Also my 200 indoor pr is 22.54 with all my times consistent in the 22.60-22.80 range. The past few years this has been my openers. Also these openers which I failed to mention above were off of at least 12 weeks of training.
Im so consistent its scary. I one ran 22.75 2 weeks back to back on the same track indoors.
The past few years I would drop .15 off my 200 time as the season went on and less than 1 tenth off the dash.
With the best acceleration, and all of the speed endurance in the world, an athlete is only going to run about 7.2 e (give or take) for 60m with a top speed of 10m/s. The good news is that there appears to be nothing horribly wrong with your acceleration!
I dunno about that. If you can run 3.9x FAT for 30 and 3.0 for flying 30 then that is a 6.9. Now add reaction time which would be under .2 (which I do not think I am even under) and you get 7.10 or under.
I ran a 4.07! This needs to get down to 3.9. And again we are talking on my own reaction. I think my reaction time may be a big factor here. Even so… Unless I time a flying 30 with my system the 3.0 isn’t legit I supposed but I am always behind in the blocks and tend to run ppl. down during the end of the race. I know that may not mean much though. I also run 10.94 in the 100. Given my 100 and 200 times would you not agree my dash should be faster?
A 4.24 FAT 30m is roughly equivalent to a 3.0 30m fly, and importantly it is directly on a par with a FAT 7.2x 60m run. 3.0 30m fly would be about right for a FAT 7.2x 60m run. The 4.07 (self triggered auto timer) would probably be spot on. Bottom line is that the primary acceleration is not the horrible weak link that you thought. Secret to further improvement seems to be in improving TOP SPEED!!!
I am assuming you are looking in the USATF book which is a bit difficult to understand and if you look at manual training times it comes out in my favor. I think the comp. times have something to do with reaction time. Nonetheless my flying 30 isn’t legit so until it is I guess we can not speculate. Anyhow…
reguardless how can you explain my my 200 times?
If you go to Mercier Scoring Table… http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/Mercier/index.html
You will see that my 22.70 200 is equal to a 7.03. The same day I ran that 22.70 I also ran a 7.20 in the 60.
My 22.60 equals a 7.01 that same day I ran a 7.18.
This happened every meet last year. Even my pr (7.11)only equals a 22.98. The slowest i have run the past few years has been 22.9x unless I was in lane 1 or 2.
I know Mercier isnt the end all but it is based on data to support my anecdotal evidence that my accel. is the problem.
Good point!
Tell me more about the isorobic. I was thinking about it. How does it compare to sled work?
I did not do hills because all hills by me are concrete and I’d rather not risk it given the past/current state of my knees.
Even if you use those USATF charts and look at the 200. Outoors I run 22.0-22.30 consistently and my 100 is sub par according to those charts and my 60 is way slower than it should be.
I am am 100% sure my block start/reaction time/accel is the problem. No doubt about it.
Thanks for trying to help though.
Ok, from a different perspective. With your pr of 7.11 FAT, I’d expect a top speed of about 0.97 for 10m (30 fly of around 2.95 pending your drop off give or take - or 2.94 per the USATF). This would require a 30m FAT of 4.16. Acceleration and top speed seem to be pretty much even for you. You do have pretty good endurance which accounts for you dropping less time over the 200 than average. Except for splitting hairs, to improve over 60m I think you will need to look at top speed.
The PR’s are outliers which happened one time 3 seasons in a row on the same track in the conference meet. PLUS… I converted it from a 55 which makes it even more of an outlier. My best 60 is 7.15. Now its getting complicated. This is why I think its impt to go off of avg. times.
Also in that 4.16 30 time you mentioned which is FAT I think reaction time needs to be taken off. This is the problem with those charts. What is the .24 for.
Be mindful that the 200m estimatations make assumptions on peoples speed endurance abilities. You have good SPEnd and drop less speed over the 200m than on average for those times. You certainly aren’t accelerating past the 60m mark, so I’d look to the 60m times (as opposed to the 200m split estimates) for an answer regarding the strengths of primary acceleration versus top speed.
I believe the estimations are based on actual data. Just curious… Are you a coach or athlete? How many mid 22 indoor 200 meter runners do you know that care rarely run under 7.15 in the 60? Look at any indoor meet and look at what the same people run in both those races.
Or for that very matter look at 100 times. A consistent 11.0x to 11.1x 100 meter runner should be under 7.15 with no problem.
Also all data aside. We can debate stats all night long. I know that I am always behind the first 30 and make up alot towards the end of the race in the 60 and 100. It happens all the time. This is how I know it is the early part of the race that is the problem.
Another angle: why do you feel that primary acceleration is the area that needs to be worked with the average 60m FAT of 7.2x ?
What FAT 0-30m time would you expect for a FAT 7.2x ? I’d offer around 4.2x.
What ‘Self initiated auto timer’ 0-30m time would you expect to be reasonable given an average athlete reaction time of say 0.16s for an audible stimulus? I’d estimate about 4.0x. Spot on your current ability.
PS: The 0.24 is the average time for reaction to the visual gun stimulus: ie the average difference between the hand time (by the observer of the gun report) and the electronic time. Late for tempo!!!
Sorry. You must have not read this as I added it to my post late
Also all data aside. We can debate stats all night long. I know that I am always behind the first 30 and make up alot towards the end of the race in the 60 and 100. It happens all the time. This is how I know it is the early part of the race that is the problem.
I cannot really speculate an FAT time for 30 because reaction time would have to be added in and I am assuming mine is like .2. lol.And now you got my rethinking my flying time which may in fact be faster. My 30 time may not be as bad as I think. You may be half right BUT it is then my initial block clearance and reaction time to the gun. Fair enough?
I will have to get my times on 3 beep mode to see how much diff. they are than on my own reaction.
Ps. we can’t really speculate hand times because I have always rounded up. So my 3.0 may have in fact been 2.96 which according to your calculations and the USATF would be a big difference.
What I am saying here is as the distance gets longer the larger the time differential becomes from the norm. You still avoided the question… how many mid 22 second 200 (indoor) athletes do you know who care rarely break 7.15 or 7.20 for that matter.
The time expectations are based on mercier and 12 years of competiting in the sport of track and field.
11.00 =7.10
but likewise 22.0 should =10.8x which should =7.0x
This is what I’m saying. As the distances get shorter I get worse.
Excellent: so you see that there is nothing horribly wrong with the 60m time. And similarly you would probably expect a 30m time of around 4.2x FAT… which (correct me if I’m wrong) would be around a 4.0x for the self started Speed Trap system?
Yea there is. I’m not running 7.10. Im running 7.20 consistently and 7.16-17 if luckly. Are you a 60 meter runner? Remeber a few hundreths of a second is huge in the 60m. I’d be estatic if I was consistent between 7.10 and 7.14. So I need to drop .06-.1 consistently for it not to be horrible.
