[quote author="the_chosen_one" date="1317948330"][quote author="Brandon Morton" date="1312934286"][quote author="the_chosen_one" date="1312931694"]This is laughable. You’ve shown data that is within hundredths of each other. Show splits of someone who ran slower than 4.0. Do you think for one minute these guys are throtteling back? LOL…Leroy Burrell didn’t win obviously, not because his acceleration or 30m time was inadequate but because his top end speed & speed endurance was not as good as Carls. The data points this out! Look at the splits. Moreover, Leroy was much more muscular and powerful than Carl as stated by Tellez serveral times which would correlate to his 30m being faster.
Further more, the better sprinters maximize stride rate throughtout the start by leveraging their strenghth to produce horizontal forces. The by product of producing maximal horizontal forces is a “fast or faster 30m” It is proper mechanics that will allow you to produce the forces required to run faster. Bottomline as I stated, your 30m time is an indicator for the rest of the race. Again, look at the splits,
Never put the cart before the horse. As most have said, Strength ie squats etc and specific strength ie hills or sled pulls are required to improve your 30m time.
ok im going to tear your argument down peice by peice lol.
1. Do I think these guys are throttling back? no but they are accelerating correctly and efficiently. Just because its a fast 30m to you doesn’t mean its a fast 30m for them. 3.8 and 3.7 for carl lewis and leroy burrell is different then 3.7-3.8 for joe blow trying to run 10.7. Carl and Leroy are going thru the phases of their race and hitting these times and joe blow would probably pop a blood vessel in his brain from trying to hit those times and the only way he would hit the same times is by being quick. 30m is so early in the race that you can do alot of stuff wrong and still look good. The body can go all out for 7 secs. If we were talking just a 30m dash, quick would be good but we are talking 100m. running faster then 4.0 for 30m says you can accelerate but it doesn’t say you can accelerate correctly.
2.I didn’t say he lost because of his 30m time. The point I’m trying to make is some one with a slower 30m time can still win a race. HINT HINT getting to 30m FIRST isn’t that important. yeah of cource carl’s speed endurance was better but carl’s speed endurance was better then maurice greene’s also but maurice would beat him in the 100m. He was stronger then carl but he knew how to gradually come out of his drive phase and not be quick to 30.
3. Squates, hills, sleds help condition your body and get it the tools it needs acceleration. It doesn’t mean you are going to do it correctly.
Check this page leroy Burrel 30m was faster then tyson gay, asafa powell and tied with Bolt. Doc patton for 3.93 and ran 10.3 in this race. lol Im going to guess leroy was a little quick in this race because I don’t think anybody can accelerate better than asafa powell and leroy’s 30m was faster then his. But then again he may have just been on.
however you’re missing the whole ship buddy. Im trying to tell you is if you run 30 in under 4 the right way thats good but if you bust your whole load to get to 30 in under 4.0 then you will lose if you are going against good smart sprinters. Telling a younger kid he needs to be 3.8 to be fast is wrong. A younger kid may have to be 3.99 at 30m in order for him to accelerate efficiently. Most elite sprinters hit 30m in 3.8-3.9 and they still tie up which leads me to believe alot of them are hitting 3.8-3.9 trying to be quick. Steve mullings even said the difference in his race is that he stopped trying to be rushing.
“I just figured it out, how to do it,” Mullings said. “I always rushed my first 30 metres, (but) now I have more patience.
IM DONE LOL[/quote]
Looks like we know exactly what he figured out. Do you still want to use this as an example? I’m thinking not.[/quote]
I like adding fuel to the fire. Pfaff is on video talking about how if Donovan was first to the 30 then he did his phases wrong and would lose. That sounds like efficient race modeling. For some people that means not going balls out for the first 30 because it affects form and race distribution later on, making the time slower.[/quote]
Great point Justin, Its what I was trying to say.
Also to “chosen one” regardless of Mullings testing positive it wasn’t a matter of how strong he was, it was a question of how do you accelerate correctly. Now while I do believe he was doping, doping doesn’t equal a efficient acceleration. Ask the 100s of guys who have doped and still can’t accelerate efficiently. I believe he had found his race model, now did drugs allow him to get stronger and give him some tools so that he could accelerate correctly? MAYBE, I don’t know.
But the fact still remains that he was able to accelerate more efficiently which is my whole argument.Efficient acceleration equals the right way to run. Now how do you go about giving yourself the strength levels and tools to do that is where you are heading with the steve mullings example.
This is a debate of two different race philosophies yours which is thinking if you run fast to 30m then your 100m will be fast and mine(along with many others, don’t want it to sound like I made it up lol) which is thinking if I go for power and full range of motion then I will accelerate later into the race and finish better. Look at Usain Bolt, Donovan Bailey and Maurice Green, walter dix, tyson gay etc… compared to the other sprinters that are trying to get to 30m fast, they are just trying to accelerate as late into the race as possible without getting to far behind then at about 60m the other guys fade while they remain at top speed which they reached later because they didn’t rush to 30m. they aren’t going into the race thinking “How fast can I get to 30m?” They are racing 100m not 30m because they don’t care how fast their 30m is they just care about their energy distribution at 30m. If they get there at 3.6 and lose they will be pissed but if they get there in 3.9 and win then they will be happy. Its a perception thing. Hopefully this answers your question about if I want to still use this as an example. Let me know if you have anymore questions.