The quote comes from an interesting BBC feature on him.
"I definitely see myself going below 9.80. I've been running super quick times in training. I've run 9.79 before," siad the 22-year old.
Sprint fans/coaches, do sprinters regularly PR in practice?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/44462801
-
-
- World's fastest man Zharnel Hughes (9.91) claims he's run 9.79 in practice - Do sprinters regularly PR in practice?
-
-
-
- ~ - in reply to rojo
-
It might be hand timed or a less accurate timing system used in training? Sprinters do time trials but it seems unlikely an elite runner would PR in training regardless of the distance.
-
-
-
- Am not spam - in reply to rojo
-
Know nothing about pro sprint training, but would they really have the full FAT system and gun set up in practice? If not, 9.79 is almost a meaningless number. Maybe they do once in a while.
-
-
-
- Sprinting - in reply to rojo
-
I know it's probably not that way, but I feel like the 100m can be run with 100% effort in practice with not too much stress.
-
-
-
- RE: Am not spam - in reply to long slow runner
-
long slow runner wrote:
Know nothing about pro sprint training, but would they really have the full FAT system and gun set up in practice? If not, 9.79 is almost a meaningless number. Maybe they do once in a while.
Without a wind gauge + wired gun + wired blocks + photo timer ever thing is all talk.
-
-
-
- RE: Am not spam - in reply to malmo
-
To Rojo:
Sprinters are stupid. That is how things like this get passed off as really happening. You are stupid for being 45 and believing it. I mean that in the nicest way possible.
-
-
-
- RE: Am not spam - in reply to malmo
-
malmo wrote:
long slow runner wrote:
Know nothing about pro sprint training, but would they really have the full FAT system and gun set up in practice? If not, 9.79 is almost a meaningless number. Maybe they do once in a while.
Without a wind gauge + wired gun + wired blocks + photo timer ever thing is all talk.
Its no more or less talk than any other training people talk about (We don't ask people running 100 mile weeks or crazy workouts to prove it with GPS data, we see if they back it up at meets). The guy isn't asking for his practice marks to be certified by the IAAF for world rankings or proxy diamond league wins.
I was at a clinic many moons ago where Jon Drummond was the keynote talking about training Tyson Gay. I think this would have been around the winter of 2009 or 2010 (it was after Bolt had set the world record, but before Gay tested positive). Anyway, he claimed Gay had run a time trial 100m (alone) a week or two before USATFs or WCs and 3 different hand timer's had all clocked Gay at between 9.30 and 9.40 or thereabouts. His point of course was that he believed even after an FAT conversion, if Gay had had his best race he could have taken down Bolt and set the WR. This was also in the midst of stressing how important it is for a sprinter to believe they are unbeatable/the fastest, so who knows maybe this was an extension of those mind games. He certainly presented it as unquestionable fact though.
More to the point, I'd say a very legitimate proportion of 60m sprinters have hit their PR in practice, since that's a distance they will run full-on from blocks for that distance with fair regularity in practice. Its more rare to do full-blast 100m from blocks in practice, but more common the higher an athletes' level, given that they compete much less frequently. Athletes knowing the real times they run in those types of sessions is a whole different ballgame, as mental confidence from those numbers is a way bigger part of a sprinter and their coaches system than distance runners.
As for accurate timing, there are tons of portable electronic timing systems and any major college or pro level coach will have these on hand if they want them. Different ones function differently; some will give the runner the start command (or can be controlled), while others start with the athlete and as such pretty much give the same results as a hand-time (since the hand timer has to react to the gun, and the portable auto-timer has had reaction time removed from the equation. These were also readily available back in 2009ish, further compounding Drummond's suspicion claims.
-
-
-
- RE: Am not spam - in reply to JPS
-
Very rarely (personally i think its bs) you cannot get the same stimulation from a real competition in training, you are less stressed but practice trials are really underwhelming it's just not possible to PR there. I dont remember who it was, Ralph Mann or was it Frans Bosch, said sprinters typically run 0.2 to 0.3 faster in a true competitive setting due to several factors.
-
-
-
- RE: Am not spam - in reply to 0bi
-
He (whoever it was) was talking about 100m PBs and had data to back it up obviously... I will look up what book and author it was if I feel a bit less lazy later. :)
-
-
-
-
- RE: Am not spam - in reply to 0bi
-
Strava or it didn't happen.
-
-
-
- RE: Am not spam - in reply to The Overexplainer
-
The Overexplainer wrote:
To Rojo:
Sprinters are stupid. That is how things like this get passed off as really happening. You are stupid for being 45 and believing it. I mean that in the nicest way possible.
distance runners are just as dumb. Drew Hunter got like a 21 on his act
-
-
-
- RE: - in reply to rojo
-
What he means is he's run 9.79 just after he cycled. The trick is to do it after PCT.
-
-
-
- RE: Am not spam - in reply to notveganboi
-
notveganboi wrote:
The Overexplainer wrote:
To Rojo:
Sprinters are stupid. That is how things like this get passed off as really happening. You are stupid for being 45 and believing it. I mean that in the nicest way possible.
distance runners are just as dumb. Drew Hunter got like a 21 on his act
quick google search says the average ACT score is 20.8 and Drew scored 21. so he's above average.
-
-
-
- Zharnell Hughes - in reply to rojo
-
Reminds me of Galen Rupp's 10.9 or even Nick Willis' 11.11 lol
Training times are make believe. ESPECIALLY sprint times. Every decent distance runner I know claims to have run 23s for a last 200m rep or 11 flat for 100m etc.
Sprinters are no different, just the times get faster.
-
-
-
- RE: Am not spam - in reply to JPS
-
JPS wrote:
malmo wrote:
long slow runner wrote:
Know nothing about pro sprint training, but would they really have the full FAT system and gun set up in practice? If not, 9.79 is almost a meaningless number. Maybe they do once in a while.
Without a wind gauge + wired gun + wired blocks + photo timer ever thing is all talk.
Its no more or less talk than any other training people talk about (We don't ask people running 100 mile weeks or crazy workouts to prove it with GPS data, we see if they back it up at meets). The guy isn't asking for his practice marks to be certified by the IAAF for world rankings or proxy diamond league wins.
I was at a clinic many moons ago where Jon Drummond was the keynote talking about training Tyson Gay. I think this would have been around the winter of 2009 or 2010 (it was after Bolt had set the world record, but before Gay tested positive). Anyway, he claimed Gay had run a time trial 100m (alone) a week or two before USATFs or WCs and 3 different hand timer's had all clocked Gay at between 9.30 and 9.40 or thereabouts. His point of course was that he believed even after an FAT conversion, if Gay had had his best race he could have taken down Bolt and set the WR. This was also in the midst of stressing how important it is for a sprinter to believe they are unbeatable/the fastest, so who knows maybe this was an extension of those mind games. He certainly presented it as unquestionable fact though.
More to the point, I'd say a very legitimate proportion of 60m sprinters have hit their PR in practice, since that's a distance they will run full-on from blocks for that distance with fair regularity in practice. Its more rare to do full-blast 100m from blocks in practice, but more common the higher an athletes' level, given that they compete much less frequently. Athletes knowing the real times they run in those types of sessions is a whole different ballgame, as mental confidence from those numbers is a way bigger part of a sprinter and their coaches system than distance runners.
As for accurate timing, there are tons of portable electronic timing systems and any major college or pro level coach will have these on hand if they want them. Different ones function differently; some will give the runner the start command (or can be controlled), while others start with the athlete and as such pretty much give the same results as a hand-time (since the hand timer has to react to the gun, and the portable auto-timer has had reaction time removed from the equation. These were also readily available back in 2009ish, further compounding Drummond's suspicion claims.
Personally I don't fall for this bs but then you probably believe these sprinters are clean ?
-
-
-
- RE: Am not spam - in reply to ukathleticscoach
-
ukathleticscoach wrote:
JPS wrote:
malmo wrote:
long slow runner wrote:
Know nothing about pro sprint training, but would they really have the full FAT system and gun set up in practice? If not, 9.79 is almost a meaningless number. Maybe they do once in a while.
Without a wind gauge + wired gun + wired blocks + photo timer ever thing is all talk.
Its no more or less talk than any other training people talk about (We don't ask people running 100 mile weeks or crazy workouts to prove it with GPS data, we see if they back it up at meets). The guy isn't asking for his practice marks to be certified by the IAAF for world rankings or proxy diamond league wins.
I was at a clinic many moons ago where Jon Drummond was the keynote talking about training Tyson Gay. I think this would have been around the winter of 2009 or 2010 (it was after Bolt had set the world record, but before Gay tested positive). Anyway, he claimed Gay had run a time trial 100m (alone) a week or two before USATFs or WCs and 3 different hand timer's had all clocked Gay at between 9.30 and 9.40 or thereabouts. His point of course was that he believed even after an FAT conversion, if Gay had had his best race he could have taken down Bolt and set the WR. This was also in the midst of stressing how important it is for a sprinter to believe they are unbeatable/the fastest, so who knows maybe this was an extension of those mind games. He certainly presented it as unquestionable fact though.
More to the point, I'd say a very legitimate proportion of 60m sprinters have hit their PR in practice, since that's a distance they will run full-on from blocks for that distance with fair regularity in practice. Its more rare to do full-blast 100m from blocks in practice, but more common the higher an athletes' level, given that they compete much less frequently. Athletes knowing the real times they run in those types of sessions is a whole different ballgame, as mental confidence from those numbers is a way bigger part of a sprinter and their coaches system than distance runners.
As for accurate timing, there are tons of portable electronic timing systems and any major college or pro level coach will have these on hand if they want them. Different ones function differently; some will give the runner the start command (or can be controlled), while others start with the athlete and as such pretty much give the same results as a hand-time (since the hand timer has to react to the gun, and the portable auto-timer has had reaction time removed from the equation. These were also readily available back in 2009ish, further compounding Drummond's suspicion claims.
Personally I don't fall for this bs but then you probably believe these sprinters are clean ?
You don't believe that a coach would tell his athlete he ran 9.40 right before the US trials? Why not?
Nobody thinks he actually did it, including the coach and probably Gay.
And yes many coaches use electronic timing or more often, light gates, in training sessions. I've used them.
What don't you 'fall for'?
-
-
-
- FAT - in reply to ex-runner
-
Sprinters/football player 40 times often benefit from a rolling start. Meaning they are moving in the blocks before they take off. FAT, sensored blocks, and full stop/wait are required. Everything else is illegitimate.
-
-
-
- very feasible - in reply to rojo
-
if its true?? no idea
Is it feasible... of course!
We do this all the time and its super easy.
Some blocks have built in starter with reaction, we then use systems such as free-lap to record the run.
system is easy and cheap enough for a good squad
-
-
-
- RE: World's fastest man Zharnel Hughes - in reply to rojo
-
Is it the booby Brits who mention Hughes as the world's fastest man or Rojo?
Neither are correct.
He isn't.
-
-
-
- RE: Am not spam - in reply to The Overexplainer
-
The Overexplainer wrote:
To Rojo:
Sprinters are stupid. That is how things like this get passed off as really happening. You are stupid for being 45 and believing it. I mean that in the nicest way possible.
It's certainly feasible for a sprinter to do all-out time trials in practice, especially 100m since it isn't as taxing. He could have ran the 9.79 on a windy day, the coach would have added 0.1 for hand-timing, idk, we don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me at all for a sprinter to go faster in practice. You only get so many chances in races, but you're at practice 95% of the time + for some runners that don't do well under pressure or get race anxiety they may run faster in practice. Still referring to sprinters btw, this doesn't work with distance.
-