The average age for some of the British league meets seems to be not far off 70 :help:
Originally posted by Richard Hand
So it takes atleast .24 on average to react to the smoke, but how much slower at the other end are the timers? I have watched my coach press the stopwatch reacting to the athlete crossing the line and the beep only goes when the athlete is atleast 2m past the line. Much of the .24 would be cancelled out due to this. The timer may feel they have pressed the button accurately, even though there has to be a delay, but it takes someone else to watch the timer and the athlete to see the difference.
Reaction and anticipation are very different. Humans have an insignificant difference between electronic timing and hand timing when performing lap times, which is no different to measuring an athlete running through the finish line.
Reaction times are a different matter. Hence the reason that the .24 applies.
Some of the timers at our local meets are age 70 + - lol - old timers literally some German guys came over last year and couldn’t understand how they’d got .5 slower in one week
Gloop, if the old guys have poor reaction times, then the Germans’ times should be quicker. Those old guys are often the best timers around!
dcw23, you state that anticipation makes the button press more accurate when crossing the finish line. I would have thought this as well until I witnessed what actually happened.
In the UK the hand times are always rounded up (maybe the same everywhere) and I do believe the timers are 2 tenths slow at the line. These 2 factors would go a long way to cancelling out the timers reaction at the start. To back this up, my handtimed race times are very similar to the electric timed. I know of sprinters in the UK who believe hand timing is always slower.
So could doing the Jimbo test (with hands, I don’t want to break my mouse like Richard) actually help train reaction time in the 100m? Should it be used only on CNS days?
I found I can really do better when I’m concentrating and anticipating. I broke .2 three times, but one was .085 so I think I cheated.
Haha, .009, I think I jumped the gun. I’m going to have so much fun with this.
I actually reacted better when I didn’t look directly at the dot. I went from 1.7’s to 1.5’s When I look directly at the dot, it’s more of a reaction, but when I look away it’s more of a reflex.
Holy $h!+. I just got a .017. Which would have obviously been called back. Then right after, in one session, I got two 1.99’s in a row, .201 followed by a .101!
This thing is getting addictive.
For Terminator 2.
Just commenting on your timing method.
As others have noted, such a method is only reasonably accurate for one athlete.
Nevertheless, it is a good method for solo time trials for those without electronic equipment.
Yet, from your comments, the starter does not have to drop his arm as you (the athlete) are merely reacting to his yell of go. If the starter, who is also the timer standing at the finish line yells and presses the watch simultaneously and honestly, then the time will be comparable to electronic timing by deducting 0.4 for 100m (or 0.12 per 30m) to get a reasonably accurate time.
For instance, if you were to run 11.69, the time will be reduced to 11.29.
My athlete has run 11.69 with such a method and has a personal hand time best of 11.3.
I have also run 11.60 with such a method and have run 11.4 hand timed with a flash. I have also run 11.2 hand with witnesses indicating that there was no flash or smoke. Hence, such a method has obvious advantages in giving those athletes without electronic equipment in training a more honest evaluation of their progress.
How come more people don’t use this method? I have no way of evaluating whether the .12 per 30 is accurate but there is no logical explanation for it being faster than FAT time as long as there’s no false start and since we know it takes some time for sound to travel it has to be some extra time. I’m getting some really great times now with this timing and I don’t want to get a nasty surprise when I get FAT times but it doesn’t make sense that I would (I’m also prepared to use a .1 emotional buffer in case) since I can’t react until the sound travels. But then why don’t more coaches use this method?
My timing method is done by watching the lead foot and just as it is about to make contact with the ground I press the button.
Add 0.5 to get an FAT equivalent. I’ve tested it over and over against video of races that have an FAT time and its pretty accurate.
I think removing reaction time when recording training times gives a benefit as you are just focussing on the sprint itself rather than another variable.
this thing is damned addictive.
i think i was getting in the zone towards the end, there.
last six averages
0.193
0.197
0.195
0.182
0.191
0.199
Legitimate best of 0.129.
i’d better stop before i dream about dots…