Your 100m Sprint Time?

Pherekydes

Regarding Garmin accuracy, and from their website:

Garmin GPS receivers are accurate to within 15 meters, on average.

Newer Garmin GPS receivers with WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) capability can improve accuracy to less than 3 meters on average.

Your 100m distance could be as much as 30m out! Probably within 10m, but this accuracy is not good enough. Enter a few Dublin graded league meets!

route9

Pherekydes wrote: »

Regarding Garmin accuracy, and from their website:



Your 100m distance could be as much as 30m out! Probably within 10m, but this accuracy is not good enough. Enter a few Dublin graded league meets!

You're kidding me!! So my 15-17 seconds could be for like 70m then?! Or 130m?

Hmm!

Pherekydes

route9 wrote: »

You're kidding me!! So my 15-17 seconds could be for like 70m then?! Or 130m?

Hmm!

Yep. The other guy's 11.9 could really be for 130m. :pac:

How about that, walshy?

Murph_D

Pherekydes wrote: »

How about that, walshy?

walshy's off to America. Case closed.

walshb

Murph_D wrote: »

walshy's off to America. Case closed.

I don't jump ship that easily.

walshb

Pherekydes wrote: »

Yep. The other guy's 11.9 could really be for 130m. :pac:

How about that, walshy?

It's 11.8. I prefer to be precise!

route9

Pherekydes wrote: »

Yep. The other guy's 11.9 could really be for 130m. :pac:

How about that, walshy?

Will be hitting the track soon to check. Would be comical if my 16-17 seconds turned into like 25 seconds

Pherekydes

walshb wrote: »

It's 11.8. I prefer to be precise!

Hey, my bad! The 11.8 may be precise, but the 100m is most definitely not!

Chivito550

Pherekydes wrote: »

Hey, my bad! The 11.8 may be precise, but the 100m is most definitely not!

He actually said that it was in fact 11.9, not the 11.8 he originally posted. Now if we could only find out if it was 90m or 93m he covered...

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

He actually said that it was in fact 11.9, not the 11.8 he originally posted. Now if we could only find out if it was 90m or 93m he covered...

My bad, then. Apologies, Pherekydes!

vanderlyle

Chivito550 wrote: »

Santry, Irishtown, and Greystones are open to the public. Leixlip isn't but if you contact Le Cheile they would probably accommodate you. Tallaght is not open to the public. ALSAA is technically for members, but they allow you to pay to use it as a guest (though it depends who you get at the desk) Dreadful track though, don't use it.

Donore have a 300m track and do not allow any non members to use it. No use for running a 100m anyway.

Greystones is 2e per session, Santry 8e, ALSAA a crazy 10e, and Irishtown 5.20e.

That's the lot. 6 400m synthetic tracks in the greater Dublin area, 2 of which are private, and one which is in dreadful condition. Compare that to the 4-5 tracks in a 2 mile radius of each other in a small part of Paris, all free, and open to the public, and served by excellent public transportation. Discussion for a different thread I guess.

Still p1ssed off that UCD let their track decay to such an extent, though I'm not living near it anymore. It's a mixed use facility now, that is, part car park, part construction materials dumping ground. I know it has been covered before on different threads but years later it still grinds my gears.

Speaking of Donore, don't they have a straight 100m on one side of the track?

Joeface

walshb wrote: »

You're not Paul Hession by any chance, are you?

That's harsh now in fairness his Irish record is 10.18 , which is pretty fly for a white guy . and a totally racist comment from me

walshb

Joeface wrote: »

That's harsh now in fairness his Irish record is 10.18 , which is pretty fly for a white guy . and a totally racist comment from me

That's right. I was more coming from the angle that today I reckon Hession struggles to break 11...:)

ahnowbrowncow

Chivito550 wrote: »

He actually said that it was in fact 11.9, not the 11.8 he originally posted. Now if we could only find out if it was 90m or 93m he covered...

It was probably closer to 110m.

You've a pretty big chip on your shoulder that you could do with losing.

pconn062

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

It was probably closer to 110m.

You've a pretty big chip on your shoulder that you could do with losing.

So it was 11.8/9 for give or take 110m?

ahnowbrowncow

pconn062 wrote: »

So it was 11.8/9 for give or take 110m?

What's it to you?

I was obviously being facetious. Its just as likely to be 110m as 90m

Pherekydes

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

It was probably closer to 110m.

Where is this 110m football pitch?

If you can run 11.9 for 110m you should switch sports immediately. You should contact John Coghlan (the sprint coach, not the son of Eamonn) before the week's out. Your talent and his coaching would probably see you qualifying for Rio, or, at the very least, Amsterdam.

pconn062

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

What's it to you?

I was obviously being facetious. Its just as likely to be 110m as 90m

Bit touchy aren't you? You're the one who brought it up in the first place, I was just genuinely interested in the details. Whatever though, keep on truckin!

Clearlier

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

What's it to you?

I was obviously being facetious. Its just as likely to be 110m as 90m

I'm kind of curious to know what time you would turn out given that you train for field sports and run the odd 5k but I'd completely understand if you weren't comfortable sharing it given this thread. I reckon that I would have been in or around 12 seconds for 100m on the track 20 years ago which would be in or around your 11.8 but I never ran one so I'll never know.

ahnowbrowncow

Pherekydes wrote: »

Where is this 110m football pitch?

If you can run 11.9 for 110m you should switch sports immediately. You should contact John Coghlan (the sprint coach, not the son of Eamonn) before the week's out. Your talent and his coaching would probably see you qualifying for Rio, or, at the very least, Amsterdam.

You don't know much about GAA do you? Plenty of pitches are over 120m in length.

I'm not touchy, just a bit fed up with the condescending posts in here, thought the athletics forum was supposed to be friendly and welcoming? Obviously not.

Chivito550

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

It was probably closer to 110m.

You've a pretty big chip on your shoulder that you could do with losing.

Ah yeh. Fastest NRL player (professional league, explosive sport) can only go 11.1 in a proper race on track, wearing spikes. But yeh, random GAA/Soccer player in Ireland can bash out an 11.9 on grass on an oversized course. See you in Rio pal!

ahnowbrowncow

Chivito550 wrote: »

Ah yeh. Fastest NRL player (professional league, explosive sport) can only go 11.1 in a proper race on track, wearing spikes. But yeh, random GAA/Soccer player in Ireland can bash out an 11.9 on grass on an oversized course. See you in Rio pal!

Good man, I can taste the bitterness

Pherekydes

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

You don't know much about GAA do you? Plenty of pitches are over 120m in length.

My bad. I thought football meant soccer. Maybe should have been a bit more specific. GAA pitch would be more descriptive.

So this distance could be 120m? :cool:

Clearlier

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

How did you measure the 100m?

I've done it a few times on a football pitch by setting my Garmin to 100m intervals so it stops the clock when I've ran 100m, not sure how accurate it is.
Lowest I've got was 11.8 and probably averaging around 12.5s -13s.

Would love to go to a track and time it properly.

So, this was asnowbrowncow's original post. Describes what he did, how it was measured, says that he doesn't know if it's accurate and that he'd love to time it properly.

A bit of encouragement rather than potshots wouldn't go astray. Athletics in Ireland would be an awful lot stronger if we were able to get some of guys playing GAA to also do athletics.

If we were sitting in the pub in front of each other the multiple misunderstandings wouldn't have happened.

walshb

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

thought the athletics forum was supposed to be friendly and welcoming? Obviously not.

Are you for real?:P

Chivito550

Clearlier wrote: »

So, this was asnowbrowncow's original post. Describes what he did, how it was measured, says that he doesn't know if it's accurate and that he'd love to time it properly.

A bit of encouragement rather than potshots wouldn't go astray. Athletics in Ireland would be an awful lot stronger if we were able to get some of guys playing GAA to also do athletics.

If we were sitting in the pub in front of each other the multiple misunderstandings wouldn't have happened.

Yeh agree for the most part. To be fair, my initial response was simply there was no way he ran 11.8 for 100m on grass. Which is true, he did not. Unless 100m is on a track and timed properly it is meaningless, and almost pointless even posting it up.

Then it all descended into chaos. Generally happens when walshy is on the prowl.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh agree for the most part. To be fair, my initial response was simply there was no way he ran 11.8 for 100m on grass. Which is true, he did not. Unless 100m is on a track and timed properly it is meaningless, and almost pointless even posting it up.
)

It may be unlikeley, but where do you get being so sure that it's not true? For all you know it could have been a lower time, or a longer distance that he did.

You being so sure that it's not true is mainly based off it being on grass (and as far as I know the poster didn't detail the quality of the surface), nor detail if wind was a factor. Even if wind was not an aiding factor it is still possible that the poster hit 11.8-11.9 on grass over 100 metres.

You are basically calling him a spoofer because the time does not sit well with you. 11.8 seconds. Big deal. It's fast, but nothing extraordinary.

Not sure why any poster would spoof about it. As he said, he is not sure how accurate the time/distance is. But to be so certain that what he said (casually claims) is not possible is puzzling.


Edit: If the poster has came out and said that the time was off or the distnace was not 100 metres (less than) then dismiss my post.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

It may be unlikeley, but where do you get being so sure that it's not true? For all you know it could have been a lower time, or a longer distance that he did.

You being so sure that it's not true is mainly based off it being on grass (and as far as I know the poster didn't detail the quality of the surface), nor detail iof wind was a factor.

You are basically calling him a spoofer because the time does not sit well with you. 11.8 seconds. Big deal. It's fast, but nothing extraordinary.

No, that is a false accusation. I don't care if somebody is quicker than me. I'm not a quick 100m runner, and I've never trained for the distance specifically. There are so many faster than me. I couldn't give a toss.

What I am saying is that for a distance so short, unless the time is recorded on a track, from a standing or block start, and using electronic timing, with wind readings, then it is completely irrelevant. The distance is too short to be allowing these wild variables to be included. It's the same as somebody claiming a 400m PB off a relay split (which I tried to do once until I was put in my place), you don't run the full 400m sometimes, have a running start, and is likely hand timed.

Sure you can claim PBs for longer distances off Garmins if you want (though you shouldn't) but over short distances this is 100% never going to be taken seriously.

If he runs on a track, in a race, and runs sub 12, great. Good for him. But the only times that matter in sprints are those on a track. That is simply something that is indisputable.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

No, that is a false accusation. I don't care if somebody is quicker than me. I'm not a quick 100m runner, and I've never trained for the distance specifically. There are so many faster than me. I couldn't give a toss.

What I am saying is that for a distance so short, unless the time is recorded on a track, from a standing or block start, and using electronic timing, with wind readings, then it is completely irrelevant. The distance is too short to be allowing these wild variables to be included. It's the same as somebody claiming a 400m PB off a relay split (which I tried to do once until I was put in my place), you don't run the full 400m sometimes, have a running start, and is likely hand timed.

Sure you can claim PBs for longer distances off Garmins if you want (though you shouldn't) but over short distances this is 100% never going to be taken seriously.

If he runs on a track, in a race, and runs sub 12, great. Good for him. But the only times that matter in sprints are those on a track. That is simply something that is indisputable.

I didn't mean to imply that you were pi$$ed that the time trumped yours. I meant that you felt he was spoofing.

You seem to be claiming that only a track can be taken as gospel for these races? Ok, for anything to be official they need to be verified and recorded via a set of rules and regulations. I get this. That still doesn't make the poster's casual claim to be false. You need to see this. You dismissing it as not true is a bit insultinng to the poster. It might not be true, but it might well be. He may well have covered a 100 metre distance, or less, or more in 11.9 seconds, or less or more. I guess it's alll in the way one dismisses somethiong.....

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I didn't mean to imply that you were pi$$ed that the time trumped yours. I meant that you felt he was spoofing.

You seem to be claiming that only a track can be taken as gospel for these races? Ok, for anything to be official they need to be verified and recorded via a set of rules and regulations. I get this. That still doesn't make the poster's casual claim to be false. You need to see this. You dismissing it as not true is a bit insultinng to the poster. It might not be true, but it might well be. He may well have covered a 100 metre distance, or less, or more in 11.9 seconds, or less or more. I guess it's alll in the way one dismisses somethiong.....

He may have, but given the amount of variables I have mentioned it is 1) extremely unlikely, 2) can never be taken seriously, or 3) can never be proven or validated.

As far as 100m is concerned, if you don't run it on an officially measured course (track) with adequate timing, block start, with wind readings, then it is as if it did not happen. That is the reality of it.