, with step rate and step length both becoming larger in the first phase of acceleration, but during the second phase step rate falls slighty as step length continues to grow in other words this second phase of acceleration is transition to maxV. Once in maxV. velocity is maintained through a leveling of stride rate and length until fatigue sets in when rate again begins to climb as step length falls. With the European sprinters their stride rate seems to continue to climb and then level while step length suffers once fatigue sets in.
-
Keymaster
According to the splits we did in Eugene, Rogers ran 6.51 on two occasions en route to his 100m times of 10.07 and 10.01. His fastest time indoors was 6.54. When he ran the 6.51 in the finals he was 0.14 behind Tyson at 60m.
I’d fully expect the outdoor 60m split to be faster because of 1) 3 months more training and 2) the chance for wind assistance.
I tend to think that there are people who are naturally better at 60m BUT many of those mentioned so far in this thread should still be better than they are over 100m. I think if you can go <6.50 you should definitely be sub 10. I really can't understand how someone could fall off so hard UNLESS they are really 40m or 50m (or some other random distance less than 60m) specialists who can just 'hold on' long enough to be good at 60m.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
To me a 100m should be ran as such in a descriptive since. Smaller to larger ranges of motion in acceleration, …
ROM should be larger to smaller during acceleration through maxV.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
So would you think it was training error on the part of their coach for their drop off?
-
Keymaster
So would you think it was training error on the part of their coach for their drop off?
Can’t say. I’ve never heard anything but positive comments about Malcolm and he also coached John Akii-Bua to a gold in the 400H in 1972 so he certainly must know a thing or two about speed endurance. Having said that, it would be interesting to see how he handles the training of his 100m guys and compare it to his hurdlers.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
i mean, his athletes always peak very well at the right time (indoors). Colin obviously was one of the very best indoors and out (still indoor WR holder) and always peaked well also…
i can not imagine or see how, he longer knows how to plan right for his athletes…I beleive the athletes are either blame or they simply are not physically able to get much lower in the 100m.
You are going to have to trust me on this one, this is 6.57s into the 2008 London GP where Pickering ran 10.21 for last place and near the finish line. I believe Pickering has a 60m PR of 6.54s. Anyways, it shows he can run with the big dogs over 60m. The last picture tells it all as Pickering is about 3m to rear of main finishing group which is led by Powell at 9.95s. Based on the mile and 2 mile markers Pickering is running about .91 from 80-90 and .92 or .93 from 90-100m as I suspected.
-
Participant
[quote author="dbandre" date="1222247787"]
To me a 100m should be ran as such in a descriptive since. Smaller to larger ranges of motion in acceleration, …ROM should be larger to smaller during acceleration through maxV.[/quote]
How could ROM be larger it doesn’t make sense, I keep going over this in my head and definitely the first 3 or 4 steps the ROM at the hip gets larger. The ROM of the knee, hip, and ankle combined may get larger, but I never focus on the knees or ankle.
-
Participant
Well, i’m still sure it is a speed endurance problem…the guy cant break 21 in the 200m!
I also know these guys hate that type of work…and this doesn’t suprise me at all. It is not a coach problem, i am positive. -
Keymaster
How could ROM be larger it doesn’t make sense, I keep going over this in my head and definitely the first 3 or 4 steps the ROM at the hip gets larger. The ROM of the knee, hip, and ankle combined may get larger, but I never focus on the knees or ankle.
It seems the problem is that you’re saying it differently. The ROM IS larger in the beginning at most joints and gets smaller as the the athlete accelerates. Agree or disagree?
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Well, i’m still sure it is a speed endurance problem…the guy cant break 21 in the 200m!
He rarely runs the 200m race with his last one in 2004 when he was 17, and what good is speed endurance going to do for him without fixing his need to run 100m in 48 steps. He reminds me of J-Mee Samuels and J-Mee hasn’t exactly gotten better at speed-endurance/tempo-endurance central (Arkansas). Remodel the race, change the cues, train elasticity a bit more in conditioning, and get him to learn about momentum.
-
Participant
We think different. I have no doubt that if he worked more on speed end, and could run 20.60 ish in the 200m, he would be running low 10’s all the time.
-
Participant
[quote author="dbandre" date="1222249716"]
How could ROM be larger it doesn’t make sense, I keep going over this in my head and definitely the first 3 or 4 steps the ROM at the hip gets larger. The ROM of the knee, hip, and ankle combined may get larger, but I never focus on the knees or ankle.It seems the problem is that you’re saying it differently. The ROM IS larger in the beginning at most joints and gets smaller as the the athlete accelerates. Agree or disagree?[/quote]
I am not sure, but I am pretty sure ROM about the hip gets larger as you accelerate and with the knee it has to get smaller otherwise you’ll lack the stiffness needed to maintain speed on ground contact, but when accelerating it’s more collapsed during ground contact. I think the same can be said of the ankle as the knee. Definitely during ground contact the ROM is smaller, that would make a ton of since especially when approaching MaxV.
-
Participant
We think different. I have no doubt that if he worked more on speed end, and could run 20.60 ish in the 200m, he would be running low 10’s all the time.
In coaching an athlete it’s never about just changing the workouts. Pickering is part of a big group of young GB sprinters that are amazingly talented for a country of GB’s size. However, he used to be the best of them of all, now he’s either 2nd, 3rd, or 4th in that group and guys who passed him came from outside of Bath.
-
Keymaster
Are you going back and forth between ROM @ ground contact and total ROM? You’re losing me.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Are you going back and forth between ROM @ ground contact and total ROM? You’re losing me.
You lost me. Total ROM at the hip was the original reference for each stride and I’ll stand by ROM at the hip getting larger from acceleration to maxV unless you point out proof to the contrary. If such proof comes from European Sources then I’ll still stand by my statement.
-
Keymaster
When I’m discussing it I’m mostly referring to ROM of the joints during their period of force application and / or the total ROM of the legs through the gait cycle. Having said that though, even by your definition, I don’t think there’s less ROM during acceleration. I’m not aware of any research looking at ROM of hip from acceleration through maxV (although Mann is in year 2 of a study looking at acceleration) but you’d be surprised that the ROM at the hip during sprinting isn’t as great as one might think. In fact, hip extension is less than what’s observed in walking and the better you get the less hip extension takes place. In acceleration, it’s not unusual for the thigh to move to >90 hip flexion which is something that is practically impossible in upright running at top speed.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
When I’m discussing it I’m mostly referring to ROM of the joints during their period of force application and / or the total ROM of the legs through the gait cycle. Having said that though, even by your definition, I don’t think there’s less ROM during acceleration. I’m not aware of any research looking at ROM of hip from acceleration through maxV (although Mann is in year 2 of a study looking at acceleration) but you’d be surprised that the ROM at the hip during sprinting isn’t as great as one might think. In fact, hip extension is less than what’s observed in walking and the better you get the less hip extension takes place. In acceleration, it’s not unusual for the thigh to move to >90 hip flexion which is something that is practically impossible in upright running at top speed.
The problem is Mann hasn’t published much of anything unless you go off one of his sessions. Which everyone cannot do.
I no longer stand by my statement. I assume everything else was correct in the statement. Thanks for correcting me, I reran what I thought should happen and you are right.
-
Participant
Are saying that pulling or clawing/pawing is a good thing? At 60m, acceleration is finished or nearly finished for most sprinters. At worst a 6.55s 60m runner just finished his 50-60m split in .87s, he shouldn’t drop below .9s until at least the 80-90m segment and no worse than .93s for the final segment. 6.55 + .87 + .88 + .9 + .93 giving that runner at worst a 10.13s run, while the typical run would be a .85 + .86 + .89 + .89 for 10.03s and the GB guys have a hard time doing what should be done in the worst case scenario. I think Williameson dropped under 10.10s once of all the GB sprinters besides Chambers this season.
Whoops. Just to clarify, clawing/pawing/pulling is probably not a bad thing to incorporate in some sprint drills as long as one focuses on doing it in the traditional braking phase. In actual sprinting maxV it is more like kicking back with an almost extended leg prior to the leg hitting the ground. Too late to try clawing/pawing/pulling in actual sprinting as the time with which reflex activation can react is too small for reflex activation to have much effect. Anyway, this would cause pushing or too much ground contact time.
Look at Dix in the sprint data put forward by Mike earlier, he still (probably)accelerates between 60 and 70-m. Just beyond 60m is where I’ve noticed separation between the winners and the rest so this is an area I think needs more attention for future champions. Again, look at Gatlin and Flo-Jo for the technique. Please, Mero and Komi have provided a lot of foundation for improvements to sprint performance from where the next generation of researchers will show how to improve further. Some sprinters worked it out a long time ago (Gatlin and Flo-Jo) but there is still a long way to go. However too many people take Mero and Komi’s research as the MODEL but you have to realise that it represents sprinters of a certain class and we need to project from that what an ELITE MODEL 😉 would look like. As for Bosch, I love the book but explain to me exactly what is elastic strength and reactive strength?
As for ROM, the only thing I recognise is that for really fast top speed, the thigh doesn’t pass perpendicular until the foot is no longer in contact with the ground. I was writing an article explaining some very interesting relationships that may be the cause of fast maximum velocity. If the debate gets heated I might have to rush out a one page outline. And finally, we are a long way from the 10-m test at the moment. Great brainstorming though.
-
Keymaster
Just so you know, the USATF biomechanist who’s looked at the data of all the American sprint champs over the past 2 decades think Gatlin is one of the most inefficient runners he’s looked at. I tend to think the same. A prime example of improved performance through pharmacology.
Flojo is very good on the other hand. Mann said she’s about the only female who could do what the men could do as far as angular velocities at touchdown.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Just so you know, the USATF biomechanist who’s looked at the data of all the American sprint champs over the past 2 decades think Gatlin is one of the most inefficient runners he’s looked at. I tend to think the same. A prime example of improved performance through pharmacology.
Flojo is very good on the other hand. Mann said she’s about the only female who could do what the men could do as far as angular velocities at touchdown.
Well if the professor thinks so then I may have to stop plugging Gatlin. Perhaps he was only good at one other thing, generation of force with the leg almost fully extended at impact. Who is this Mann man? Best make himself available for us to ask him questions.
Shame there is no biomechanical data and lack of pictures on Flo-Jo.
-
Participant
[quote]Are saying that pulling or clawing/pawing is a good thing? At 60m, acceleration is finished or nearly finished for most sprinters. At worst a 6.55s 60m runner just finished his 50-60m split in .87s, he shouldn’t drop below .9s until at least the 80-90m segment and no worse than .93s for the final segment. 6.55 + .87 + .88 + .9 + .93 giving that runner at worst a 10.13s run, while the typical run would be a .85 + .86 + .89 + .89 for 10.03s and the GB guys have a hard time doing what should be done in the worst case scenario. I think Williameson dropped under 10.10s once of all the GB sprinters besides Chambers this season.
Whoops. Just to clarify, clawing/pawing/pulling is probably not a bad thing to incorporate in some sprint drills as long as one focuses on doing it in the traditional braking phase. In actual sprinting maxV it is more like kicking back with an almost extended leg prior to the leg hitting the ground. Too late to try clawing/pawing/pulling in actual sprinting as the time with which reflex activation can react is too small for reflex activation to have much effect. Anyway, this would cause pushing or too much ground contact time.
Look at Dix in the sprint data put forward by Mike earlier, he still (probably)accelerates between 60 and 70-m. Just beyond 60m is where I’ve noticed separation between the winners and the rest so this is an area I think needs more attention for future champions. Again, look at Gatlin and Flo-Jo for the technique. Please, Mero and Komi have provided a lot of foundation for improvements to sprint performance from where the next generation of researchers will show how to improve further. Some sprinters worked it out a long time ago (Gatlin and Flo-Jo) but there is still a long way to go. However too many people take Mero and Komi’s research as the MODEL but you have to realise that it represents sprinters of a certain class and we need to project from that what an ELITE MODEL 😉 would look like. As for Bosch, I love the book but explain to me exactly what is elastic strength and reactive strength?
As for ROM, the only thing I recognise is that for really fast top speed, the thigh doesn’t pass perpendicular until the foot is no longer in contact with the ground. I was writing an article explaining some very interesting relationships that may be the cause of fast maximum velocity. If the debate gets heated I might have to rush out a one page outline. And finally, we are a long way from the 10-m test at the moment. Great brainstorming though.[/quote]
We aren’t that far from the 10m start, Malcolm Arnold likes to test 10m and 30m a lot and it’s his guys we are discussing.
Anyways, a ground contact is .06-.08s, even in non-elite (not even sub-elite) ground contact is still likely to be less than a .1s that’s an awfully short period of time to initiate and stop an action. This is one area Dr. Deadlift and I actually agree upon, we agree on other items to but not much concerning the gait cycle. To cut it back to the braking phase only cuts the time for execution by 40%, even at the spinal level the body doesn’t work that way. It comes down to preparing the body for ground contact and this is done by positioning the limbs which is where almost all of us on this board have diverged from Dr. Deadlift as so evident in one of the classic threads on this board.
The body (spinal level, visiomotor cortex, muscle spindles, golgi tendon organs, and other proprioceptive parts) actually prepares for ground contact quite nicely without any intervention from the brain trying to override the mechanical parameters necessary to stay in motion. What happens during the ground contact phase has already been decided by the momentum present in the system and the ground reaction forces which cause the chain of events for the completion of the stride depending on the positioning of the limbs and the combined elastic, reactive, concentric strength capabilities of those limbs together, but immediately upon impact of the next stride while trying to claw will cause excessive pushing which further extends the leg behind the center line at MaxV causing the leg to flail and extending the moment arm which needs to come back through and when it shortens and does come back forward it cannot come forward as far as possible because the body realizes it will tumble if it doesn’t plant and plants further in front of the body (limb positioning) causing a prolonged braking period and decreases stiffness in the system causing a longer ground contact which ultimately keeps feeding itself in terms of stride rate to minimize speed loss and excessive backside mechanics.
I tend to think guys like Cavagna, McNeil Alexander, and the spring mass guys (Blickhahn,Farley,McMahon, Hegland, and Taylor) have contributed more to the field than Komi or Mero. That’s my personal opinion and the combination of about 40 years developing modeling possibilities that I didn’t see in your paper that I wish you included more of instead of the classic Cavagna and Alexander references. I’ll discuss this in the article thread more clearly, no since in making an argument of it here, especially when I haven’t throughly gone over the article. The Hunter and Di Prampero references are nice though.
Elastic and Reactive Strength in sprinting are forces generated from reactive movements and elastic sources. Elastic strength is the ability for an elastic structure in this case the human leg to store elastic energy and use it and it’s used in a reactive setting as a reaction to ground contact.
Whether we are discussing the average sprinter, the sub-elite sprinter, or the elite sprinter there are certain things which hold true and I believe these are gait specific, but hold true for each gait, sprint, bound, hop, skip, or run. The less steps you take to finish a race the faster your time will be. The less steps you take the smaller your step rate will be. The faster your limbs move in terms of angular velocity the larger the ROM you need. The smaller the changes in jerk (rate of change in acceleration) to zero acceleration the faster you will run. All of these point to enhancing step length and not step rate.
-
Participant
[quote author="Jeremy Richmond" date="1222256396"][quote]Are saying that pulling or clawing/pawing is a good thing? At 60m, acceleration is finished or nearly finished for most sprinters. At worst a 6.55s 60m runner just finished his 50-60m split in .87s, he shouldn’t drop below .9s until at least the 80-90m segment and no worse than .93s for the final segment. 6.55 + .87 + .88 + .9 + .93 giving that runner at worst a 10.13s run, while the typical run would be a .85 + .86 + .89 + .89 for 10.03s and the GB guys have a hard time doing what should be done in the worst case scenario. I think Williameson dropped under 10.10s once of all the GB sprinters besides Chambers this season.
Whoops. Just to clarify, clawing/pawing/pulling is probably not a bad thing to incorporate in some sprint drills as long as one focuses on doing it in the traditional braking phase. In actual sprinting maxV it is more like kicking back with an almost extended leg prior to the leg hitting the ground. Too late to try clawing/pawing/pulling in actual sprinting as the time with which reflex activation can react is too small for reflex activation to have much effect. Anyway, this would cause pushing or too much ground contact time.
Look at Dix in the sprint data put forward by Mike earlier, he still (probably)accelerates between 60 and 70-m. Just beyond 60m is where I’ve noticed separation between the winners and the rest so this is an area I think needs more attention for future champions. Again, look at Gatlin and Flo-Jo for the technique. Please, Mero and Komi have provided a lot of foundation for improvements to sprint performance from where the next generation of researchers will show how to improve further. Some sprinters worked it out a long time ago (Gatlin and Flo-Jo) but there is still a long way to go. However too many people take Mero and Komi’s research as the MODEL but you have to realise that it represents sprinters of a certain class and we need to project from that what an ELITE MODEL 😉 would look like. As for Bosch, I love the book but explain to me exactly what is elastic strength and reactive strength?
As for ROM, the only thing I recognise is that for really fast top speed, the thigh doesn’t pass perpendicular until the foot is no longer in contact with the ground. I was writing an article explaining some very interesting relationships that may be the cause of fast maximum velocity. If the debate gets heated I might have to rush out a one page outline. And finally, we are a long way from the 10-m test at the moment. Great brainstorming though.[/quote]
We aren’t that far from the 10m start, Malcolm Arnold likes to test 10m and 30m a lot and it’s his guys we are discussing.
Anyways, a ground contact is .06-.08s, even in non-elite (not even sub-elite) ground contact is still likely to be less than a .1s that’s an awfully short period of time to initiate and stop an action. This is one area Dr. Deadlift and I actually agree upon, we agree on other items to but not much concerning the gait cycle. To cut it back to the braking phase only cuts the time for execution by 40%, even at the spinal level the body doesn’t work that way. It comes down to preparing the body for ground contact and this is done by positioning the limbs which is where almost all of us on this board have diverged from Dr. Deadlift as so evident in one of the classic threads on this board.
The body (spinal level, visiomotor cortex, muscle spindles, golgi tendon organs, and other proprioceptive parts) actually prepares for ground contact quite nicely without any intervention from the brain trying to override the mechanical parameters necessary to stay in motion. What happens during the ground contact phase has already been decided by the momentum present in the system and the ground reaction forces which cause the chain of events for the completion of the stride depending on the positioning of the limbs and the combined elastic, reactive, concentric strength capabilities of those limbs together, but immediately upon impact of the next stride while trying to claw will cause excessive pushing which further extends the leg behind the center line at MaxV causing the leg to flail and extending the moment arm which needs to come back through and when it shortens and does come back forward it cannot come forward as far as possible because the body realizes it will tumble if it doesn’t plant and plants further in front of the body (limb positioning) causing a prolonged braking period and decreases stiffness in the system causing a longer ground contact which ultimately keeps feeding itself in terms of stride rate to minimize speed loss and excessive backside mechanics.
I tend to think guys like Cavagna, McNeil Alexander, and the spring mass guys (Blickhahn,Farley,McMahon, Hegland, and Taylor) have contributed more to the field than Komi or Mero. That’s my personal opinion and the combination of about 40 years developing modeling possibilities that I didn’t see in your paper that I wish you included more of instead of the classic Cavagna and Alexander references. I’ll discuss this in the article thread more clearly, no since in making an argument of it here, especially when I haven’t throughly gone over the article. The Hunter and Di Prampero references are nice though.
Elastic and Reactive Strength in sprinting are forces generated from reactive movements and elastic sources. Elastic strength is the ability for an elastic structure in this case the human leg to store elastic energy and use it and it’s used in a reactive setting as a reaction to ground contact.
Whether we are discussing the average sprinter, the sub-elite sprinter, or the elite sprinter there are certain things which hold true and I believe these are gait specific, but hold true for each gait, sprint, bound, hop, skip, or run. The less steps you take to finish a race the faster your time will be. The less steps you take the smaller your step rate will be. The faster your limbs move in terms of angular velocity the larger the ROM you need. The smaller the changes in jerk (rate of change in acceleration) to zero acceleration the faster you will run. All of these point to enhancing step length and not step rate.[/quote]
Thanks for explaining the clawing/pawing/pulling training method more clearly. Given the short force execution time during ground contact the force/momentum must be built up before contact. I only suggest trying to do clawing/pawing/pulling in the braking phase as a learning step that results from pre-impact.
The spring mass guys (Arampatzis included) will probably get a mention in a future article that relates to detailed analysis of training methods. Speaking of articles, Alexander (1989) found only a weak correlation between stride length and maximum speed of r=0.53. However thigh displacement, which must be related to ROM somehow, correlates with speed in males of r=0.93 and 0.96 in females. I can see your point when it comes to total number of strides because if a sprinter can save one step that equals 0.09 seconds on average.
As for the jerkiness of sprinting, the smoother the acceleration the less ATP will be wasted (i.e. more efficiency) saving precious fuel for longer acceleration.
-
Participant
As for the jerkiness of sprinting, the smoother the acceleration the less ATP will be wasted (i.e. more efficiency) saving precious fuel for longer acceleration.
This is what is not studied enough. Maybe it’s self-evident, but I tend to think no one wants to think in meters per second cubed.
-
Participant
Speaking of sprint testing sprint performance and training thereof, I found an article written by Valerie Borzov explaining all the above over different tests. I forward it to Mike in case he wants to add it.
-
Participant
[quote author="Jeremy Richmond" date="1222265946"]
As for the jerkiness of sprinting, the smoother the acceleration the less ATP will be wasted (i.e. more efficiency) saving precious fuel for longer acceleration.This is what is not studied enough. Maybe it’s self-evident, but I tend to think no one wants to think in meters per second cubed.[/quote]
Agreed.Difficult as that would be I would much rather work with that than with spring mass constants, vibration, harmonic frequency etc as per the spring mass guys. That can be your gig.
-
Participant
[quote author="dbandre" date="1222267328"][quote author="Jeremy Richmond" date="1222265946"]
As for the jerkiness of sprinting, the smoother the acceleration the less ATP will be wasted (i.e. more efficiency) saving precious fuel for longer acceleration.This is what is not studied enough. Maybe it’s self-evident, but I tend to think no one wants to think in meters per second cubed.[/quote]
Agreed.Difficult as that would be I would much rather work with that than with spring mass constants, vibration, harmonic frequency etc as per the spring mass guys. That can be your gig.[/quote]
If you can measure time and distance then you can measure Jerk. If you have a known mass then you can measure Yank too.
I believe Jerk does a good job of explaining why 10m start times are not as effective in predicting 100m times.
The spring-mass model of running allows for the body to have adjustable springs.
There some jumps related stuff related to reactive/elastic strength by David Kerin floating around the web. You used to be able to get the article here, but it’s still available at the gill athletics site.
-
Keymaster
Well if the professor thinks so then I may have to stop plugging Gatlin. Perhaps he was only good at one other thing, generation of force with the leg almost fully extended at impact. Who is this Mann man? Best make himself available for us to ask him questions.
Dr. Ralph Mann, Silver medal in 72 Olympics in 400m Hurdles and the USATF biomechanist for the sprint events. He’s not published his data (at least not in peer-reviewed journals) for about 20 years but it is available.
Gatlin’s major flaw was that he made contact too far in front of his COM.
Shame there is no biomechanical data and lack of pictures on Flo-Jo.
Mann has plenty. On an interesting note, he told me that she was an elite technical model before she was the 10.58 100m queen that we know her today. He said in 88 (when she ran like she had a rocket on her back) her mechanics didn’t significantly change but her power output did.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
Anyways, a ground contact is .06-.08s, even in non-elite (not even sub-elite) ground contact is still likely to be less than a .1s that’s an awfully short period of time to initiate and stop an action.
While the point is well taken, ground contacts are never as short as 0.06. I believe the elite of the elite are around 0.8 and national class are around 0.85 with sub elites being around 0.9-0.1s.
The body (spinal level, visiomotor cortex, muscle spindles, golgi tendon organs, and other proprioceptive parts) actually prepares for ground contact quite nicely without any intervention from the brain trying to override the mechanical parameters necessary to stay in motion. What happens during the ground contact phase has already been decided by the momentum present in the system and the ground reaction forces which cause the chain of events for the completion of the stride depending on the positioning of the limbs and the combined elastic, reactive, concentric strength capabilities of those limbs together, but immediately upon impact of the next stride while trying to claw will cause excessive pushing which further extends the leg behind the center line at MaxV causing the leg to flail and extending the moment arm which needs to come back through and when it shortens and does come back forward it cannot come forward as far as possible because the body realizes it will tumble if it doesn’t plant and plants further in front of the body (limb positioning) causing a prolonged braking period and decreases stiffness in the system causing a longer ground contact which ultimately keeps feeding itself in terms of stride rate to minimize speed loss and excessive backside mechanics.
Good explanation!
Whether we are discussing the average sprinter, the sub-elite sprinter, or the elite sprinter there are certain things which hold true and I believe these are gait specific, but hold true for each gait, sprint, bound, hop, skip, or run. The less steps you take to finish a race the faster your time will be. The less steps you take the smaller your step rate will be. The faster your limbs move in terms of angular velocity the larger the ROM you need. The smaller the changes in jerk (rate of change in acceleration) to zero acceleration the faster you will run. All of these point to enhancing step length and not step rate.
I agree with 99% of what you said here but I think I’d add the caveat that you have to be doing an intra-athlete comparison and it won’t necessarily work comparing one athlete to another. For example, if you took a 9.77 by Powell, Gay, Greene, and Bolt, they’d likely all have differences in touchdowns over the course of the race with Bolt obviously having the fewest. A lot of the variability is simply due to their acceleration mechanics though so I suspect it might be more relevant to look at strides taken from 50m-100m. I would guess that this would more closely correlate with 100m performance.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
I agree with 99% of what you said here but I think I’d add the caveat that you have to be doing an intra-athlete comparison and it won’t necessarily work comparing one athlete to another. For example, if you took a 9.77 by Powell, Gay, Greene, and Bolt, they’d likely all have differences in touchdowns over the course of the race with Bolt obviously having the fewest. A lot of the variability is simply due to their acceleration mechanics though so I suspect it might be more relevant to look at strides taken from 50m-100m. I would guess that this would more closely correlate with 100m performance.
I agree with your caveat about the touchdowns in the acceleration phase causing the differences between different runners that run about the same times. However an elite 100m sprinter should be taking 46 steps or less in a race to run 10.1x or less. I have to believe Pickering will be the first caucasian to run under 10.00s for 100m if he takes 45-46 steps in a race. Still when you look at all the Europeans who have run the 100m over the last 3 decades you find they have regressed or stagnated in terms of sprint development. I think they have had 6 or 7 on the Continent as whole who have run under 10s and a couple of those guys are ones who changed nationalities and didn’t officially run under a national coach or national HP program. The European programs seemed to be geared heavily on stride rate improvement which I think comes from their track cycling backgrounds which pedal rate and for good reasons is a major factor for speed in track cycling events because they can only use 1 gear. The giants in Sport Science in Western Europe come from the British, the Dutch, the Italians, and the Fins. A ton of old Eastern European literature exists now, but they are no longer what they used to be with exception to Coh.
-
Participant
[quote author="Jeremy Richmond" date="1222257329"]
Well if the professor thinks so then I may have to stop plugging Gatlin. Perhaps he was only good at one other thing, generation of force with the leg almost fully extended at impact. Who is this Mann man? Best make himself available for us to ask him questions.Dr. Ralph Mann, Silver medal in 72 Olympics in 400m Hurdles and the USATF biomechanist for the sprint events. He’s not published his data (at least not in peer-reviewed journals) for about 20 years but it is available.
Gatlin’s major flaw was that he made contact too far in front of his COM.
Shame there is no biomechanical data and lack of pictures on Flo-Jo.
Mann has plenty. On an interesting note, he told me that she was an elite technical model before she was the 10.58 100m queen that we know her today. He said in 88 (when she ran like she had a rocket on her back) her mechanics didn’t significantly change but her power output did.[/quote]
My sense of humour might not be apparent in this method of communication but I do know of Ralph Mann and have a great deal of respect for him and the many other researchers of athletics. The bit about contact too far in front of COM troubles me a bit though. Traditionally, sprinters may not have exploited the area in front of COM for propulsion but given that some of the force produced in this zone may be wasted, the sprinter may still benefit. For sure that Gatlin did not have the technical skill that Flo-Jo had in the same region, it would be great to compare sprinters of the modern era to those of the not so distant past especially their force production ahead of the COM.
And Flo-Jo was brilliant. I find it hard to believe that the reported but not recorded wind reading in the Olympic final just happened to blow in her lane exclusively. She was miles ahead of her compatriots. The fact that her mechanics did not change significantly relative to her power output leads me to think that she may have found the right compromise in internal fuel expenditure with a smooth acceleration and/or she may have found the natural frequency of the different springs (musculotendinous complexes) of her propulsive limbs.
Further, since we are originally discussing the 10-m correlate to 100-m performance with a good deal of humour, I have seen a report from the Swedish Olympic committee where it reported the ground contact time of an Australian sprinter, which when compared to that of one of the Olypmpic champions studied showed similar patterns of ground contact time up until the 10-m mark. After this mark, the Australian sprinters contact time did not continue to shorten as considerably which can be seen to a limited extent in my article as well when comparing a current European sprinter.
-
Participant
Further, since we are originally discussing the 10-m correlate to 100-m performance with a good deal of humour, I have seen a report from the Swedish Olympic committee where it reported the ground contact time of an Australian sprinter, which when compared to that of one of the Olypmpic champions studied showed similar patterns of ground contact time up until the 10-m mark. After this mark, the Australian sprinters contact time did not continue to shorten as considerably which can be seen to a limited extent in my article as well when comparing a current European sprinter.
I think this further underscores the differences between European/Australian Sprinters and why their research driven approach based on a flawed bias towards stride rate has produced many Europeans who compete favorably up until 60m or so in a world class race, but tend to fall off as the race progresses. There is not enough specific elastic training involved which helps improve stride length and regulate stride rate.
-
Keymaster
One of the common denominators of those who were really fast to 10 in the past (and to some extent even now) is that they stood up much quicker. Check out FloJo, Cason, Ben and you’ll notice they look like they’re almost upright at 15m. Compare that to today’s runners who display much better 10m splits in the latter half of the race but come up much slower.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Member
One of the common denominators of those who were really fast to 10 in the past (and to some extent even now) is that they stood up much quicker. Check out FloJo, Cason, Ben and you’ll notice they look like they’re almost upright at 15m. Compare that to today’s runners who display much better 10m splits in the latter half of the race but come up much slower.
So Mike, does this all come back to preserving energy and / or the hamstrings for later in the race?
-
Keymaster
So Mike, does this all come back to preserving energy and / or the hamstrings for later in the race?
I think both…and they’re also highly related too.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Member
[quote author="beau_zo_brehm" date="1222421359"]
So Mike, does this all come back to preserving energy and / or the hamstrings for later in the race?
I think both…and they’re also highly related too.[/quote]
So do you encourage your athletes to come up slowly, or just “naturally”?
-
Keymaster
I have them come up naturally. I don’t really believe in a ‘drive phase’ as most understand it. Most of the time it’s just an athlete putting their chin in their chest. Better athletes can handle lower initial departure angles which will naturally put them lower during the acceleration.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Viewing 83 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.