As rainy said, the times/splits just do not add up. Its clear that whatever your timing method- its being “generous” at the start and not registering until after you have moved (hence my comment earlier about timing with a fly) since your 20m time would put you way way ahead of Bolt in his WR race.
You have all got it twisted! Sound like you guys have no practical experience timing short accelerations using laser gates? Race stats say one thing, laser gates may say another.
A month ago pretty much fresh out of plaster I ran 2.76 out of blocks ELECTRONIC… Matt Allias ran the same time also.
Steven Shalders (ex 17m T Jumper) ran 4.57 a few years back! So it’s no timing glitch!
I ran 4.91 electronic at 17 years old
I ran 4.79 electronic at 20 years old.
All were run through laser timing gates, starting 50cm behind the beam.
As soon as I’m all rehabbed I’ll post video evidence… And then try and organise a 20m race with Bolt…
Brett Morse (UK discus no1) has ran 4.8x electronic also. He’s done 1.5x over 10m… And he’s 18 stone…:rolleyes:
If you’d included that in your original specs, we wouldn’t have had this discussion. That’s a very pertinent point.
In your very first post, you said
PR over an electronic 40m (4.51s)
which sure makes it seem like FAT timing, rather than laser gates with a 0.5m lead in.
And what started the timer?
(By the way, those race stats I posted are from the IAAF Biomechanical Report in which they had cameras/lasers setup all over the stadium & track.)
Did you even read my posts?
“Full electronic” = / = .5m fly-in through gates… thats why everyone was making comments about you claiming 4.51 40m.
Your .22 faster than what Bolt produced in his WR race over 20m?.
Blocks start?.
do you think you can beat bolt in a 20m race- if he went off of your first movement?
Wow, you obv don’t use gates much in training over your side of the world… I just took this setup as a given like it is in the UK. YOU made the presumption that it was “FAT”.
Foot is 50cm behind the line, chest is obviously much closer as you lean forward. Never in my life have I heard a few cm’s called a “fly”, I mean all my dissertation and independent studies have used a “flying 20”… never off 50cm! lol.
Anyway, a few cm’s is not going to loose me much time.
4.51 was not blocks, it was standing long jump start. And nah, of course i don’t think i could beat Bolt it’s called a JOKE!
I’ll use a touch pad start when I next time it just for all you guys to see.
A few cm’s WILL cause you to gain a lot of time, remember the first metre is the slowest part of the race.
Pascal caron (canadian bobsledder) had a 60m time that was faster than the world record at the time, however he failed to mention that the first step wasn’t counted in the timing.
“Brett Morse (UK discus no1) has ran 4.8x electronic also. He’s done 1.5x over 10m… And he’s 18 stone…”
Why don’t guys like this play rugby/football???
I know I wouldn’t be throwing a discus if I had that size/speed ratio
Rather than questioning my honesty, you guys should have asked questions about the timing method, if 4.51 was that hard to believe.
Training sprints are timed in this way in the UK, I just had to look up ‘FAT’ as you mentioned it - wow, you guys thought I ran this from a starting gun? with reaction? Damn… maybe you don’t use timing gates like we do in the UK but surely you can read between the lines!
Because he already has a career in discus… doesn’t make sense to switch sports. Besides alot of people underestimate the hits, it takes a special type of toughness to recover from them day in day out.
I never had any thoughts that you were lying or purposefully trying to deceive anyone - I was just confused about the times b/c they didn’t make sense to me as I think about timing 20m or 40m or whatever distance.
For bobsled camp/tryouts they do 1m zone, with 1 foot in the zone. It can make a difference of up to .5s.
Typically, acceleration distances are most accurate with a touch pad. Anything less is a flying start. Even the smallest fly zone makes a substantial difference with accelerations.
The important thing is to use it as an indicator based on previous performances. Which you have been.
I think people were confused because we are primarily on a track website. Thus whenever someone talks automatic the assumption is made that its FAT under race conditions. The timing gates recording method you use in the UK is not uncommon and used extensively in other countries. The way the start is timed can vary from on the line (activated when the person leaves the beam) and behind the line from varying distances of 30cm to a 1m (activated when somone passes through the beam).
There isn’t any point trying to compare acceleration race times with gate times from 50cm because as its been pointed out the initial movement, reaction etc are not collected and this is a ““significant component””. They however can give accurate info when set up to collect flying split times.
Whatever is used if your improving from year to year then your progressing. But lets just say if Bolt were coming off 0.5m behind a gate then we can assume he would be’significantly’ faster than any time he has run from a gun in a race.
Lets just remember training times are for oneself to monitor progression and or sometimes to keep us honest. We race to see comparison between individuals.
All the best it seems like you are progressing quite well year after year.
Thanks for clearing things up guys… kinda felt like I had my back against the wall!
Anyway, I’ll do an electronic 40m from a touch pad this winter and post up a video hopefully.
Back on the subject (phew!), after coming out of plaster I’ve squatted alot and at the moment am having trouble activating my glutes… quads seem to be doing most of the work. Has anybody tried stretching the quads and doing a PC exercise before squatting to try and shift emphasis to the glutes?
What about first foot contact to start the stopwatch? I guess that is a kind of roll-in that will improve time.
Hey Guys
I think that you are giving UK Cheetah an unnecessarily hard time. There is actually a simpler explanation for the times that he and his group have experienced over 40m in training compared with what one sees at 40m during a 100m at the highest level in championships based on my own personal experience and coaching observations. When athletes run ‘through’ the 40m on there way to a 100m sprint the acceleration is invariably less ‘intense’ than when running just 40m. Even if consciously tryng to run every 10m split as fast as possible on there way to a 100m (or 150m) the times recorded between 20-60m on there way to these distances would be expected to be slower than if they were only accelerating all-out to 20-60m due to the differences in the distribution of energy and force application. If Bolt, Gay or Powell only had to run to 40m at a major championship I would expect to see times that significantly surpassed those they registered on their way to 100m.
My own personal experience is seeing athletes even over short distances have significant differences in times. I have found athletes’ split times at 30m can be 2/10ths slower on there way to a 60m than when they are training at just 30m in the same session! I found this interesting because the sensation for the athlete is that there 60m is all-out, yet even at this relatively short distance the ‘intensity’ level of the acceleration drops slightly relative to even shorter distances (I have even noticed differences between 10 and 20m accelerations!!!).
One final example is the observation of indoor 60m performances and how often athletes are running at 60m in Winter what they fail to achieve 6 months later over 60m on there way to 100m at a major championship when they are fitter and overall better prepared and often have a following wind (Dwain Chambers in 2009 6.42 indoors in March 6.50 on way to a +0.9 10.00 100m in Berlin comes to mind).
I don’t think UK Cheetah has anything to apologise for. I think his times are quite reasonable in the circumstances 
This question relates to the thread topic, what about gaining muscle in the upper body? Detrimental at all?
Track007, the numbers are simply too far apart for what you suggest to be possible. It was all due to differences in timing methods - it was covered in a couple of the posts.
Fair enough