It just makes sense that it's a timing error. 4.8 seconds for 40m is blazing. No one could possibly run a 14.9 in the 100 after destroying the first 40m like that. Getting tired and slowing down is one thing, but not that much.
Hand timing someone when they are sprinting all out is very difficult and terribly inaccurate. And are you sure you know exactly where the 40m mark is?
The track has a 40m hash mark and a 60m line.
I'll do 2 runs for him to time. One from the 40 with him at the finish and another one from 100 with him at the finish.
This whole thread is ridiculuous.You are saying you 40m in 4.8 sec and then you did the last 60 in 10 seconds (of course not from a stand still, you had a moving start on that 60)that means your speed THROUGHOUT the second half was half that of your first halfAND that means your top speed was probably something like 3 to 4 x that of your ending speedYou are 45 years old? I think you better go back to the track
Slow Mo or Go wrote:
The track has a 40m hash mark and a 60m line.
I'll do 2 runs for him to time. One from the 40 with him at the finish and another one from 100 with him at the finish.
I went through the first 40 in 4.8 hand timed, so it's more like 5.0. The 14.9 was the electronic time.
Still, a lot of slowing down. I can feel it, too. It seems like it's a blink to the 40 and from there on it feels like an eternity. I can feel my form falling apart and it feels like I'm running in place.
Every time I feel like that I'm reminded of someone in deep water who can't swim, arms flying around and all of that.
I'll get timed again and post them up here.
Are you sure it was a 40m mark? Have you measured it?
I once thought I did 40m in some blazing time (for me) on a HS track, based on the markings. My friends thought I was full of it. So, they timed me. Again, I did it fast. We then measured it, and it was short by a lot (about 3-4 meters, if I recall correctly, which actually makes a big difference).
This just doesn't happen. Unless you have a serious injury or ailment, you can't and won't slow down like that in a 100 meter race.
Since we know the 14.9 electronic time is legit, there must be something wrong with your hand-timed 40 meter sprints. I would expect to see a time above 6.0 for 40 meters for you.
Slow Mo or Go wrote:
I did a corporate cup race this weekend and I blew away the field for 40m. At 60m, I was still ahead, but the field was clsoing. At 100m, I could feel my form falling apart and I finished second to last.
How can I have a great 40time (when I did some training for this event, it was 4.8 and I'm 45), and my 100 time suck so badly? Sad to say, I finished in 14.9, electronically timed.
Am I just slow over 100m? My 40 times suggests I should be able to run a faster 100m.
What's up?
You need to do more 2 hour runs.
5/10.
Should have made it a bit more believable, like finish in 13.3 (still a big slowdown) or 40m in 5.8 or something.
Still the fact that you got a bunch of people to bite anyway, scores you some points.
D had a superb 50yd. (35 years ago), not so good 100yd., pretty good 220yd. and on up (through the mile). I read about slow twitch and fast twitch and just could not understand it. She could line up against the best 100 yd. dashers in the state and be with them or ahead of them for 30 yd., then it was over. Eventually, I read that there are more than just two (fast and slow twitch) kinds of muscle that should be considered - the third makes you quick, good in the long jump (and maybe other jumps or PV), but it doesn't do a thing for you past about six seconds in a race. Most quick people are equally fast, but a few are not.
there's obviously a distance and/or time error here if it's not just made up. but there are people who credibly could run 5.0 40y or faster but only run 14-15 seconds or slower for 100m. they're called football linemen. they weigh 290-340 lbs and their tremendous power gets them fast 40's, but they totally fall apart in the remainder of the race, barely finishing, in fact.
sprinter-football types, back me up on this.
measure the 40 yourself wrote:
Are you sure it was a 40m mark? Have you measured it?
I once thought I did 40m in some blazing time (for me) on a HS track, based on the markings. My friends thought I was full of it. So, they timed me. Again, I did it fast. We then measured it, and it was short by a lot (about 3-4 meters, if I recall correctly, which actually makes a big difference).
I never measuered it, so it could be off.
Anyway, I'm going down there tomorrow (track meet there tonight) and I'll check everything out. I'll get timed again for 40m and 100m and see what I get.
you should compare the hand timing to the electronic timing to make sure that both are working properly. check them both at 40m and at 100m.
I THINK THE FIRST 40M IS WAYDOWNHILL AND THE NEXT 60M IS UPHILL. THATS THE ONLY WAY
I have a similar problem with the 10000m. I can go through 4000m in 12:30, but that pesky last 6000m really gets me and I usually finish around 40 minutes.