Don Quarrie started that way although when he ran the turn he advised he never looks further down the track than 10 metres “that way you’re running a straight line and you should run the curve like it’s a straight line”…
In working with larger numbers of speed/power athletes per session I’ve had continually positive results, regarding speed work, by initiating with only two cues ‘head down, and arm drive’. While the skill of sprinting is a multi-faceted animal, I’ve found those two factors alone to produce very positive peripheral mechanical influences elsewhere where they are needed.
While I think the optimal biomechanical model during early acceleration has the sprinter creating a relatively straight line from cervical spine to ankle in ground support, I’ve found that a degree of cervical flexion poses no negative influence and almost always contributes towards improved drive mechanics across the board.
Asafa is a great example as he typically doesn’t level his line of sight/chin (line his cervical spine with the thoracic) until he’s around the 40m mark.
There is a local youth athlete with an exaggerated version of this - he didn’t look up until about 50m in a 100m heat yesterday (he’s a 10.9 guy).
A max of 10 meters sounds good to me, I used to say you are looking for pot holes and if you look too far ahead you will step into one.
And if Asafa waited a bit longer he would be faster. Didn’t no2 say he starts to get run down after 50m.
The head down technique is not necessary. Charlie always said “head in line with the spine”. I believe Asafa artificially tries to extend his acceleration by thinking that keeping his head down is the key. This negatively impacts his transition to max velocity.
Watch Ben’s old races. He kept his head in line. And still reached 12.1 m/s on slower surfaces with less stiff shoes. His splits prove his acceleration was fantastic, as well as his transition to max velocity.
When we worked with Tim Montgomery, he told us that Trevor told him to “look for ants” (i.e. Keep your head down). This mis-information screwed up Tim’s start and accel until it was corrected by Charlie.
Long story short: keeping your head tucked over can be problematic and is not the sole answer. Be mindful of all technical elements and how them work in combination with each other.
I’m currently working on a video project that looks at start mechanics and incorporates much of what Charlie taught me about start and acceleration mechanics.
Do you think that if Maurice Greene had kept his “head in line” during the first phase of his races, he would have gone faster?
1997 WC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgjC36rh04I&feature=related
1999 WC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-EhvUnfoY&feature=related
2000 OG: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5pGaSFOgCc&feature=related
2001 WC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwOginF42vI&feature=related
I agree in full. What I’ve found with my non-track athletes is that “head in line with spine” just doesn’t register on the whole because they’ll still want to look ahead which ends up causing premature neck extension beyond zero. Thus, in cuing “tuck the chin” this actually resolves the situation and yields neck in line with spine.
I always go with ‘neck in line with spine’ at the onset and usually end up saying ‘tuck the chin’ if they have problems ‘getting it’.
The WC race in 1999 between Greene and Surin is a very good example of head position - both in acceleration and for max velocity and speed endurance.
Watch closely as Surin exhibits optimal acceleration posture out of the blocks (and is leading). Greene has his head tucked too much and gets out behind Surin. However, Bruny ends up letting his head tilt back (and so goes the rest of his body) leading to deceleration posture. Greene’s head is in line with his spine and he pulls past Bruny. Their 10m splits confirm these differences in velocity.
Combine Bruny’s first 50m with Mo Greene’s last 50m and you have at least a 9.77 second race I believe.
Tim Montgomery is in that race (way behind), probably looking for ants!
The spinal column must be in alignment from L5 to the top of head. To simply tilt the head forward to transfer weight is not ideal.
Lol Chris…i never forgot about them…I just don’t think they’ll feature much in the final…(Controversial I know) - But lets look at some facts…Lemaitre hasnt beaten Blake or Asafa. Asafa is well known for not doing what he’s hyped to do in the Majors. He medalled at WCh in Berling because he knew he was 3rd best to Usain and Gay. With no Gay around this year he again has got the same pressure that he had at Beijing.
One think I like about Gatlin is his tenacity. He has never raced Lemaitre before and I dont think he’d allow Christophe to beat him because he’s that kind of competitor! As much as Lemaitre has grown in confidence, we saw what happened to him when he was thrown into the ‘Lions Den’ (Paris 2010) put in the middle of Bolt and Asafa! The poor guy crumbled. Now you put him in a race with all these madmen (Asafa,Bolt,Gatlin,Mullins,Blake,) all screaming,chanting and in some cases dancing…composure goes and its a wrap! Gonna be a great championships…if the false start rule doesnt ruin it.
I thimk you will find Asapha pokes his chin out in the latter stages with proper spinal alignment when he has his fastest times.
In the other video on the page (Bolt’s 9.69), Richard Thompson is said to have the best start by the announcers. It looks to me like he has his head down as well in that clip. So are we saying that his start would have been even better were he to properly align it with his spine?
The vid is a bit fuzzy but the start looks fine to me. I suggest there is a curvature along the whole spinal alignment, he is doing more than just a hanging his head.
Sady is that in relation to running the bend only?
No2, good video thanks.
The question is: without considering two like prepared genetic clones performing side by side can we attribute who’s ahead of who, and where in the race, to head/cervical spine position alone? Answer- no.
While I am in total agreement with you in regards to optimal geometry aka force: posture, there are many other factors that could have contributed to each sprinters acceleration versus maxV.
Also, in the tone of devil’s advocate, similar to the discussion surrounding Ben’s higher maxV in the 9.83 and lower maxV in the 9.79, one valid supposition could be that Greene might not have had the 60-100m performance that he did if he had expended more energy during acceleration…
In any case, that’s a great video to get a look at the context of this discussion regarding top class athletes.
Who is claiming Ben’s velocity was lower in Seoul vs Rome?
To put it more simply, Bruny had the race in hand and panicked. Mo didn’t. There are psychological, tactical and mechanical explanations for the result. The video clip is very illustrative of these relationships.
No, .
I’m certain that Charlie mentioned the precise max velocities of the two races, just can’t remember the exact numbers, and that Ben reached higher maxV in Rome due to a longer more gradual acceleration.
As for the explanations of the result between Surin and Greene, I agree in full with your points regarding the last portion of the race; however, I don’t think it can be said for certain that Surin’s acceleration was better solely due to head/cervical spine position. The dynamics of the 100m suggest that the impact of subtle alternations in mechanics are proportional to the velocity (ergo, whatever room exists for ‘less than optimal’ early in the race surely poses infinitely more hazard during the later stages)