I’m not sure if this has ever been brought up before, but I’ve been thinking on it for a while now. I have maintained for years that accleration paterns are similar in elite and regular athletes. I posted a thread a few years ago that somewhat refuted my beliefs, but I’ve come to another question. What if the steps taken during acceleration are nearly the same for elites as they are for non elites?
Consider the following thought experiment. An elite 100m guy, say 9.8, takes around 43 steps during a race. Roughly 60m should be acceleration. If we say 60% of steps are acceleration, then we have about 25 steps. Now a high school boy that runs 12.0 will take 9-11 more steps during a race. Say 54. If he still accelerates through 25 steps, his acceleration would be through 46%, or 46m. Thoughts?
There is a paper (which I will dig out) saying that all sprinters should or do accelerate for between 6 and 7 seconds. The difference between an elite and non elite will cover more ground in 6 to 7 seconds, which matches up with what you are saying.
* I think it might be
Mehrikadze, V., & Tabatschnik, B. (1983). An analysis of sprinting. Modern Athlete and
Coach. 21(2)
There is a paper (which I will dig out) saying that all sprinters should or do accelerate for between 6 and 7 seconds. The difference between an elite and non elite will cover more ground in 6 to 7 seconds, which matches up with what you are saying.
* I think it might be
Mehrikadze, V., & Tabatschnik, B. (1983). An analysis of sprinting. Modern Athlete and
Coach. 21(2)
Thanks. I couldn’t find the paper through a quick google search, but I will keep an eye out for it. I started counting steps when analyzing video. On average, the steps an athlete takes over 100m is time/.22. My 11.1 guy a couple years ago took 49-50, a 12.4 girl took 50+. My angles were never ideal for determining distance and therefore acceleration though. I think the idea could be useful for cueing. Few people can estimate 30m or 6s, but anyone can count steps. And interestingly enough, most kids’ stride frequency didn’t vary a whole lot throughout the race.
I don’t think the whole all athletes accelerate for the same ammmount of time thing is really valid. For example
A. Athletes that don’t have good mechanics, spin their wheels out of the blocks, and reach top speed within three steps…it certaintly doesn’t take them 6 seconds to take Max V
B. Stronger, more skilled athletes can handle lower departure angles and have longer acceleration phases than that of athletes who are weeker or less skilled.
Generally, the more powerful and skilled an athlete is I think the longer they will accelerate. I’d say most HS athletes will be at top speed betwee 20-30 meters…which would be about 4 secondsish…and then acceleration time/distance goes up for faster athletes.
I don’t think the whole all athletes accelerate for the same ammmount of time thing is really valid. For example
A. Athletes that don’t have good mechanics, spin their wheels out of the blocks, and reach top speed within three steps…it certaintly doesn’t take them 6 seconds to take Max V
B. Stronger, more skilled athletes can handle lower departure angles and have longer acceleration phases than that of athletes who are weeker or less skilled.
Generally, the more powerful and skilled an athlete is I think the longer they will accelerate. I’d say most HS athletes will be at top speed betwee 20-30 meters…which would be about 4 secondsish…and then acceleration time/distance goes up for faster athletes.
I know this is conventional wisdom, but I just don’t think it’s the case. If we take splits of athletes all over, I think the velocity curve will look fairly normal. Otherwise, you would have kids with ridiculous speed endurance, to name just one of many problems.
We aren’t talking about people who don’t have of course athletes with poor mechanics wont do what they are supposed to.
Still, even athltes are world class level are fairly diffrent…I mean look at someone like Kim Collins as opposed to someone like Wallace Spearmon. Both are 10.0 guys, but they run completly diffrent races. I just don’t think it holds true for even world class athletes, let alone all people.
On quick inspection most of the athletes seem to hit top speed between 6 and 7 seconds worth of running. You can’t use outliers to support an argument. There is evidence to support what Derrick is saying.
On quick inspection most of the athletes seem to hit top speed between 6 and 7 seconds worth of running. You can’t use outliers to support an argument. There is evidence to support what Derrick is saying.
Obviously the majority of elites, who are skilled, are going to accelerate in the ideal time. I just disagree with what Derrick said that all athletes take roughly the same ammount of time to reach top speed. There is no way 11.0 guys are accelerating all the way to 45 meters.
[quote author="Callam Mccabe" date="1361662880"]On quick inspection most of the athletes seem to hit top speed between 6 and 7 seconds worth of running. You can’t use outliers to support an argument. There is evidence to support what Derrick is saying.
Obviously the majority of elites, who are skilled, are going to accelerate in the ideal time. I just disagree with what Derrick said that all athletes take roughly the same ammount of time to reach top speed. There is no way 11.0 guys are accelerating all the way to 45 meters.[/quote]Zack,
One thing you will hopefully learn as you mature is that what seems like “common sense” takes a back seat to empirical data. You’re talking to experienced coaches/athletes who have looked at hundreds of splits and acceleration curves.
There is a range, and outlyers aside, what Callam and Derrick are saying is valid. Part of this is about energy systems. Its not a coincidence that deceleration begins almost immediately after peak velocity is established. It is rare for an elite athlete running full out to maintain Vmax for more than 10 meters. Energy available from Stored ATP lasts about 2 seconds, and the ATP-PC system is greatly reduced after only about 6 seconds, and is almost non-existent after 10 secs. There is very little variance in this number from person to person, and as a result, after 6-7 almost everyone transistions to a less effective energy system, becoming unable to maintain the Vmax they just established. Faster sprinters accelerate at a greater rate over a longer distance, but the duration of accelration, while it is trainable and can/does improve, it does not vary greatly unless the athlete is a rank novice or has issues with injury or mechanics.
As Derrick hinted, if this were not true you would have novice sprinters hitting Vmax at 25-30m then maintaining that Vmax through to about 50-70m. It doesn’t happen. Even with novice sprinters, deceleration begins almost immediately after true Vmax is reached.
Velocity vs time curves for slower sprinters look very much like the curves for elites…there just flatter at the beginning due to a lower rate. When you look at velocity vs distance, Vmax does appear to occur “earlier”, but really “earlier” is not the proper term, because it does not occur that much sooner in terms of time; it occurs sooner in terms of distance covered.
Are there really any practical implications to this? At the end of the day, you’re still going to have to run 60m/100m/200m and try to be competitive, at least relative to your level.
[quote author="Zack Trapp" date="1361663717"][quote author="Callam Mccabe" date="1361662880"]On quick inspection most of the athletes seem to hit top speed between 6 and 7 seconds worth of running. You can’t use outliers to support an argument. There is evidence to support what Derrick is saying.
Obviously the majority of elites, who are skilled, are going to accelerate in the ideal time. I just disagree with what Derrick said that all athletes take roughly the same ammount of time to reach top speed. There is no way 11.0 guys are accelerating all the way to 45 meters.[/quote]Zack,
One thing you will hopefully learn as you mature is that what seems like “common sense” takes a back seat to empirical data. You’re talking to experienced coaches/athletes who have looked at hundreds of splits and acceleration curves.
There is a range, and outlyers aside, what Callam and Derrick are saying is valid. Part of this is about energy systems. Its not a coincidence that deceleration begins almost immediately after peak velocity is established. It is rare for an elite athlete running full out to maintain Vmax for more than 10 meters. Energy available from Stored ATP lasts about 2 seconds, and the ATP-PC system is greatly reduced after only about 6 seconds, and is almost non-existent after 10 secs. There is very little variance in this number from person to person, and as a result, after 6-7 almost everyone transistions to a less effective energy system, becoming unable to maintain the Vmax they just established. Faster sprinters accelerate at a greater rate over a longer distance, but the duration of accelration, while it is trainable and can/does improve, it does not vary greatly unless the athlete is a rank novice or has issues with injury or mechanics.
As Derrick hinted, if this were not true you would have novice sprinters hitting Vmax at 25-30m then maintaining that Vmax through to about 50-70m. It doesn’t happen. Even with novice sprinters, deceleration begins almost immediately after true Vmax is reached.
Velocity vs time curves for slower sprinters look very much like the curves for elites…there just flatter at the beginning due to a lower rate. When you look at velocity vs distance, Vmax does appear to occur “earlier”, but really “earlier” is not the proper term, because it does not occur that much sooner in terms of time; it occurs sooner in terms of distance covered.[/quote]
Is there any actual data on this type of thing? Most of what I’m saying about lower level athletes is coming from what I’ve heard from those who coach at that level…I think that most people do hit it in a similair time frame…but its a bit wider than you guys are saying. I think the window is a bit wider than you guys have been saying 4-7 seconds from what I’ve seen….4 seconds being weaker/slower athletes who are at 25-30 meters at that time period…and then they spend the majority of the race decelerating. Better athltes accelerate longer…both distance and time wise.
While not entirely valid, comparing elite HS sprinters to elite pro guys…the best HS guys are running upright between 12-14 steps as opposed to 16-18 from guys running under 10. There is a correlation…but I don’t think its as similiar as you guys are suggesting.
Of course, this is all coming from things I’ve read/seen. I don’t have any actual data on the acceleration patterns of anyone who isn’t elite and I’m not sure if its really availible.
Are there really any practical implications to this? At the end of the day, you’re still going to have to run 60m/100m/200m and try to be competitive, at least relative to your level.
It could be applicable for designing training for these events…
ei. Whether an acceleration workout for a HS athlete should be something like 6x30m(4 seconds) or 5x45m (6 seconds)
I think you are making the assumption that if someone has an upright posture they have stopped accelerating,they are still accelerating just not as well as you can could do. There is plenty of data around just most is not available easily online. Star61 summed up this entire argument perfectly, I’d suggest re-reading his post.
I think you are making the assumption that if someone has an upright posture they have stopped accelerating,they are still accelerating just not as well as you can could do. There is plenty of data around just most is not available easily online. Star61 summed up this entire argument perfectly, I’d suggest re-reading his post.
I have been reading this thread very thoroughly…I just disagree with the points you guys are making. I was not suggesting that acceleration stopped when one becomes upright, but there is a bit of a correlation between when one becomes upright towards when they stop accelerating. I think the points said have validity, I’m just trying to suggest that the range of when acceleration stops is a bit wider than has been suggested, and I think the better the power levels and mechanics a athlete has the longer acceleration will last timewise.
expierienc
So maybe the window is bigger than the 6-7 seconds we all suggested. What is your issues here? What exactly do you disagree with? Nobody who is sprinting properly is going to hit their max velocity at 25 metres or 85 metres.
Most of your argument seems to come from improbable scenarios with really low level athletes. If we look at your scenario of someone being fully upright out of blocks after 3 steps then there are probably a whole host of things we should look at before worrying about how far into the race they hit max V. Removing the blocks would be a good start.
Well if the window is a bit bigger…then race modeling and training would likely be altered a bit. Off the top of my head, for athletes in the 4 seconds to max v range acceleration work would cap off at 30m, fly ins would have shorter run ins, and speed endurance might be more of a focus because more of the race would be decelerating and then for athletes in the 7 second range the opposite would hold true.
I also guess I feel more obliged to talk about low level athletes because I’m in HS and surrounded by people who are running 11’s and 12’s…so that seems more real to me. I see alot more people who reach top speed in 20m than in 40m…most of the athletes(Myself included) are largely inefficent out of the blocks.
You are over complicating things again. Hypothetically, if someone is truly at max velocity after 4 seconds of running then they aren’t accelerating properly and that should be their training focus, not what you mentioned. Again, I think you aren’t getting what acceleration actually is, forget what the people actually look like approaching max velocity and just thing about splits. I can’t imagine anyone truly being at their max velocity after 4 seconds of running.
Anecdotally, when people hit max velocity later in the race than expected its because they have had a terrible start and spent 10-20 metres not actually doing a lot.
[quote author="Callam Mccabe" date="1361662880"]On quick inspection most of the athletes seem to hit top speed between 6 and 7 seconds worth of running. You can’t use outliers to support an argument. There is evidence to support what Derrick is saying.
Obviously the majority of elites, who are skilled, are going to accelerate in the ideal time. I just disagree with what Derrick said that all athletes take roughly the same ammount of time to reach top speed. There is no way 11.0 guys are accelerating all the way to 45 meters.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but you’re completely wrong on this point. I created a thread some years ago that had my splits in a 60m dash where I accelerated through 45m. My time was a whopping 7.52 (not including reaction time). So there is in fact some evidence that even a 12.0 guy accelerates through 45-50m.
Are there really any practical implications to this? At the end of the day, you’re still going to have to run 60m/100m/200m and try to be competitive, at least relative to your level.
The practical implications in my mind are teaching acceleration patterns. If you tell a kid push for 20m will he figure it out? If you tell a kid push with your right foot 4 times will he figure it out? I’m a big fan of steps as someone who coaches hurdles and wants flawless relays. Also, as another poster stated, you might change your technical/acceleration workouts based on this. You chould alter based on both level and gender. Overall just something to think about.
I think the idea of coaching number of steps rather than distance is a great one and is probably something I will try and use in the future, thank you.
[quote author="Zack Trapp" date="1361663717"][quote author="Callam Mccabe" date="1361662880"]On quick inspection most of the athletes seem to hit top speed between 6 and 7 seconds worth of running. You can’t use outliers to support an argument. There is evidence to support what Derrick is saying.
Obviously the majority of elites, who are skilled, are going to accelerate in the ideal time. I just disagree with what Derrick said that all athletes take roughly the same ammount of time to reach top speed. There is no way 11.0 guys are accelerating all the way to 45 meters.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but you’re completely wrong on this point. I created a thread some years ago that had my splits in a 60m dash where I accelerated through 45m. My time was a whopping 7.52 (not including reaction time). So there is in fact some evidence that even a 12.0 guy accelerates through 45-50m.
Yes, but your much stronger/more expierienced than most people running that time. I was talking more about HS athletes that run that type of time…most of them are hitting top speed in the 30-40m range.
On the topic of steps vs distance, I’ve tried it before and it works very well. When your running, you can only have a general idea of how far you are, but you can always know how many steps you’ve taken. It also gives you perspective of cues like….focus on low heel recovery for X steps or I’m usaully upright by here.
How can you possibly tell where they are hitting their top speed?
Not trying to pick on you Zack, but I’m with Callam here. The eye can’t tell when an athlete has stopped accelerating. And lots of 100m guys from the 80s would be fully erect by 20m, and still accelerate through 60m. Ben Johnson was the most notorious, but Carl Lewis, FloJo, and lots of other athletes were in the same boat. I actually favor tall posture quickly, but that’s another topic.
I don’t have any data on this…its primarily from what I’ve read on other sites and stuff. I know when a athlete goes upright doesn’t mean acceleration is stopping, but there is usaully a correlation.Clearly we just disagree and its kind of pointless to just say the same things about things we disagree on.
And just out of curiosity, why do you favor tall posture quickly?
I don’t have any data on this…its primarily from what I’ve read on other sites and stuff. I know when a athlete goes upright doesn’t mean acceleration is stopping, but there is usaully a correlation.Clearly we just disagree and its kind of pointless to just say the same things about things we disagree on.
And just out of curiosity, why do you favor tall posture quickly?
While not exactly the same thing, look at the hurdles – you HAVE to be more upright sooner in order to hit the first hurdle correctly, often on your 4th step; that doesn’t mean that they’re not accelerating whilst being upright.
Also here is a pdf of the step chart that my University used to coach the 100m.
[quote author="davan" date="1361667485"]Are there really any practical implications to this? At the end of the day, you’re still going to have to run 60m/100m/200m and try to be competitive, at least relative to your level.
It could be applicable for designing training for these events…
ei. Whether an acceleration workout for a HS athlete should be something like 6x30m(4 seconds) or 5x45m (6 seconds)[/quote]
I fail to see the practical benefit of adjusting that. At the end of the day, your athletes must run 55/60/100/200/400m or whatever the distance is and they need to be competitive. If the athlete is such a low level, then they should be doing longer reps relatively anyway because there is simply more to gain from improvements in that area of the race. The only time I can see this adjustment being relevant is with age group athletes where the goal isn’t pure performance anyway.
Most elites accelerate to 50-60m, but rarely in training is this considered ‘acceleration’ work, but rather speed work. If you’re talking the difference between focusing on 20s vs 30s, you’re talking about the difference of at most a few steps, and frankly, not something worth worrying about.
So maybe the window is bigger than the 6-7 seconds we all suggested. What is your issues here? What exactly do you disagree with? Nobody who is sprinting properly is going to hit their max velocity at 25 metres or 85 metres.
Most of your argument seems to come from improbable scenarios with really low level athletes. If we look at your scenario of someone being fully upright out of blocks after 3 steps then there are probably a whole host of things we should look at before worrying about how far into the race they hit max V. Removing the blocks would be a good start.
I completely agree. People forget that the race isn’t going to be shortened and unless you have a young athlete, you have a very limited time to progress to get to a competitive level. At a low level, should you really be focusing on the veracity of training acceleration patterns when the athlete is decelerating half the race or more?
This reminds me of a discussion regarding intensity limits during split rep 60s with Charlie. When asked what to do if that athlete can’t accelerate beyond 40m (or 30m), and if to adjust down, he simply said that if you can’t accelerate to that level, you shouldn’t be worrying about it in the first place and need to be getting improvements over the entirety of the distance (basically saying just run the damn 60s fast&relaxed; and stop overthinking it).
I think elites actually benefit more from the very short (ie 20m) type work anyway as there is more room for technique to make a significant role in the final result on a relative basis. Some guy running 7mid or slower 60m is running so slow that I could care less whether or not they are upright at 18m or 27m or accelerating 4.4 seconds or 5.8 seconds and I think any competent coach should feel the same. A variety of work over different distances should cover all of these bases. Plus, proper relaxed acceleration should be a focus in every rep–whether it is a block start, a fly, a special endurance rep, intensive tempo, etc.
[quote author="Callam Mccabe" date="1361677079"]So maybe the window is bigger than the 6-7 seconds we all suggested. What is your issues here? What exactly do you disagree with? Nobody who is sprinting properly is going to hit their max velocity at 25 metres or 85 metres.
Most of your argument seems to come from improbable scenarios with really low level athletes. If we look at your scenario of someone being fully upright out of blocks after 3 steps then there are probably a whole host of things we should look at before worrying about how far into the race they hit max V. Removing the blocks would be a good start.
I completely agree. People forget that the race isn’t going to be shortened and unless you have a young athlete, you have a very limited time to progress to get to a competitive level. At a low level, should you really be focusing on the veracity of training acceleration patterns when the athlete is decelerating half the race or more?
This reminds me of a discussion regarding intensity limits during split rep 60s with Charlie. When asked what to do if that athlete can’t accelerate beyond 40m (or 30m), and if to adjust down, he simply said that if you can’t accelerate to that level, you shouldn’t be worrying about it in the first place and need to be getting improvements over the entirety of the distance (basically saying just run the damn 60s fast&relaxed; and stop overthinking it).
I think elites actually benefit more from the very short (ie 20m) type work anyway as there is more room for technique to make a significant role in the final result on a relative basis. Some guy running 7mid or slower 60m is running so slow that I could care less whether or not they are upright at 18m or 27m or accelerating 4.4 seconds or 5.8 seconds and I think any competent coach should feel the same. A variety of work over different distances should cover all of these bases. Plus, proper relaxed acceleration should be a focus in every rep–whether it is a block start, a fly, a special endurance rep, intensive tempo, etc.[/quote]
Ah, the genius of Charlie. He never steers you wrong. So logical, so simple. No over thinking.
There is no way 11.0 guys are accelerating all the way to 45 meters.
disagree…in most cases,yes they are, but they are accelerating relatively less at that point and just slightly up until about 50m or so. Brower timing gates from training says so.
4 seconds being weaker/slower athletes who are at 25-30 meters at that time period .
again I’m sorry but I have to disagree, a sprinter who’s able to cover 30m in roughly 4 seconds is usually not done accelerating at 30m or at the 4 sec mark granted that this same athlete runs well enough technically.
4sec/30m = approx 1.95+1.08+0.97 is rather fast and I don’t see any guy running .97 splits at 30m that are done accelerating at that point. Once again Brower timing says so.
I just wanted to chime in here and say that although the thoughts are great I think we’re dealing with some very loose correlations here. Several of which overlap and potentially lead to flawed conclusions of causation. For example, times and distances are going to be so closely related that we can barely separate them without serious analysis. 6 sec in for a high schooler will put them at ~50m. For an advanced athlete they’ll be at ~56m. That’s not all that big of a difference on the surface. The high schooler has finished accelerating and is well on the velocity downslope. The advanced athlete is probably still accelerating. So while they seem very much the same at this point, there heading in completely opposite directions in terms of acceleration. So step count differentials for the entirety of the race won’t tell the story until MUCH later in the race (unless you’re doing more detailed analysis than we’re doing here). Hopefully that makes sense what I’m getting at…basically, things don’t REALLY differentiate between elites and intermediates until the latter half of the race so using step counts to guide acceleration distances won’t have as much of an impact as you might think. This becomes clearly obvious when we compare hurdlers….through 15 yd (hurdle 1) I’ve seen plenty of 18.5 second high schoolers take 8 steps to the first hurdle (without reaching) which is the same number of steps a 13.4 second hurdler takes (likewise without reaching***).
***when you get much faster than 13.4 it seems that things begin to differentiate enough that SOME people will benefit from taking ONE less step.
Despite the paper mentioned, there’s no way in hell everyone accelerates through 6-7 seconds. I’m guessing the study looked at a very homogenous pool of individuals in which case this would be the case. Lesser athletes (let’s say a 14 second 100m runner) would be accelerating much shorter (in both distance AND time).
Similarly, most football athletes (even pro speedsters) accelerate much shorter time frames. Often times they reach their top end speed and a given distance faster than their track counterparts but they can no longer accelerate. How would we explain this?
To accelerate the extreme distances you’re seeing top elite sprinters do today, you need extreme power / speed capacities, you need to be able to stay in a forward position longer to apply the horizontal force needed for continued acceleration (because although acceleration doesn’t end once upright it sure as hell marks the beginning of the end), you need to know how much gas to give the engine.
… It is rare for an elite athlete running full out to maintain Vmax for more than 10 meters…
not to play on words, but when looking at data I consider that 10m split times maintained within 1 or 2 1/100s range to be (about) the same, so IMO elite athletes run at MaxV for more than 10 meters only…but rather anywhere from 20-40 meters usually.
cdnsprinter is correct. I’ve extensively studied race splits over the last 5-10 years. The days of top 20 guys holding maxV for 10m are over. Today the best of the best are holding maxV for 20m. In the case of the top 3 it’s as long as 30m. If we look at Bolt’s Beijing performance I think we can safely presume he might have held through 35m if he didn’t do an early celebration.
Check out my presentations / slidedecks that I’ve posted here where I go over what differentiates today’s top sprinters from those of 20 years ago. We’ve seen MASSIVE improvements in overall 100m time but the difference in maxV splits is not different (not significantly at least….certainly not enough to account for the performance discrepancy). The reason today’s (mostly male) sprinters are faster is because they accelerate FASTER and LONGER. This means there’s less track in front of them over which to have inevitable deceleration. Also, they are maintaining maxV for 20-35m as opposed to 10m. So while the sprinters of the 80s are decelerating, today’s top athletes are still holding on to their top speed. This further shortens the track in front of them over which the inevitable deceleration occurs.
cdnsprinter is correct. I’ve extensively studied race splits over the last 5-10 years. The days of top 20 guys holding maxV for 10m are over. Today the best of the best are holding maxV for 20m. In the case of the top 3 it’s as long as 30m. If we look at Bolt’s Beijing performance I think we can safely presume he might have held through 35m if he didn’t do an early celebration.
Check out my presentations / slidedecks that I’ve posted here where I go over what differentiates today’s top sprinters from those of 20 years ago. We’ve seen MASSIVE improvements in overall 100m time but the difference in maxV splits is not different (not significantly at least….certainly not enough to account for the performance discrepancy). The reason today’s (mostly male) sprinters are faster is because they accelerate FASTER and LONGER. This means there’s less track in front of them over which to have inevitable deceleration. Also, they are maintaining maxV for 20-35m as opposed to 10m. So while the sprinters of the 80s are decelerating, today’s top athletes are still holding on to their top speed. This further shortens the track in front of them over which the inevitable deceleration occurs.
What factors do you think contributed to this change?
[quote author="Zack Trapp" date="1361663717"] There is no way 11.0 guys are accelerating all the way to 45 meters.
disagree…in most cases,yes they are, but they are accelerating relatively less at that point and just slightly up until about 50m or so. Brower timing gates from training says so.
4 seconds being weaker/slower athletes who are at 25-30 meters at that time period .
again I’m sorry but I have to disagree, a sprinter who’s able to cover 30m in roughly 4 seconds is usually not done accelerating at 30m or at the 4 sec mark granted that this same athlete runs well enough technically.
4sec/30m = approx 1.95+1.08+0.97 is rather fast and I don’t see any guy running .97 splits at 30m that are done accelerating at that point. Once again Brower timing says so.[/quote]
I was just suggesting that most guys in the 11’s will reach maxV in about 4-5 seconds…which would be 30m.
I would agree for sure that someone covering 30m in 4 seconds flat isn’t going to be done accelerating until at least 45m…unless they are some type of bobsleigh or football guy who puts more of an emphasis on acceleration.
… I know when a athlete goes upright doesn’t mean acceleration is stopping, but there is usaully a correlation….
not really, this is a false association.
It’s just because of how race modeling/distribution has evolved over time.
The short answer is that there are benefits of staying lower for longer in order to favour better performance towards the later part of the race. It’s just a matter of finding the best overall compromise.
[quote author="Mike Young" date="1361708161"]cdnsprinter is correct. I’ve extensively studied race splits over the last 5-10 years. The days of top 20 guys holding maxV for 10m are over. Today the best of the best are holding maxV for 20m. In the case of the top 3 it’s as long as 30m. If we look at Bolt’s Beijing performance I think we can safely presume he might have held through 35m if he didn’t do an early celebration.
Check out my presentations / slidedecks that I’ve posted here where I go over what differentiates today’s top sprinters from those of 20 years ago. We’ve seen MASSIVE improvements in overall 100m time but the difference in maxV splits is not different (not significantly at least….certainly not enough to account for the performance discrepancy). The reason today’s (mostly male) sprinters are faster is because they accelerate FASTER and LONGER. This means there’s less track in front of them over which to have inevitable deceleration. Also, they are maintaining maxV for 20-35m as opposed to 10m. So while the sprinters of the 80s are decelerating, today’s top athletes are still holding on to their top speed. This further shortens the track in front of them over which the inevitable deceleration occurs.
What factors do you think contributed to this change?[/quote]I think it started with people figuring out how Lewis dominated the 80s and early 90s. It morphed in to the “drive phase” phenomenon and trying to stay down at all costs for as long as possible. And now we have athletes taking a more sensible approach to posture and race distribution with the understanding / goal of making acceleration longer so deceleration will be shorter.
I don’t have any data on this…its primarily from what I’ve read on other sites and stuff. I know when a athlete goes upright doesn’t mean acceleration is stopping, but there is usaully a correlation.Clearly we just disagree and its kind of pointless to just say the same things about things we disagree on.
And just out of curiosity, why do you favor tall posture quickly?
To be clear, I don’t teach athletes to stand up right away. I just don’t bother making kids stay artificially low when their sprint mechanics are not very good, and they aren’t strong enough to do so anyways.
I favor the upright position for a number of reasons. One is that I predominantly work with high school athletes. As Roswell pointed out, you have to be upright in the hurdles in under 15m. In relays you have to be upright and taking the handoff in about 20m. And in the longer sprints, staying low isn’t really relevant anyways. So what I come to is the idea that low acceleration mechanics are only important (at my athletes’ level) for 100m specialists with relatively high performance. Everyone else needs to learn how to run first.
When you say steps taken, do you mean just the number of steps, regardless of other factors?
If so then I would expect them to be fairly similar, it’s not difficult for the average sprinter to maintain the same strike rate as an elite sprinter. It’s the other parts that make the difference between fast and slow, like the ratio of ground time to air time, stride length, speed of foot touchdown relative to forward velocity etc.
EDIT: Dr Ralph Mann’s ‘The Mechanics of Sprinting and Hurdling’ would answer pretty much every question you could ever have on this subject. Which is what I’m basing my response on.
When you say steps taken, do you mean just the number of steps, regardless of other factors?
EDIT: Dr Ralph Mann’s ‘The Mechanics of Sprinting and Hurdling’ would answer pretty much every question you could ever have on this subject. Which is what I’m basing my response on.
Yes. Since the primary reason for faster speeds is stride length, the same number of steps would take a lower caliber sprinter out to 40m, while it would take a high caliber one out to 60m.
I do have Mann’s book. While I haven’t read it straight through, I don’t remember this being discussed.
Manns book is a hard read lol the plat and characters are all over the place 😛
But in honesty it’s not a book for the average athlete/coach would be able to understand straight away and in self can cause issues such as this conversation 🙁
An elite 100m guy, say 9.8, takes around 43 steps during a race. Roughly 60m should be acceleration. If we say 60% of steps are acceleration, then we have about 25 steps. Now a high school boy that runs 12.0 [b]will take 9-11 more steps during a race[/b]. Say 54. If he still accelerates through 25 steps, his acceleration would be through 46%, or 46m. Thoughts?
is what I was looking at, makes sense now you said acceleration steps.
