what's the limit

i dont know what this is in reference to, but im talking about a hurdler not a football player mark was a hurdler, i dont doubt that they cant time 40s in the nfl particularly because that is not their main focus. i just skimmed over the article which seemed to only be tlaking about football players. mark macoy = track athlete

you know guys ive got to apologize ive been spelling marks name wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_McKoy

You have all the answers, don’t you? I must say it’s quite irritating. Bengay comes here to ask a question and you pollute the answer with your fantasy information and reasoning.

So if Mark ran 3.65 to 40y, what would he run in a 60m dash in an IAAF meet?

60m is slightly under 66yards.

  • Mark gets to 40y in 3.65.
  • Mark finishes the remaining 26y in a pedestrian 2.40 seconds.
  • Mark’s 60m time is 6.05.
  • Mark smashes the WR.

Is that how it works?

sure buddy thats how it works… are you done? why not ask charlie considering that a 3.7 second 40 was posted on his old website.

I hate to be picky, because we are starting to get a little off subject now, well pretty much, but Mark didn’t hold the 4 of the top 6 60m open times or hurdle times unless your talking about the top 4 open 60m times for a hurdler.

'89 Colin Jackson 7.41
'89 Igor Kazanovs 7.42
'91 Roger Kingdom 7.42
'89 Kingdom 7.43
'89 Jackson 7.44
'91 McKoy’s PR 7.44

'92 Cason 6.41,.45, .46, .49
'93 Surin 6.45
'91 Burrell 6.48
'93 McKoy PR 6.49

That is excluding Ben who also had 7 times at or below that in 87 and 88.

Granted I am not arguing the man was fast, but fast and 3.65 are two different levels.

As I said, most 40 times are BS. When I went to the combine the fastest time that year was a 4.37 and it was legit.

Another fellow posted a 4.41 and he was a rediculous athlete. He posted a 46 inch vertical, and yes it was measured correctly and legit.

So, my statement has to be, if guys with 46 inch verticals are running 4.3s high and 4.4lows, someone with a legit sub 3.8 forty should have at least a 60 inch vertical…lol.

I don’t think many people realize how fast a 4.3 forty is. It should be considered the 100th percentile. Anyone faster than 4.3 either has the potential of being worlds fastest man, or once was:)

IMO a legit sub 4 second 40 will be a physiological barrier. It may eventually go very slightly faster…but I seriously doubt it. I don’t even think 4.1 electronic is attainable by anyone right now.

If I remember right, did it not say in Speed Trap that Ben was working out and at the same time there were some NFL scouts timing 40’s at the same venue; Anyways, I think it did say that it was a handtimed 3.7-3.8 for 40 yards, not electronic.

And BJ’s 4.38E was over 40m, not yards.

Correct me if I’m wrong about the reference to Speed Trap. I would look it up but I’m not on my computer right now.

it was over yards

if you go through in 4.38E through 40m and close out with .9 10m splits the rest of the way you time out at: 9.78…but ben split a few .83’s in route and didn’t go over .9 the rest of the way through.

I was just lookin around trying to find more about the subject, I saw a few snippets about Ben Johnson breaking the world 50yd dash record in a time of 5.15 (which of course has not been used in major competition for a while), I think that would put a 3.65 40 out of question. Granted I’m sure Charlie would be a better source for information on this than a few web snippets.

I think Charlie talks about this 40 stuff in the Vancouver 2003 DVD.

The E-time to 40m in Seoul was 4.66. Remember, race times are from a gun and the clock starts instantly, while a 40 football time is timed from when you start. That’s at least .44 difference- and then you convert to 40yds. He did a HT 3.7 for a scout from Miami in 1987 just for fun.

Thanks for clearing that up, Charlie; I remember reading that now.

Posted from another forum.

“It amazes me all of the experts in combine having no clue what the truth of what is most likely possible with an elite sprinter. Ben Johnson came through at 4.53 (minus reaction time) at 40 meters. Do the math and this equates to 4.14 in the 40 yard dash. Now the next question is what is possible if one trains for the 40 yard dash only and removes the speed endurance qualites from the program and trains more for pure acceleration. If one takes the best splits ever from track sprinters at WCs and GL meets (1.69 +1.0+.89+.86 )it is possible that a 4.44 in the 40 or a 4.07 can be done. I would also argue that if one was removing the SE and 200m doubles that sprinters sometimes do we would see a possible sub 4.0 in the next few decades.”

Yes, do the math. If you look at it this way (minus reaction) Ben is at 4.24 to 40y. The dude above is wrong. Do we need to write a mathematical proof? Do we need to get an IAAF grant to fund this research :smiley:

Somebody please shoot me.

You do know the combine measures with first movement correct?

Do the math of just the time running to 40m and convert that to yards.

Yes, so that means their timing method is totally off! I remember this year’s draft, some dude ran like a 4.4 and two 4.6s. They threw out the 4.4 and listed him at 4.6 because they figured they must have timed it incorrectly! I wonder how many spots he dropped due to that one. So it’s inaccurate measuring with added subjective input.

If you are doing a manual start on first movement, then any time is possible. In this manner, yes Mark McKoy ran 3.65. Yes, some nobody from FSU ran 3.9 in preseason workouts. Yes, my little brother ran 3.30 when the timer blundered on the start. But the means of timing is totally inconsistent and not comparable to anything.


Instead of focusing on what is wrong, look at Ben’s split without reaction time again and look what he ran. Do you see combines with starter pistols?

he ran 4.53 not factoring reaction time.

What do you convert that to yards?

4.24 with 0 reaction time to 40y

he ran from 30m to 40m in .86

40y = 36.58m

the difference from 40y to 40m is 3.42m (40m-36.58m)

3.42m*.86= .29seconds

4.53-.29= 4.24 to 40y figuring a reaction of 0.0

Welcome to the world of Athletics. I am done with this argument. It’s nuts!