Down start without blocks?

wondering wrote:

The advantages to doing a down start with blocks are obvious. But, is a down start still a good idea in the absence of blocks, or is it better to just do a standing start in this case?

Thanks in advance for any input.

Many runners when starting standing up take their first step backwards, even a poor crouch start is better than that! If done correctly a standing start can be very effective.

I see a lot of people start poorly without blocks, because they put their left foot forward and their left arm forward (and vice-versa). Then, when the guns sounds, they either step backwards, or they switch their arms to get the opposite arm in front.

I have had good luck as a high school coach teaching the three point start:

Assuming that they put their left leg forward with most of their weight over this foot, they put their right hand behind the line, just to the outside of their right foot.

Then, they hold the left arm straignt back as far as it can go.

When the gun sounds, they drive the left arm forward along with the right knee, thus avoiding the problem that I described earlier.

Many people who are not sprinters (for example, mid distance people racing 400), who do not practice blocks and may not even know what settings to use will go faster if they use a standing start that they're comfortable, with rather than a block/crouch start that they're not comfortable with. That is, if the rules allow a standing start--in the US with USATF rules, a 400m requires a block start, unless you're a masters athlete.

If you have to use a block or crouch start, the most basic measurements to use in block settings are 2 shoe lengths from the line to the front foot (which is the left foot for the vast majority) and 1 1/2 shoe lengths between the two foot pads (and pad angle settings, if any, set on minimum, until you know exactly what you're doing with block angles)

Thanks for the input. Let me refine the question:

Is a technically correct down start without blocks in a 300/400 (or shorter) superior to a well done standing start? Why or why not?

Thanks again.

3-pt start is the best alternative to a block start. For some it may even be preferable.

There's a fairly well known article by Frank Dick of the UK ("Development of Maximum Sprinting Speed," Track Technique p,3475-3480) which has a series of tables, including comparison of 60m standing and block starts with electronic 100). Depending on the ability level of the athlete, block starts are 0.2 to 0.3 seconds faster than standing. This varies somewhat for 400, as some people hold back more than others in the early part of the race.

One reason for the advantage of blocks is the so-called slingshot effect due to gravity (No, this isn't some kind of POSE thing). To see this, get into the conventional start position with the first foot 2 shoe lengths behind the line and the second foot 1 1/2 shoe legths behind the first foot. Now pick up your hands, and notice how gravity pushes you forward, even without a set of blocks to push against. This is part of the advantage of using blocks.

The other thing with block starts is when you leave the blocks, you are leaning forward (depending on strength levels) in good position to accelerate, which is what you do for the first 30 meters or so. You can't accelerate easily when you're standing absolutely vertical.

Ok, but what about down starts WITHOUT blocks?

Some meetings won't accept this though. I got told off at one (on the start line) and told it was either a standing start with NO hands on the floor or a crouch start with BOTH hands on the floor. It was embarrassing!

understand the question wrote:

Ok, but what about down starts WITHOUT blocks?

Anybody?