Whoa, Nick Symmonds' training is working. Ran an 11.48 unofficial

He ran 11.73 according to his instagram. Of course it was hand timed again. When I record the video I get 12.00 again from the frame where the gun smoke appears to him crossing the line. I got the exact same time for the first race (as did Bad Wiggins). No wind readings either but they had north west winds those days and the track faces north west, so high probability there were tail winds. Here is the race.

https://otcall-comers.runnerspace.com/eprofile.php?event_id=158&do=videos&video_id=280919

Well, if the tape can be relied upon, that gives probably 12.2 electric with RT, without mention of wind.

Speaking of wind, there was a good wind in SOME direction, look at the smoke from the starter’s pistol. Can’t tell if it was exactly a tailwind, but it’s pretty sure there was zero headwind component.

That puts him right where I expected, 12.2 assuming no wind, maybe 12.2-12.3 taking into account some tailwind.

The tape should be dead on plus or minus .03. They have the perfect camera angle to get times off. It basically works like a timing system videoing at 30fps instead of 500-600fps. You record the video find the frame where the gun went off and then find the exact frame where his torso is at the line.

“10m specialist”, lol great handle?

I can say with a fairly strong degree of accuracy that IF this HAD been an FAT timed race, he would have run probably an 11.99, but there may be enough of a variance from my methods that maybe he ran around a 12.15 (I can make no claims about the wind reading possibilities).

Furthermore, I have the winner running an 11.42.

Intriguingly, I also clocked the last ten meter split of the winner at about 1.066 and Symmonds at around 1.032. The winner was easing up as he was getting to the line, so that might make sense, but I'm sure there's likely some inaccuracy involved there. It does give some insight, though, I think.

Can I also be frank? Symmonds is NOT breaking 11 this year. And, to be fair, not in any year....but I can read tea leaves wrong often. He acts like he's been "training", but...has he? His start is awful. His form is cardboard and not changing for the better. Does he even lift, bro? I don't think so... Which maybe keeps him from injury, but it sure isn't going to give him a serious shot at breaking 11 HAND, let alone FAT. He isn't taking this seriously at ALL, so I don't know why he acts like he is.

Symmonds isn’t, and never was, a sprinter. For him to switch gears at all would take a minimum of a year of solid training, and even then the benefits would only be tiny, IMO. He simply lacks the wiring.

I can understand that he wouldn’t want to make that type of commitment for that trivial benefit.

His aim to break 11 was either just a fun shot, or a gross overestimation of his ability/gross underestimation of how fast a 11-second 100m is.

I did the same thing to the first race, and I clocked Symmonds at 12.02 in that one. Practically identical, but I'd argue that he actually did improve marginally in the second race (at least in terms of time, wind condition information notwithstanding).

I clocked the winner in the first race at 11.02, which the hand timing was reportedly 10.7. So I think the hand times are actually standing up fairly well in relation to conversions (basically .3, perhaps as already mentioned).

You're right, they COULD time their sprints with even a fake version of an FAT system that would give a fairly close approximation of FAT results. It would be better than hand timing.

You seem to know a lot about sprinting. How far under 11 did you get?

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Symmonds isn’t, and never was, a sprinter.

You should go race Symmonds at the last all-comers meet

I haven't seen his training plan but looking at his progress from his when this thread started to now it is obvious he hasn't made progress. That brings up questions about how serious he was about this. Is his training actually geared to sprinting or is it long runs/jogging with a few block sessions thrown in based on his youtube posts? Is he doing the max velocity/ speed endurance training that is typical to training for the 100m or did he just think he would automatically run sub 11 if he learned to use blocks?

new to this wrote:

You seem to know a lot about sprinting. How far under 11 did you get?

Not far enough??

team Unruly Bush wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Symmonds isn’t, and never was, a sprinter.

You should go race Symmonds at the last all-comers meet

Lol if I was out there, I probably would, but not to race him specifically. And only if I lived within 10minutes of the track, otherwise it’s too much of a hassle for a few seconds.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

team Unruly Bush wrote:

You should go race Symmonds at the last all-comers meet

Lol if I was out there, I probably would, but not to race him specifically. And only if I lived within 10minutes of the track, otherwise it’s too much of a hassle for a few seconds.

I'm thinking about going to do exactly that, but that's going to depend on whether or not my hamstring blows out in the workout I have in two days. If I make it through that, I'm seriously considering making the trip up there.

He has probably made a bit of progress, maybe from an unwashed 12.5 to 12.2...which is to say, not much at all. Basic gains. But no progress was to be expected. Sprinting is something you can train only if you have the equipment to make use of the training.

Can a trained and healthy middle-distance runner substantially improve their FAT 100m from blocks? Yes. But it takes a re-working and complete change in training (which would take a long time) and a certain kind of 800m athlete, because they are not all the same. Symmonds is not the sprint-type, at all.

Some fat fvck sitting on the couch could be faster over the 100m than Symmonds with a bit of training, if he had the right physical equipment. This is not to knock Symmonds at all, he’s just not a sprinter.

Like I said, hats off to him for doing this at all—IMO it puts him a cut above others who don’t. I still wish him the best and I hope he stays healthy.

I don't buy that. You dont need "equipment ", until/unless you've maxed yourself out largely in the more standard stuff and you need to start scrapping the bottom of the barrel to get to the limits of your genetic potential. I think Symmonds was going out on "long runs" still and I think he thought that still counted for sprint "training".

Unless you consider standard free weights as "equipment" (I don't), Symmonds probably had a TON of room for improvement if he had actually took sprint training seriously.

His training wasn't serious. He had not progressed at all since the video he posted 5 months ago. Also he replied in a youtube comment that he doesn't run curves because of his ankle. 100 meter runners should be running 150's and 120's occasionally. His speed is just not there. 3.22 30 fly. I bet if you asked him right now he couldn't break 54 with that speed unless I am missing something. 12.0 second 100 is 54 400. Maybe with his super endurance that gives him 53.

11.53ht this week I get 11.77 when using the video to derive a poor mans FAT time. Please some one double check my work. He made a big improvement this week. He is definitely in the 11's now. His 11.48 with the free lap using the timing method he used should be around 11.78 so he finally caught up to his time from 5 months ago. He had a much better start this week and I thought his posture was much better in the last 30. Would have been nice to get a wind reading.

He should reach out to timing companies/ organizations with timing systems as the CEO of Run Gum in the Portland area to see if any of them will provide some fully automatic timing with a wind gauge for his last race.

Here is the race

https://otcall-comers.runnerspace.com/eprofile.php?event_id=158&do=videos&video_id=281744

I've got him (with my own version of a poor man's FAT) at 11.79 and I got the winner in 10.96. I know FAT is better but they seem to be pretty accurate with their hand times. If they gave him 11.5, that totally fits with just a flat .30 slice off. If they gave the winner a 10.7, that's even more proof.

coach double u wrote:

Nick ran 48.53 in 2015 for 400. At that time he was probably in about 22.40 shape for 200 and therefore about 11.20ish shape for 100.

I would assume he currently can not break 50.00 for 400. If he could even run 50.00 then for a runner like him that would put him in the range of 23.10 and 11.55ish.

He will never break 11.00. His muscles do not have the ability to relax fast enough.

Springteezer et al, these conversions are such that you'd expect them of someones equally developed potential as the time being converted from. So they are likely to be slightly generous. Maybe that 11.55 is more like 11.75 FAT. Whatever the case he won't break 11.00 the way he runs.

It's easy to see that he's too musclebound, but that makes you think he's too big. He's not too big. He carries too much tension and that makes him appear musclebound. Too much tension.

He doesn't have the stretch-reflex capabilities needed to run as fast as he really wants to. His bounding is probably nowhere near where it needs to be. Gotta retrain those golgi organs. He can't move his limbs fast enough while holding onto excess tension. It ruins the reactive capacity, which sprinters live and die by.