Challenge layed down you guys up for it??

daveyc21

Thought this might interest some guys and will be interesting to see how guys from different sports match up in terms of speed...

Taken from Facebook:

THINK YOU'RE FAST? PROVE IT! - We are issuing a public challenge/bit of fun to any non-member. All you need to do is run faster than 2.90 seconds over 20 metres and take first place on our record board. The first person to do this will get 1 months FREE membership in the gym, a tub of protein and an Ironside Hoodie. Go to the link provided to accept the challenge and find out details.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ironside-Gymnasium-Blackrock/154523607951546

The gym has a brower laser timing system (same one used in the NFL 40 yard) on an iaaf international standard tartan sprint track so its gonna give a really accurate picture of how fast guys are.

Could be very cool...

jugger0

That is really really class! i would go if i lived in Dublin fo sho, i wish my gym did cool stuff like that... but they never could because most members arent actually physically capable of sprinting.

bubbleking

sub 2.90 is lightning quick

daveyc21

A guy in the gym has ran 2.95 and we have 3 guys currently under 3 secs so it is possible

Hanley

daveyc21 wrote: »

A guy in the gym has ran 2.95 and we have 3 guys currently under 3 secs so it is possible

Is it timed from when you start or off a buzzer? Ie, does that include reaction time?

Gandalph

Do you run through the laser? Or do you start were it starts?

daveyc21

Its a pressure sensor that starts on release of pressure so it a pure speed test. Takes guys reaction time out of it.

daveyc21

Gandalph wrote: »

Do you run through the laser? Or do you start were it starts?

Its a pressure sensor at the start and you run through a laser gate at the end of the 20m.

Gandalph

Thats pretty fast, you would want someone light on their feet, maybe a footballer

Ouchette

No separate time for the ladies? Hardly seems fair.

daveyc21

Ouchette wrote: »

No separate time for the ladies? Hardly seems fair.

Good idea because the challenge is to beat the 1st place on the gym record board 2.95 we hadn't even thought about that. I would imagine 3.2 would be representative of a similar achievement for a female athlete. Considering the slowest time on the top ten sprint board is 3.16

Hammar

It would take me about 5 seconds to run that....

bubbleking

fastest Iv ever seen is 2.79. Yes its possible but redic difficult

daveyc21

bubbleking wrote: »

fastest Iv ever seen is 2.79. Yes its possible but redic difficult

It is difficult alright I suppose it wouldnt be much of a challenge otherwise. I would be more interested to see how guys from different sports fare against each other. I pretty sure we have two guys in here that could break it in the near future and given we are only a medium sized gym and there are a million people within 10 miles of the gym surely there is at least 50-100 guys capable of doing it and a lot more who could get very close. I am running 3.1 training as a powerlifter close to 90kg at 5'9" so not very conjucive to sprinting but still not a million miles away!!

Gandalph

I used to do 100m internationally and I dont know if I would make 2.90 (running through it yes but starting no), my starts were'nt amazing though, you need a nimble football player or a bulky rugby player with enough leg strength to propel him 20m

TommyKnocker

I assumed it was from a running start. Clock starts when you step on a pressure sensor mat and ends when you pass through the laser 20m further on.

Wonder what a top athlete would cover the first 20m of a 100m sprint in?

daveyc21

Gandalph wrote: »

I used to do 100m internationally and I dont know if I would make 2.90 (running through it yes but starting no), my starts were'nt amazing though, you need a nimble football player or a bulky rugby player with enough leg strength to propel him 20m

Certainly pop in and give it a run though would be interesting to see what you got with the sprinting background

daveyc21

TommyKnocker wrote: »

I assumed it was from a running start. Clock starts when you step on a running mat and ends when you pass through the laser 20m further on.

Wonder what a top athlete would cover the first 20m of a 100m sprint in?

Not quite clock starts when you release a pressure pad and stops when you pass through a laser gate at the finish. A top athlete lets take Usain Bolt. for his world record 100m time he covered the first 20m in 2.705 taking reaction time out of the equation. What this means is that if you can stay within around 2m of bolt for 20m you would break 2.90. I have a sprint session later and I will film a couple of the guys in action to give you guys an idea of how it works.

Gandalph

daveyc21 wrote: »

Certainly pop in and give it a run though would be interesting to see what you got with the sprinting background

Ah Im 1 of these mugs thats always injured. As for Bolt, he may cover that in in 1st 20 meters but he fastest 20 meters is a different story. I used to cover 60m in 7.2 seconds when i was younger so break that down in even splits your talking 2.4, and Im gonna take a wild guess and say Bolt might just be that little bit faster than I was

bubbleking

from the data Iv seen the top inter county football players go sub 3 seconds, the elite go sub 2.90 and the odd freak goes sub 2.80.

power athletes tend to be the best - 5'9 - 6 foot and built like tanks

bubbleking

Gandalph wrote: »

Ah Im 1 of these mugs thats always injured. As for Bolt, he may cover that in in 1st 20 meters but he fastest 20 meters is a different story. I used to cover 60m in 7.2 seconds when i was younger so break that down in even splits your talking 2.4, and Im gonna take a wild guess and say Bolt might just be that little bit faster than I was

not only that but Bolt slows down less than other sprinters. Because our Anaerobic system is limited we can only sustain an all out effort for roughly 6-7 seconds.

Where Bolt is such a freak s that he can continue to run fast even when his body switches to an alternate energy system. This is why most international races are close over the first 60-70m with the last 30m deciding the race

daveyc21

Gandalph wrote: »

Ah Im 1 of these mugs thats always injured. As for Bolt, he may cover that in in 1st 20 meters but he fastest 20 meters is a different story. I used to cover 60m in 7.2 seconds when i was younger so break that down in even splits your talking 2.4, and Im gonna take a wild guess and say Bolt might just be that little bit faster than I was

7.2 would put you at around 3.2 for 20m given a number of 60m splits I have looked at. Taking out reaction time certainly 3.1 or slightly below. So again not a million miles away

Hanley

....and obviously I want to take a crack at this!!

COH

bubbleking wrote: »

power athletes tend to be the best - 5'9 - 6 foot and built like tanks

Hmmmm... if only I had any cardiovascular ability

Hanley

COH wrote: »

Hmmmm... if only I had any cardiovascular ability could walk

FYP.

bubbleking

COH wrote: »

Hmmmm... if only I had any cardiovascular ability

Cardiovascular ability is pretty non essential for sprinting - (especially 1 sprint)

COH

bubbleking wrote: »

Cardiovascular ability is pretty non essential for sprinting - (especially 1 sprint)

Yeah but if I have to run for a bus to get there I'm f*cked

squod

Do it with a TV under me arm if someone makes a noise like a Garda car.

daveyc21

As promised a sample of how this works

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZPU8pGvXzE

Mellor

Gandalph wrote: »

Thats pretty fast, you would want someone light on their feet, maybe a footballer

Or a sprinter

Gandalph wrote: »

I used to do 100m internationally and I dont know if I would make 2.90 (running through it yes but starting no), my starts were'nt amazing though, you need a nimble football player or a bulky rugby player with enough leg strength to propel him 20m

I'd expect most people to beat 2.9 when running through it. Wouldn't exactly relate to a quick 100m time

Gandalph

Or a sprinter

Most footballers are built for 20m sprints, alot of sprinters havnt even started running come 20m. Sprinters shift slower through the gears but have those extra 1-2 of them.

I'd expect most people to beat 2.9 when running through it. Wouldn't exactly relate to a quick 100m time

true that

daveyc21

I dont know about that I havent seen a single non sprinter being able to technically start and accelerate well.

TheZ

"I am not as fast as I once was from A to B but I no longer start from A."

I think Beckenbaeur said this.

daveyc21

Just a quick reminder that this will be taking place this weekend for anyone who is interested

Mellor

Gandalph wrote: »

Most footballers are built for 20m sprints, alot of sprinters havnt even started running come 20m. Sprinters shift slower through the gears but have those extra 1-2 of them.

Can you post something to back that up?

I I don't doubt that 20m sprints are a huge part of football (and other field sports) but I still think the average sprinter beats the average footballer.
Obviously sprinters have to build up to top speed but I doubt that they accellerate slower than other athletes

Hanley

Mellor wrote: »

Can you post something to back that up?

I I don't doubt that 20m sprints are a huge part of football (and other field sports) but I still think the average sprinter beats the average footballer.
Obviously sprinters have to build up to top speed but I doubt that they accellerate slower than other athletes

In my head there's something saying there might be some validity to it. Look at the characteristics of a top sprinter and long stride length will be one of them. Longer stride = slower turnover = slower acceleration?

Gandalph has said he's sprinted internationally, so assuming that's true I'd like to hear more on why sprinters tend to be slower over 20m as well

Mellor

Interesting point, but I'm not actually sure if thats accurate. I remember reading a bit on stride. It mentioned sprinters having the longest stride but it also said that strike rate is pretty constant. It varies from person to person but everyone tends to have their own rate they more or less stick to. As their speed changes its the stride that adjusts.

It doesn't of course disprove your theory as one place on the et isn't a concrete source. Nor does it tell up anything about a natural sprinters natural strike rate. But I'd imagine that if there's a trend sprinters tend towards high strike rate.

daveyc21

Good work by Brian who got closest to the 2.90 with a 2.98. Not quite there but was still a very quick time...

daveyc21

From any evidence I have seen sprinters are far and away light years ahead of other sports in terms of speed which is not surprising considering all they train for is speed. I was a decent sprinter but exceptional by no means and was quicker than a couple of current international rugby wingers in a straight sprint when run against them. The only exception really is the NFL where the fastest guys are exceptional sprinters some of the fastest guys are also genetically gifted sprinters. I'm pretty sure the fastest 40 yarders also happened to have ran low 10's in 100m races. I doubt any footballer would come close as they tend to be more like middle distance runners due to the km's they put up in games.

Gandalph

Mellor wrote: »

Can you post something to back that up?

I I don't doubt that 20m sprints are a huge part of football (and other field sports) but I still think the average sprinter beats the average footballer.
Obviously sprinters have to build up to top speed but I doubt that they accellerate slower than other athletes

I cant say I have any proof really, I had a book once that explained this but I either lost this or got stolen in school years back. (High-Performance Sports Conditioning, Bill Foran). He had maths equations in there for accellerating in sprints, it says how the smaller lighter counterpart has the advantage on picking up speed quicker.

The average top class sprinter being 6'3' (The smallest Iv ever seen being around 5'9'[a bit smaller than the average footballer], your talking about your Maurice Greene and Leonard Scott both being 2 of the fastest ever over 20-30m, scott being an ex footballer). Footballers being smaller and more nimble = quicker strides which in turn leads to quicker accelleration which also leads to quicker max speed and dont forget we are not using blocks in this challenge to allow sprinters use their more muscular powerful frames to propel forward.

If you are to say that both sprinters and footballers being the same height/weight then its a different story. It just all comes down to the individuals type of fast twitch.

Im only specifically talking about this challenge to be honest, no blocks, standing starts etc, I just personnally think its suited to a footballer than an athlete. 20m is a whole different sport than anything else on track, Iv seen mosterous fat people cover 20m lightning quick haha

Hanley

Gandalph wrote: »

I cant say I have any proof really, I had a book once that explained this but I either lost this or got stolen in school years back. (High-Performance Sports Conditioning, Bill Foran). He had maths equations in there for accellerating in sprints, it says how the smaller lighter counterpart has the advantage on picking up speed quicker.

I'm pretty sure I have a copy at home. I'll have a look and see if i can find what you're talking about.

TheZ

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/08/beijing-2008-men-100m-race-analysis.html

This shows usain bolt at 2.87s through 20m in his 100m Olympic win which is same as Ben Johnson in 1988 see below

http://speedendurance.com/2009/08/06/40-yard-dash-times-for-usain-bolt-and-ben-johnson/#

Mellor

I imagine there is a huge difference between his 20m time as part of a 100m race and his 20m potential. For the reasons mentioned above by Gandalk and Hanley such as stride, strikerate and how efficient they need to be. Plus dropping your chest for the finish.

I'm sure they could do a faster 20m split if they specifically tried, although it would be inefficient for a 100m race.