Times for the 100m have dropped a bit over the last couple of years. This seems to coincide with many of the top sprinters dropping the 200m. Conversely, there seems to be a greater emphasis on 60m distances. Are sprinters overlooking the importance of a strong finish?
Matt Shirvington used to compete in the 100m and 200m when he ran 10.03 and 10.07. He has since put all his focus on the 100m and now seems to struggle to run 10.20s.
Watching Patrick Johnson run his best times, his starts are not great but he does his last 50 really quick. One of his training routines is to start slowly and gradually build up speed (http://www.patrickjohnson.com.au/patrick.cfm?PageName=esa_tips.cfm). He has been able to run 9.93s using this method. Not bad for someone who came into athletics running the 400m aged 24. In the world Championships he seemed to be pushing for speed earlier in the race (probably intimidated by the fast starts of the power athletes) and did not generate as much max speed or finish as strongly as he usually does.
Mo Greene has dropped the 200m and his times have dropped away over the last few years. I know he has had some injuries, but it has still been a big change from his 1999 form.
In MG’s 9.79, 0-10 was fast, but it was 80-90 and 90-100 that are the only other splits to rate a mention. His 9.80, where he stumbled at the start, was fastest (relatively) at 80-90, and his times of 9.86 and 9.87 were achieved by running the fastest splits from 50-80 in each race. Only his time of 9.82 recorded fastest splits in the first 20m only.
Carl Lewis’ best splits were all from 40m onwards. He and MG are the only two on this list to appear after 70m. This stage of the race was often acknowledged as Carl’s advantage over his competitors. These record splits later in the race are the only ones to have been set in the 1980’s (besides those run by BJ). Only Greene has been able to finish his race as strongly as Carl Lewis in recent years.
Looking at the women this trend becomes more obvious. From 40m it is all FLO JO.
This article, http://www.elitetrack.com/wiemann.pdf, suggests on page 23 that more slow twitch fibres should be present in the quads than many people would expect (the article does not go into too much detail here, maybe there are better references to examine). I notice that MG’s in-season training routine hold’s squats at the bottom for 5sec (http://www.snelkracht.nl/html/net-articles/mo_greene.html). Would this not develop a higher percentage of slow twitch fibres in the quads?
I think it’s a combination of speed, and speed endurance lacking that contributed to the slower times of last year. Does anyone have splits of Collins WC Run?
If a stronger finish in the 100m is due to 200m ability, why would Marlies Gohr always pass Marita Koch at the end of the 100. I’ve said this many times before, Speed Endurance is Specific to the speed of execution. All the endurance in the world over 200 or 300m reps won’t give you ANY endurance at 12mps. Mo Greene’s finish is directly linked to a slight sub-max approach (below his capability and reliant on speed reserve) You can’t have speed reserve till the absolute speed it is reliant on is in place.
Don’t get caught up in discussions about biopsy finding related to fibre type. Results will vary with each centimeter the needle is moved.
Great point Charlie, about the hesitation factor at starts. Also I think there has been a change in training and lifestyles of the current generation of sprinter’s. More emphasis was placed on power and 60m development in recent years. In past years I believe there was more development of the finish.
Mo Greene’s finish is directly linked to a slight sub-max approach (below his capability and reliant on speed reserve)… I know mo reach his max around 65m, Top Women around 53m correct?
How can one measure where one is reaching their Max Velocity?
I was thinking record the run, place visible markers on track at 40m, 50m, 60m, 70m and getting 10m times for each segment subtract difference. Will this be accurate for finding where MAX VELOCITY is met?
Pretty hard to determine splits without the IAAF equipment (= to ET for each split) as the differences are in hundredths. (I think your maxV point for most women is a little far into the race)
Now that we’ve discussed the need for the development of top speed before the extension of that quality, what physical qualities need to be in place to allow that speed to be developed? What is the order of development?
Does the concept preclude working from long to short? No it doesn’t because the speed needed ahead of speed endurance is different for each element- speed enough for 600, 300, 200, etc.
In other words, working from both ends of the spectrum towards the middle (the 60 to 150 area). The main difference will be that, in the long-to-short approach, the speed must meet or perhaps barely exceed the special endurance requirements, while, with short-to-long approach, the speed will run farther ahead of the special endurance needs till later in the program.
Thoughts?
The various physical qualities such as Speed, Strength, Endurance, Technique, and Flexibility all need to be developed together. The duration of the development of each quality is limited by both time and the development of the other qualities or their lack of development. Theoretically, all these qualities need to be developed simultaneously. Unfortunately, this is also a paradox. Practically speaking for example, true technique cannot be practiced save at high velocity. Mach Drills are great, but do not teach sprinting. Only sprinting at high speeds can do this. In turn, if the athlete is concentrating on a certain quality such as “stepping over” they cannot be running at their maximum velocity as the activity will not be a “hind Brain” function. Therefore, the coaches task is to intertwine these qualities in such as way that during any one session, neither quality is sacrificed to any great extent for the other, yet both are developed. “Think twice, speak once” is a good rule of thumb to follow in order to accomplish this task.
Subtle changes are necessary in order for improvment to occur. This is also the case when developing strength. (Flexibility is the one exception which can be developed to an optimal level in a relatively short period of time without effecting the other areas). If strength is developed prematurely, the CNS will not compensate and this may actually slow the athlete down, and the developed strength is at risk of being useless in regards to translating it into speed. Strength therefore must be developed in conjuntion with speed, and technique, within a weekly time frame, not just per session.
However, with that said, once the athlete reaches a certain level of development, strength is actually simultaneously developed along with speed as ground contact forces are such that the CNS and musclular system will both be taxed. Once the quality of speed to “X” mph is developed (which also requires strength, flexibility and technique), and can be performed for a fraction of a second, the coach is face with the question: should more speed be developed, or should endurance be developed?
For a football player who will never reach 100% of their speed the answer is obvious. However for a pure sprinter, the coach is faced with a slight dilema. How should the CNS stores (CNS energy envelope) be spent/used optimally? My only suggestion here is that speed be developed so that the athlete can endure it for 2 fractions of a second instead of just one, and then 3 and so on and so forth, but NOT for the coach to attempt to increase the amount of time the athlete spends at top speed by 2 fractions of a second at a time (though even top speed varies slightly and is never constant). Adequate compensation must be allowed at this point. The important thing is that the coach does not attempt to develop speed in the same session as speed endurance, and definitly not during the same session as special endurance.
Sounds pretty good with only a small potential contradictions:
1: Concentrating on the one quality of "Stepping Over’ could yield a new max speed, if it solves the technical issue of shortening the lever on recovery and if relaxation is maintained.
2: By fraction, I assume you mean tenth or a second.
1: Agreed that “stepping over” can immediately yield a new max speed. Would it count as being “hind brain” activity if the athlete is still concentrating on stepping over? Sorry if I did not make that clear. Probably it is not “hind brain” at this point though the max speed should be faster.
The next question that arises is how long does a change in technique take to become automatic or “hind brain.” One thing that Carl Lewis’s coach said about Carl was that Carl would be instructed to change smoething technically, and then right away be able to perform that change. I have one athlete that can change technique, or learn a new drill the very first time I show it to her…but when it comes down to times, it takes me 5 minutes to psyche her up so that she runs fast instead of pretty. Another athlete takes years to change (so it seems), but once he has it, he has it.
2: By fraction I mean an immeasurable amount of time, yet still long enough in duration to notice it. As an extreme case example: the athlete can accelerate up to 60m, but right at 60m the hips drop. Next time out they make it to 61m before the hips drop. The next time 62m and so on.
The first one is a 27.78 200m runner. Her 100m splits are 13.00, 14.78. Should more speed be developed, or should speed endurance, etc. be developed?
The second one is a 1:08.80 400m runner. Her 100m splits are 15.04, 16.75, 18.01, 19.03. Going by these splits only what would you say needs to be developed?
So in conclusion, is a “reserved” start(as in not going full out right away) a better idea for a faster 100 meters?
I really need to work on my finish in the 100 meters. My starting speed is fairly decent id say, because my 3 best time average in the 40 yard dash is 4.68 (hand timed though), so my finish needs some work. I did some sprints that i believe were a little over 100 meters, and on the last ones i struggled to keep max speed through the target line(i was running on road).
I have read something about foot contact time in sprinting and another about weight training. I came out with a conclusion that I’d wish I’d get any verification on.
When someone reaches top speed his foot touches the ground for about 0.08-0.10. Ok. Now a person would need much more than that for maximum force production to the ground. We’re talking about 0.4 give or take depending on the person. So If my max force that I can generate if I’ve given all the time I need was about, lets say 100 Newtons for example. Then at about 0.1 time I can only generate, lets say 50 Newtons. OK. When I train in the gym I’m usually not working much on moving the curve to the left. In fact I only work on extending the curve. That is improving maximum strength ( given the time needed to produce it ). So now my max is about 200 Newtons. But still foot contact give only 50 Newtons.
Some people say that this means weight training is usless since I don’t use that extra strength during my foot contact. But then I say that when max was 100 N each foot contact was working at about 50% of maximum. But then after weight training. You are only working at 25% of maximum… Doesn’t that mean that if I’m stronger. I can maintain my top speed longer cause its not , lets say - taking much out of me -?? Its really interesting to know that.
while doing plyometrics would shift the curve to the left. Which would mean that I can produce more force at that specific 0.1 time of foot contact. I guess I combination of plyometrics and weight training would be great. ( if sprinting was there to apply of course ) I just wanted to verify these thoughts.
In a word No - u need to go out as fast as u can and learn to extend this speed for as long as possible via speed endurance sessions. Max speed can only be held for 20m - after initial acceleration - then u start 2 slow down.
This ‘struggling’ is where ur form is breaking down due to lack of fitness/endurance specific to that distance. SE runs for 100m usually vary from between 80 - 300m. There are various SE sessions posted in the training journals and CFTS.
