Bakers start wasn't amazing either, I image shelly could run like 4.35.
Bakers start wasn't amazing either, I image shelly could run like 4.35.
USADAWADA wrote:
Bakers start wasn't amazing either, I image shelly could run like 4.35.
I mean...what's the context to to this? Split how? In a race? Out of blocks? Hand? Wtf are the data points here? Some kind of citation or vid? Come on.
To be fair, even bad starters (males) elite sprinters should be around 4.2ish out of blocks in an ACTUAL race at the 40 YARD mark. Spiked up and out of blocks? On a track?? That's EVERTYTHING going for you, from a sprinting/speed standpoint; especially if it's based on whatever "first movement" you want to try to go off of.
That's not to poo-poo anything, exactly. Baker is legit. Just trying to give context. Like, for example, Shelly probably isn't remotely 4.35 capable on turf from a start without blocks, unless MAYBE if it's all-hand timed or something.
Sorry I should have explained, it was at the ATL in Florida, they took the splits at 40 yards using the same method as the NFL combine.
Your right, without blocks and on turf the times would be slightly slower
http://live.ptgrouponline.com/meets/432625
I'll find a video in a second, I watched it live.
Weak showing by Baker, but I get the sense that he is just feeling things out as he re-emerges.
Actually these were still electric started but from first movement the could times would probably be .13-15 secs faster when factoring in human visual reactions times. They would probably get very close to these times in turf with a hand start. Which seems reasonable considering Coleman hit 4.12 on turf before outdoor and he was in 10 flat shape at the time.
USADAWADA wrote:
Actually these were still electric started but from first movement the could times would probably be .13-15 secs faster when factoring in human visual reactions times. They would probably get very close to these times in turf with a hand start. Which seems reasonable considering Coleman hit 4.12 on turf before outdoor and he was in 10 flat shape at the time.
I'd basically agree with that. But that's also why hand is so silly, especially the way the combine was (is?) still relying on hand started clocks on their "electric" timing. I've only recently noticed a percieved adoption/embracing of the concept of full-on-"electric" timing, in certain avenues, which I applaud. Though starting clocks on first movement is likely inherently subjective, even when adding a more "auto" reading style to it, it's still a MAJOR step up from hand starts. Hand starts, even with laser finishers, are practically the same as fully hand 40s, especially in the hands of football type people/football type assessment scenarios.
When I hand time Ross's "famous" 4.22 off video, I clock it RIGHT AT 4.22, sometimes even 4.25ish. If their "electric" timing had been legit all this time, I wouldn't be able to match or perhaps even out-perform their "official" results myself. If they would fully transition to the "full electric" concept across the board (where feasible and at least in high stake assessments, etc, of course), I'd be really impressed.
NFL guys wouldn't break 4.30 with the same timing systems as at the ATL meet. Probably 4.35 at best.
I fully agree they should use fully automatic times, what's the point in having records or making comparisons if the timing method has error in it. If the starter reacts in .16 for John Ross and .13 for Chris Johnson, Technically Johnson ran faster despite running .02 secs slower on the clock.
Al Sleet wrote:
NFL guys wouldn't break 4.30 with the same timing systems as at the ATL meet. Probably 4.35 at best.
Honestly, DK Metcalf and his 10.37 opened my eyes a little bit....but you're probably still pretty much spot on with this claim. For as much as he opened my eyes.....I've still run four or five 100s faster than Metcalfs 10.37 in my earlier life.....and no one cares and you dont know my name. Because I was just, essentially, a run-of-the-mill American sprinter.
Real track sprinters are just on another level, for sure.