Could you explain.
Could you explain.
“Acceleration is powerful, but not quick! The 55m has no penalty for an overly quick acceleration pattern - those accrue after 55-60 meters in the 100m!”
-If I run the 55m only and not the 100m, how is it recommended to accelerate? If a “quick” accelerator would die out at 55-60m, that would no longer be a problem in only a 55m-primary runner.
It actually would result in a slower 55/60m, it is just that the detriments are not strong enough to have a huge effect on the race time wise. If you get your hips in a crappy position and might gain .02 on the first 20 and lose .04-05 on the next 30, you’re running slower, but not to a huge degree. You will, however, get crushed on the last 40-45 of a 100m race. It certainly will not help the 55/60m to a significant degree and I can think of plenty of examples of this.
Or .18 on the next 30
so in other words, a ‘correct’ acceleration phase for any race under 100m should be identical to the acceleration phase of a 100m run?
Yes. There is a reason why the fastest 60m ever was en route to the fastest 100m ever, and 2nd fastest 60m ever en route to the 2nd fastest 100m ever.
Is that reason that there is wind outdoors, a greater level of peaking, a longer training period, and the fact that the person running the fastest 60m ever has never raced over 60m indoors?
That’s a good question which I suspect won’t be easily answered for us.
I don’t know what you are trying to imply, but if you want to believe that guys are somehow running submaximal 60s en route to their best 100s, that’s on you. Even if you want to look at the longer training period and everything, the fact is that the fastest 100s still come after the fastest 60s. If you want to believe that people are changing their acceleration patterns for the better, then you may need to lay off the crack pipe. Nearly every time someone runs a PR 100m, they run an en route 60m PR. You can count this to be the case for nearly every 100m man.
Let me ask you this as a better question, how much time did Bolt lose to 60m during his 9.58 by not accelerating in a manner more appropriate for the 60m?
That’s not what I’m implying; I can’t speak for anyone else, but the 60m WR is extremely soft due to some of the reasons speedfreak mentioned.
I quoted SpeedFreak, not you. Check the posts.
Even if the 60m indoor WR is “soft” (remember it is 6.39 w/ no wind), the point still remains that a fast 100m requires a fast 60m, as evidenced by the fastest 100s having the fastest 60s.
Thats not at all what I am implying. Im more than aware the fastest 60m are set en-route to 100m times. What I am implying is that I dont think the athletes have a deliberately different acceleration pattern for 60m and 100m. They are just in better shape when it comes round to racing for 100m due to a multitude of factors. In addition to these factors, a positive tail wind can only help.
Why would they have a different pattern? If it was faster, why not use it in the 60m races, and therefore run faster 60m races?
Im confused by this whole thread - in the 100m (and 60m) dont you just run as hard as you can for as long as you can?
To clarify, my belief is that faster 60m occur in 100m due to factors mentioned in my earlier post, not due to different acceleration patterns.
I didn’t say their acceleration patterns are different. My point was exactly this: that they are clearly identical and any difference in acceleration pattern that someone creates is not going to give you a faster 60m time.
I really do not understand you confusion.
In response to: “so in other words, a ‘correct’ acceleration phase for any race under 100m should be identical to the acceleration phase of a 100m run?”
I said: Yes
I understood that - the reason for my initial post was that I was speculating reasons that time to 60m in 100m is generally quicker than time to 60m in a 60m race. Because, if the acceleration patterns were the same (and all other factors were equal), then athletes would get run equally as fast in a 60m race, as opposed to faster in the 100m.
Any way, sorry for using up your clearly far superior intellect.
It would seem obvious that would be the case. Obviously there is wind, obviously there is more training time, etc.
Ironically, some of the European sprinters in recent history have run slower 60s outdoors. Dwain Chambers (6.42 indoors), Craig Pickering (6.55 indoors), Andrey Yepishin (6.52 indoors), and others actually ran slower 60m splits outdoors than indoors. I don’t know if it is the training or they crap their pants or what.
Probably various factors. Chambers clearly had something to prove indoors, hence the 6.42, then felt like he had achieved it and took his foot of the gas a bit. Pickering was slightly injured outdoors in 2007 (off his 6.55 indoors) and so couldnt do any block work from June onwards. Yepishin ran his 6.52 at a home championships (the world indoors) which I always find suspect!
.08 slower for Chambers? With tail wind?
Yepishin ran multiple 6.5s and he was close to beating out Leonard Scott, so he was no slouch. He never broke 10.1s and was typically around 10.2-10.3 for the season (which is around 6.6mid-6.70 through 60m).
Pickering may have been slightly injured in 2007, but what about 2008 and 2009? 10.2x SB in 2009 and no PR in 2008.
I wish the best for these guys, but perhaps something is messed up with the indoors to outdoors transition or maybe it is the different accel pattern ;).
Chambers’ relatively poor results outdoors compared to indoors in 2009 has also a lot to do with uncertain competition schedule due to controversy over meet directors’ invitations.
Yepishin had the advantage to be used to the very low-sound gun used during Moscow World Indoors in 2006, where he took silver in 6.52 (react 0.144). Leonard Scott was almost trapped during the first round, and several other guys were disturbed. However, outdoors, he ran 10.10 (wind +1.3, react 0.148) and 10.12 (wind +1.5, react 0.168) in Sweden during European Champs. During the 10.10, i estimate his 60m intermediate time @ 6.52.
Indoors, he didn’t ran multiple 6.5, he ran 6.52 and 6.59 during those World Champs, as his only sub 6.6 races of the year. Just as his 10.10 and 10.12 were the only sub 10.2 races outdoors. Achilles problems hampered the rest of his career.
Pickering had the bad luck to run many races against the wind in 2009. 10.32 w-1.7, 10.33 w-1.8, 10.47 w-2.9, 10.32 w-2.4 all this is not that bad compared to the 6.57, 6.58, 6.58 he ran indoors.
Maybe Speedfreak1 has some more infos on one of the above:)…2009 Pickering got 10"08 with slightly above 2 m/s…I feel the difference btw outdoor 60 and indoor ones are due to wind and training.
For some italian guys we have slow 60 outdoor compared to indoor, due to a shift of emphasis on other training components, and, unfortunately for some, a loss of strength caused by not performing weight training for months.