relation/transfer of training tests and 40 yard dash

General Fitness
7

Here’s the rub,

The issue must be considered from the perspective of looking from the inside- out; so to speak.

Meaning, looking at the results in this drill versus the result in that drill is only useful for purposes of identifying training transfer; and once one develops an understanding of Dynamic Correspondence we see the very significant differences between SLJ, VJ, and 40yd (by the way I describe this in detail in a lecture DVD of mine entitled VIP)

Contributing factors include anti-gravitational challenges, technical execution, reactivity versus explosive strength, and so on.

My inside-out reference pertains to considering the morpho-biomechanical factors that are finalized in the direction of trained motor tasks that predispose one to test more positively in one, some, or all mentioned drills (ergo VJ, or SLJ, or 40yd.)

My point is that training, as optimal as it may be, can only, at best, realize the pinnacle of the athlete’s morpho-biomechanical potential.

Hence the value of SELECTION

It is for this reason why it is a RARE exception that the same individual, at the Indianapolis Scouting Combine, will dominate the 40yd, and the VJ, and the SLJ, and so on.

8

[quote="“speedster12,post:6,topic:40791”]

1: Yes.
2: It depends on the background of the athlete. If it’s a back with sprints background and somewhat similar sessions, the intensity generated by the sprint work will shift the weight strength expressed upwards but if all his runs are very short, the maximum sprint intensity may not be high enough for this to happen. Even so, point one will still be true.
3: The nature of speed work is repeated burts of extreme intensity, which appears to make the lifting pyramid towards 1RM much wider farther down. As such, it makes sense to keep the weight high in the bench and allow the sprint training to create the strength reserve to increase the 225 rep numbers.
4: SLJ and VJ are indirectly linked.

9

Is there an update on this video?

10

I’m trying to grasp if this is more an issue of “morpho-biomechanical potential” or one of program design?

Is it wrong for us to expect more out of this athletes’ 40y based on all the other test results?

If weights become maintenance from this point forward, would an improved 40 be a sure bet, assuming good training?

I would think that VJ, SLJ, SQ are more closely related and the 40y stands alone.

11

Both

No, however, the solution to him running faster lies in improving his reactive/elastic ability specific to sprinting and, most likely, programming

I would speculate that the answer is yes; however, I wouldn’t recommend that all intensification of weights come to an end; however. While it will not play as much of a role in the training as someone who just doesn’t have the requisite strength, it may still be used in it’s place during max strength.

Example, Ben Johnson was freakishly strong but Charlie didn’t put the weights in perpetual cruise control. He just exercised caution via perform reps versus singles in the squat.

VJ- great indicator of power to weight ratio in a single explosive effort via hip/leg extension- though it is a complete pain in the ass to test properly (so easy to cheat) and the greater anti-gravitational challenge favors lighter athletes in terms of absolute results. This is also why heavier athletes have the advantage from the standpoint of relative results (ergo power index)

SLJ- another excellent test of power to weight ratio in a single explosive effort via hip/leg extension- easier to perform reliable testing; however, advantage goes to longer levered athletes and the dynamics of the jump pose a lesser anti-gravitational challenge. As a result, heavier athletes will tend to be more competitive in an absolute sense

Speed/quickness is a huge term- very ambiguous. Although by definition it is further in complexity than the single attempt jumps via its multi-directional nature and thus demands additional ability in terms of elasticity/reactivity that the single jumps do not

40yd- must have all of the above. Further dimensional complexity via relaxation component and the biodynamics of sprinting. While relaxation also applies to change of direction drills the speeds aren’t there to make it as much of a factor as it is in the sprint.

Morpho biomechanics play a huge rule with respect to success in every conceivable physical action.

From a dimensional complexity standpoint it becomes obvious why sprint training is the great challenge that it is.

By comparison, single effort jumps are a pedestrian training problem to solve.

12

If muscular mass and power was built for a time leaving speed relatively neglected, how would the results coming from the reemphasizing of speed vary from what would have been obtained with a more modest weights program used with sprinting over the entire period?

Isn’t weight work and tempo without much sprinting or reactive work what is primarily done during an injury period? Is this muscle functional or are the weights done mainly for CNS purposes during this time?

13

In my opinion, and this is something that I know Charlie has stated since day 1, you’re asking for trouble when you ignore sprint work.

sprinting is such a highly coordinated/skilled ability. For this reason, it is imperative that it is a constant in the program so that any improvements in muscle size and strength are harmoniously transmuted into faster sprinting.

Yes, and the absence of sprinting leaves a greater amount of current adaptive reserves for the weight work. This is why strength, in the bench press for example, always goes up when a sprinter is sidelined with a leg issue.

First off there’s no such thing as non-functional. It’s all functional it just depends on whether the function being trained is relevant to the training objective.

For the sprinter, the function of weights during an injury period is the same as it is during any other time- a means of general organism strength. The caveat is that the lack of sprint work leaves more capacity for weights during injured status.

14

With respect to the development of world class sprint speed we know that the only means that absolutely must be present is the sprint work itself. Everything else severs a simulative and supportive role and can be accomplished in many ways depending on the peculiarities of the athletes, training environment, trainedness and so forth. Looking at preparing the big and small skill football players in American football the speed needed to compete are much less whereas many of the athletes also need a great deal more muscle mass in order to withstand the many high impact collisions. Charlie has often stated that most of the sprint work should be kept under 30 meters for the vast majority of football players. Does this mean that flying sprints EFE etc should not be used for neural patterning? It seems like long work under the alactic threshold could be effective for many of the players for the purposes of both height to CNS exposure and breath as well as rate of relaxation amongst other things.

Looking at the 40 yard dash and the transfer that the vertical and broad jump have they seem like training means that might be relevant for athletes at the lower levels of development but the dynamics are so much different how much do they really mean? For instance as Charlie always states testing such as shot throw squat bench multi response jump are only relevant if they are performed regularly in the training likewise these results may be skewed based on how much the athletes work on single response jumps. It seems like if these numbers are not rising, but the athlete is “flying right” then it really does not matter.

15

bump for info

16

There vertical exercises, sprinting is horizontal.

Following are the best 40 times and results in other events recorded by NFLDraftScout.com since 1999.

Comparisons???..

40-Yard Dash Times

4.24 - Rondel Melendez, (WR), Eastern Kentucky - 1999
4.28 - Jerome Mathis, (WR), Hampton - 2005
4.28 - *Champ Bailey, (CB), Georgia - 1999
4.29 - Stanford Routt, (CB), Houston - 2005
4.29 - Jay Hinton, (RB), Morgan State - 1999
4.29 - *Fabian Washington, (CB), Nebraska - 2005
4.30 - Yamon Figurs (WR), Kansas State - 2007
4.30 - Darrent Williams, (CB), Oklahoma State - 2005
4.31 - *Johnathan Joseph, (CB), South Carolina - 2006
4.31 - Aaron Lockett, (WR), Kansas State - 2002
4.31 - Santana Moss, (WR), Miami - 2001
4.32 - *Troy Williamson, (WR), South Carolina - 2005
4.32 - *Chad Jackson, (WR), Florida - 2006
4.32 - Jason Hill (WR), Washington State - 2007
4.32 - Tim Jennings, (CB), Georgia - 2006
4.32 - Chris McKenzie, (CB), Arizona State - 2005
4.32 - Tim Carter, (WR), Auburn - 2002
4.32 - Kevin Garrett, (CB), Southern Methodist - 2003
4.32 - Antwan Harris, (CB), Virginia - 2000
4.33 - Carlos Francis, (WR), Texas Tech - 2004
4.33 - Karsten Bailey, (WR), Auburn - 1999
4.33 - Chris Chambers, (WR), Wisconsin - 2001
4.34 - *Ahmad Carroll, (CB), Arkansas - 2004
4.34 - Domonique Foxworth, (CB), Maryland - 2005
4.34 - Tyrone Calico, (WR), Middle Tennessee State - 2003

Highest Vertical Jump

46 - Gerald Sensabaugh, (FS), North Carolina - 2005
45 1/2 - Derek Wake, (OLB), Penn State - 2005
45 - Chris McKenzie, (CB), Arizona State - 2005
45 - Chris Chambers, (WR), Wisconsin - 2001
43 1/2 - Dustin Fox, (FS), Ohio State - 2005
43 1/2 - Jay Hinton, (RB), Morgan State - 1999
43 1/2 - Kevin Kasper, (WR), Iowa - 2001
43 1/2 - Jerry Azumah, (RB), New Hampshire - 1999
43 - Scott Starks, (CB), Wisconsin - 2005
43 - Cedric James, (WR), TCU - 2001
42 1/2 - Jonathan Carter, (WR), Troy - 2001
42 1/2 - Nate Burleson, (WR), Nevada - 2003
42 1/2 - Brock Williams, (CB), Notre Dame - 2001
42 - Kerry Rhodes, (FS), Louisville - 2005
42 - Ellis Hobbs, (CB), Iowa State - 2005
42 - *William Green, (RB), Boston College - 2002
42 - *Vernon Davis, (TE), Maryland - 2006
42 - Mark Anderson, (DE), Alabama - 2006
42 - Boss Bailey, (OLB), Georgia - 2003
42 - Scott Fujita, (OLB), California - 2002
42 - Raonall Smith, (OLB), Washington State - 2002
42 - Rashad Holman, (CB), Louisville - 2001
42 - Santana Moss, (WR), Miami - 2001
42 - Pierson Prioleau, (FS), Virginia Tech - 1999
41 1/2 - Reuben Houston, (CB), Georgia Tech - 2006

Fastest 10-Yard Times

1.43 - Aundrae Allison (WR), East Carolina - 2007
1.43 - Eric Weddle (SS), Utah - 2007
1.43 - Marcus McCauley (CB), Fresno State - 2007
1.45 - Leon Hall (CB), Michigan - 2007
1.46 - Colin Branch, (FS), Stanford - 2003
1.46 - Kenny Scott (CB), Georgia Tech - 2007
1.46 - Josh Wilson (CB), Maryland - 2007
1.46 - Brandon McDonald (CB), Memphis - 2007
1.46 - *Reggie Nelson (FS), Florida - 2007
1.46 - Lorenzo Booker (RB), Florida State - 2007
1.46 - *Fabian Washington, (CB), Nebraska - 2005
1.46 - Tarell Brown (CB), Texas - 2007
1.46 - Laurent Robinson (WR), Illinois State - 2007
1.46 - Steve Smith (WR), Southern Cal - 2007
1.46 - Anthony Arline (CB), Baylor - 2007
1.47 - *Sidney Rice (WR), South Carolina - 2007
1.47 - LaRon Landry (FS), LSU - 2007
1.47 - Jay Hinton, (RB), Morgan State - 1999
1.47 - Rondel Melendez, (WR), Eastern Kentucky - 1999
1.47 - Justin Fargas, (RB), Southern Cal - 2003
1.47 - Yamon Figurs (WR), Kansas State - 2007
1.47 - DeShawn Wynn (RB), Florida - 2007
1.48 - Tim Jennings, (CB), Georgia - 2006
1.48 - Sinorice Moss, (WR), Miami - 2006
1.48 - Domonique Foxworth, (CB), Maryland - 2005
1.48 - Antwan Harris, (CB), Virginia - 2000
1.48 - *Champ Bailey, (CB), Georgia - 1999

225-Pound Bench Reps

51 - Justin Ernest, (DT), Eastern Kentucky - 1999
45 - Mike Kudla, (DE), Ohio State - 2006
45 - Leif Larsen, (DT), Texas-El Paso - 2000
44 - Brodrick Bunkley, (DT), Florida State - 2006
43 - Scott Young, (OG), BYU - 2005
42 - Tank Tyler (DT), North Carolina State - 2007
42 - Isaac Sopoaga, (DT), Hawaii - 2004
41 - Terna Nande, (OLB), Miami (OHIO) - 2006
41 - *Igor Olshansky, (DT), Oregon - 2004
40 - Zach Piller, (OT), Florida - 1999
40 - Justin Blalock (OG), Texas - 2007
40 - Manny Ramirez (OG), Texas Tech - 2007
38 - Tony Pashos, (OT), Illinois - 2003
38 - Craig Page, ©, Georgia Tech - 1999
38 - Jeff Smith, ©, Wyoming - 1999
37 - *Wayne Hunter, (OT), Hawaii - 2003
37 - *Haloti Ngata, (DT), Oregon - 2006
37 - Roberto Garza, ©, Texas AM-Kingsville - 2001
37 - Victor Leyva, (OG), Arizona State - 2001
37 - Moran Norris, (FB), Kansas - 2001
36 - Gabe Watson, (DT), Michigan - 2006
36 - *Vince Wilfork, (DT), Miami - 2004
36 - Liam Ezekiel, (ILB), Northeastern - 2005
36 - Scott Peters, ©, Arizona State - 2002
36 - Makoa Freitas, (OG), Arizona - 2003

Fastest Shuttle Times

3.73 - Kevin Kasper, (WR), Iowa - 2001
3.76 - Deion Branch, (WR), Louisville - 2002
3.78 - Dunta Robinson, (CB), South Carolina - 2004
3.79 - *Champ Bailey, (CB), Georgia - 1999
3.82 - Dante’ Hall, (RB), Texas A&M - 2000
3.83 - Jason Allen, (FS), Tennessee - 2006
3.83 - Kevin Bentley, (OLB), NorthWestern - 2002
3.83 - Terence Newman, (CB), Kansas State - 2003
3.84 - Justin Beriault, (FS), Ball State - 2005
3.84 - Carlos Rogers, (CB), Auburn - 2005
3.84 - Troy Walters, (WR), Stanford - 2000
3.85 - Rashad Holman, (CB), Louisville - 2001
3.86 - Creig Spann, (WR), Arizona State - 1999
3.86 - Matt Graham, (SS), Indiana State - 1999
3.86 - Kevin Brooks, (CB), South Carolina - 1999
3.86 - Jay Hinton, (RB), Morgan State - 1999
3.86 - Kevin Johnson, (WR), Syracuse - 1999
3.86 - Jason Hebert, (FS), Rice - 2002
3.86 - Jerry Azumah, (RB), New Hampshire - 1999
3.86 - Chris Watson, (CB), Eastern Illinois - 1999
3.87 - Randy Fasani, (QB), Stanford - 2002
3.87 - Coy Wire, (SS), Stanford - 2002
3.88 - Ryan Tolhurst, (WR), Richmond - 2002
3.88 - Kevin Curtis, (FS), Texas Tech - 2002
3.88 - Kendrick Starling, (WR), San Jose State - 2004

Quickest 3 Cone Drill Times

6.45 - Sedrick Curry, (CB), Texas A&M - 2000
6.48 - Rogers Beckett, (FS), Marshall - 2000
6.49 - Carlos Rogers, (CB), Auburn - 2005
6.50 - Leon Hall (CB), Michigan - 2007
6.51 - Jon McGraw, (SS), Kansas State - 2002
6.54 - *Anthony Gonzalez (WR), Ohio State - 2007
6.56 - Ben Taylor, (ILB), Virginia Tech - 2002
6.56 - Kevin Kasper, (WR), Iowa - 2001
6.60 - Trent Gamble, (FS), Wyoming - 2000
6.60 - Marcus Griffin (SS), Texas - 2007
6.61 - Courtney Roby, (WR), Indiana - 2005
6.61 - Troy Walters, (WR), Stanford - 2000
6.61 - Marcus McCauley (CB), Fresno State - 2007
6.62 - Coy Wire, (SS), Stanford - 2002
6.62 - Dante’ Hall, (RB), Texas A&M - 2000
6.62 - Johnnie Lee Higgins (WR), Texas-El Paso - 2007
6.63 - Ketric Sanford, (RB), Houston - 2000
6.63 - Matt Farmer, (WR), Air Force - 2000
6.63 - *Ben Kelly, (CB), Colorado - 2000
6.64 - Keith Brown, (RB), UCLA - 2000
6.64 - Stanford Routt, (CB), Houston - 2005
6.64 - Tye Hill, (CB), Clemson - 2006
6.64 - Demarcus Faggins, (CB), Kansas State - 2002
6.65 - Ryan Tolhurst, (WR), Richmond - 2002
6.65 - Omare Lowe, (CB), Washington - 2002
6.65 - Herb Haygood, (WR), Michigan State - 2002

17

Please ignore my ignorance but what are superman and Planche pushups?

18

Still holds true?

19

One thing I might be able to add re:40y start tech. and this was from Charlie in person.

He said he saw no advantage in holding the back hand/arm up extremely high as you see with some athletes.

He recommended holding the arm up about hip high or possibly a little lower but not so high to the point where it is well above the back hip.

I think he said something about that (hand/arm held very high) being too long of an action to initiate a start and that the lead arm did not need to cover that much distance to get one started.

20

http://artofmanliness.com/2009/07/21/push-ups-exercises/

21

After looking at the recent combine performances I figured I would compare the top 40 yard dash times and vertical jumps to see how many of the same athletes made the top performances for both.

Key points

-The fastest 3 athletes in the 40 did not even make the list in the 15 top vertical jumps at the combine.

-the Top 7 vertical jumps were performed by athletes who did not make the top 15 in the 40 yard dash.

-In consideration of the top 15 perofrmances in each category only 3 were on both lists.

which means there were 27 unique athletes making top performancec

22

“There vertical exercises, sprinting is horizontal.”

The research suggests that sprinting is vertical. Elite sprinters have significant greater capacity to produce vertical force than non-elites.

23

Number 2 are you quoting something from this thread? or just in general?

I completely agree that forces are vertical in sprinting. I was just trying to get the point across that too many people get to wrapped up in particular tests when ultimately they need to focus on whats most important.

One particular very very well known strength coach told me that he he knows his athletes will run a faster 40 when his box jump goes up. While it may be the case, I disagree and it is not a complete direct relationship. There needs to be much more emphasis placed on the mechanical and technical components of sprinting instead of just “get strong and jump higher and pray that you go out and run faster because we’ve increased your force production” which are common thoughts among many combine coaches.

In contrast however, there are also many factors to consider, and they are certainly related, and to not perform jumps, and bounds, especially of those that are vertical in nature etc would be very limiting to the athlete.

24

Sorry - that was a quote from a previous post above. Not yours, I believe.

25

I don’t understand.

-The fastest 3 athletes in the 40 did not even make the list in the 15 top vertical jumps at the combine. -The Top 7 vertical jumps were performed by athletes who did not make the top 15 in the 40 yard dash.

:confused:

26

What dont you understand? is your question about the vertical forces or about the combine