Your 100m Sprint Time?

Chivito550 · 19-10-2015 11:08AM

walshb wrote: »

Like I said, one single post with no information apart from a grass pitch. We need a lot more before dismissing it. Was it wind aided? If so, heavily or lightly? Maybe there is some very valid reasons that saw that time.

I'll ask again, what is so extraordinary with 11.8 seconds? If the person running it supplies us with details and facts, then I think the time is well worth looking at.

You are the character here. Dismissing it so certainly without knowing Jack sh1t! It's too much of a know-all attitude!

The bloke who posted it seems to be running around 18 and a half minutes for 5k. Let's be honest, hardly the type of calibre of runner who could blast out an 11.8 on a grass pitch, probably in runners, off no training.

Notwork Error · 19-10-2015 11:12AM

Maybe they did or didn't run it but I'd doubt it on grass and using a Garmin to measure it, only way to find out for sure is to run a race. I once ran a 2:48 mile by garmin and the shorter the distance, the less accurate it is.

This is what you're dealing with

walshb · 19-10-2015 11:13AM

Chivito550 wrote: »

The bloke who posted it seems to be running around 18 and a half minutes for 5k. Let's be honest, hardly the type of calibre of runner who could blast out an 11.8 on a grass pitch, probably in runners, off no training.

I am not sure the comparison to his 5 k time is accurate. Your 5 k time is a deal slower, no? 18:30 for 5 k is a very decent time. Not for a club runner. Are you saying that because you run 18:30 for 5 k that means you cannot run sub 12 for 100? I ask because I want to be clear on what you mean.

I will wait for the poster to get back. I am not ready to dismiss the claim with such certainty. I'll await some more information.

iAcesHigh · 19-10-2015 11:14AM

Notwork Error wrote: »

Maybe they did or didn't run it but I'd doubt it on grass and using a Garmin to measure it, only way to find out for sure is to run a race. I once ran a 2:48 mile by garmin and the shorter the distance, the less accurate it is.

This is what you're dealing with

Not getting into arguments but boy, I never got something like this using 910xt...

walshb · 19-10-2015 11:19AM

I assume the claim that Jonah Lomu weighing 18-19 stones running circa 11 seconds for 100 was also BS?

Chivito550 · 19-10-2015 11:21AM

walshb wrote: »

I am not sure the comparison to his 5 k time is accurate. Your 5 k time is a deal slower, no? 18:30 for 5 k is a very decent time. Not for a club runner. Are you saying that because you run 18:30 for 5 k that means you cannot run sub 12 for 100? I ask because I want to be clear on what you mean.

I will wait for the poster to get back. I am not ready to dismiss the claim with such certainty. I'll await some more information.

The guy clearly trains as a distance runner, and these times are what he manages in events he trains for. So to think he could perform at a much higher standard in an event he does not train for is not exactly believable.

Notwork Error · 19-10-2015 11:21AM

iAcesHigh wrote: »

Not getting into arguments but boy, I never got something like this using 910xt...

Yeah, it's a bit of an exaggerated way of showing that Garmins aren't precise but just trying to get the point across and as Chivito mentioned, a few metres make a big difference over 100m

Chivito550 · 19-10-2015 11:23AM

walshb wrote: »

I assume the claim that Jonah Lomu weighing 18-19 stones running circa 11 seconds for 100 was also BS?

If he ran that in a 100m race then it's not BS. If it's hand timed off a running start, like so many people do, then it's total BS.

walshb · 19-10-2015 11:27AM

Chivito550 wrote: »

The guy clearly trains as a distance runner, and these times are what he manages in events he trains for. So to think he could perform at a much higher standard in an event he does not train for is not exactly believable.

I still cannot see what is so extraordinary with 11.8 seconds. Sprinting is the one distance where physiology and natural talent/leg speed are so very needed. You can never train to have these. You can train to improve these, but you either have it or you don't. Not possible that he has natural leg speed and power? That is why with specific training and dedication he could be low 11s.

We have women in this country running well below 12. Yes, elite athletes, but still women, that are at a huge disadvantage to begin with due to their sex.

I find the dismissal odd. Particluarly for a 100 meter claim. Had he claimed he ran a mile in 4 mins 10 on a grass pitch off very little training I would be a lot more skeptical. This is a flat out sprint. 12-13 seconds of hard effort, and for a naturally talented male with natural leg speed this is not at all odd or unbelievable. 11.8 seconds may well be explainable.

For it to be actually believed it needs to be ran correctly over the correct distance with decent timing. I agree with this. My point is more about the dismissal that it's possible.

Chivito550 · 19-10-2015 11:38AM

walshb wrote: »

I still cannot see what is so extraordinary with 11.8 seconds. Sprinting is the one distance where physiology and natural talent/leg speed are so very needed. You can never train to have these. You can train to improve these, but you either have it or you don't. Not possible that he has natural leg speed and power? That is why with specific training and dedication he could be low 11s.

We have women in this country running well below 12. Yes, elite athletes, but still women, that are at a huge disadvantage to begin with due to their sex.

I find the dismissal odd. Particluarly for a 100 meter claim. Had he claimed he ran a mile in 4 mins 10 on a grass pitch off very little training I would be a lot more skeptical. This is a flat out sprint. 12-13 seconds of hard effort, and for a naturally talenetd male with natural leg speed this is not at all odd or unbelievable. 11.8 seconds may well be explainable.

For it to be actually believed it needs to be ran correctly over the correct distance with decent timing. I agree with this. My point is more about the dismissal that it's possible.

I never dismissed it was possible. Of course it is. Heaps of people run faster than that. What I am saying is that this particular guy did not run it. Garmin distances over 100m is so laughable. It could be off by say 8m. And hand timing over 100m is useless. It is meaningless. And if there is a running start, then this further invalidates any sort of time.

Onto the track is the only way of knowing. Anything else is generally BS.

walshb · 19-10-2015 11:40AM

Chivito550 wrote: »

I never dismissed it was possible. Of course it is. Heaps of people run faster than that. What I am saying is that this particular guy did not run it. Garmin distances over 100m is so laughable. It could be off by say 8m. And hand timing over 100m is useless. It is meaningless. And if there is a running start, then this further invalidates any sort of time.

Onto the track is the only way of knowing. Anything else is generally BS.

Fair enough. I realise that you didn't say that it wasn't possible. But it kind of came across as you dismissing him a bit too easily. The poster himself seems to realise that it's not gospel. His post implies that he knows it's not a verified time.

Clearlier · 19-10-2015 11:45AM

walshb wrote: »

I still cannot see what is so extraordinary with 11.8 seconds. Sprinting is the one distance where physiology and natural talent/leg speed are so very needed. You can never train to have these. You can train to improve these, but you either have it or you don't. Not possible that he has natural leg speed and power? That is why with specific training and dedication he could be low 11s.

We have women in this country running well below 12. Yes, elite athletes, but still women, that are at a huge disadvantage to begin with due to their sex.

I find the dismissal odd. Particluarly for a 100 meter claim. Had he claimed he ran a mile in 4 mins 10 on a grass pitch off very little training I would be a lot more skeptical. This is a flat out sprint. 12-13 seconds of hard effort, and for a naturally talented male with natural leg speed this is not at all odd or unbelievable. 11.8 seconds may well be explainable.

For it to be actually believed it needs to be ran correctly over the correct distance with decent timing. I agree with this. My point is more about the dismissal that it's possible.

I think you'll find that it's 11.8 seconds of hard effort :pac:

FWIW - I ran the 100m in a track race in 14.0 on the same day as I ran a 5k in 20 mins. I'm probably naturally best suited to something like the 800 and when I played rugby was always the quickest or second quickest on my team however all of my training is endurance based with the odd stride being the only thing I had run at any kind of pace for a few years before that 100m.

Based just on that I think that 100m in 11.8 on grass is unlikely. Add in how it was measured and you have reasonable grounds for scepticism as to it's accuracy.

All that said ahnowbrowncow didn't make any outlandish claims here. He merely stated what he had done and added that he'd love to get a correct time on a track.

Joeface · 19-10-2015 11:47AM

Best way to do it is probably go to the nearest running track , Have a friend come to time it and run the Sprint twice .

If its windy once in each direction .(Salt Flat rules ) also if you bring someone extra to run it with you it can help with getting the best out of you .

PB is 11.02s Long time ago ...would love to train for a bit now and see how close or far away I am . (only run 10ks these days)
the step up in to the 10s is quiet massive and in to the low 10s is even bigger again .

walshb · 19-10-2015 11:51AM

Clearlier wrote: »

I think you'll find that it's 11.8 seconds of hard effort :pac:

Yes, hence why I added that 11.8 seconds could well be explained.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that it would need to be accurately verified.

As mentioned by you, and alluded to be by me, it's not an outlandish claim.

BTW, you mention your running 5 k in 20 mins, and say that basedoff this 11.8 is unlikely. I assume that's for you?

He has run sub 19 for 5 k.

ahnowbrowncow · 19-10-2015 11:55AM

Chivito550 wrote: »

The guy clearly trains as a distance runner, and these times are what he manages in events he trains for. So to think he could perform at a much higher standard in an event he does not train for is not exactly believable.

You know nothing about me. I don't obviously train as a distance runner. I go for an odd 5k run each week.

I play soccer and Gaelic and train 3 to 4 times plus two matches a week so I don't have the time or enegy to try attain a 15 or 16 min 5k.

The times I stated are true, no reason for me to lie. I already stated I doubted the accuracy of them as I'm relying totally on my Garmin watch to stop the timer when I've reached 100m.

Just had a look at my Garmin connect, I did 5 x 100m with 3 min rest, it was 11.9 so I was slower than I had stated.

Splits were 11.9s, 12.4s, 12.2s, 12.9s, and 13.7s

walshb · 19-10-2015 12:06PM

Very respectable speed that!

Chivito550 · 19-10-2015 12:23PM

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

You know nothing about me. I don't obviously train as a distance runner. I go for an odd 5k run each week.

I play soccer and Gaelic and train 3 to 4 times plus two matches a week so I don't have the time or enegy to try attain a 15 or 16 min 5k.

The times I stated are true, no reason for me to lie. I already stated I doubted the accuracy of them as I'm relying totally on my Garmin watch to stop the timer when I've reached 100m.

Just had a look at my Garmin connect, I did 5 x 100m with 3 min rest, it was 11.9 so I was slower than I had stated.

Splits were 11.9s, 12.4s, 12.2s, 12.9s, and 13.7s

Garmin times are pointless. Get to a track and time one. Better still, enter a race next summer. If you are what you say you are, then you'll be well competitive in the Dublin Graded Meets and elsewhere.

I just don't buy Garmin and hand times for such short distances. But the fact you train as a field sports player makes the possibility more plausible. That changes things slightly.

I never tend to buy the times GAA, Soccer and Rugby players spout out though. They are usually never accurate.

ultrapercy · 19-10-2015 01:25PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

Garmin times are pointless. Get to a track and time one. Better still, enter a race next summer. If you are what you say you are, then you'll be well competitive in the Dublin Graded Meets and elsewhere.

I just don't buy Garmin and hand times for such short distances. But the fact you train as a field sports player makes the possibility more plausible. That changes things slightly.

I never tend to buy the times GAA, Soccer and Rugby players spout out though. They are usually never accurate.

Ya you are correct but thats not because they are spoofers it's because of a lack of knowledge and appreciation for athletics in general and sprinting in particular. In any ball sport team there are 3 or 4 relatively fast people and usually one faster than everyone. The fastest safely assume they are very fast then in comparison to the fastest in the world. As you rightly say a trip to a track even hand timed would be an educator.

Joeface · 19-10-2015 02:04PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZqEj-Qyg6U

decent enough example

route9 · 19-10-2015 02:10PM

So what is the best way to record your 100m on the track? Unless someone or something else is recording your sprint, won't you still have to hit stop on your Garmin once you hit the finish line?

IvoryTower · 19-10-2015 02:19PM

Ask someone to time it using stopwatch. It will still be slightly off but it's as good as you'll get. If there's anyone around i'm sure they could spare 16 seconds

19-10-2015 02:20PM

route9 wrote: »

So what is the best way to record your 100m on the track?

In a race. Or at worst, a time-trial with a person who's an experienced hand timer. Over a distance that short, anything else is pretty much nonsensical

walshb · 19-10-2015 02:24PM

IvoryTower wrote: »

Ask someone to time it using stopwatch. It will still be slightly off but it's as good as you'll get. If there's anyone around i'm sure they could spare 16 seconds

Sounds "accurate." It may be out, but not by much. Maybe .25 seconds either side.

Chivito550 · 19-10-2015 02:24PM

route9 wrote: »

So what is the best way to record your 100m on the track? Unless someone or something else is recording your sprint, won't you still have to hit stop on your Garmin once you hit the finish line?

The best, and only legit way, is electronic timing. This is only available for races. Timing gates are good too, but not quite as accurate (as there's no reaction time. It measures from when you move, rather than from the gun, which is the case in a race). Timing gates I guess would be expensive though.

Failing that, the best thing is to get somebody to time you. This won't be accurate. 0.24 gets added on to a hand time for 100m, but this assumes a knowledgeable hand timer who does so regularly at meets. If it's a mate who doesn't know a 100m from a horizontal bar routine then you could add on 0.5 seconds easily.

Timing it yourself is tough. A finger watch would be handiest, or maybe have a phone in your hand when doing it, so you don't have to tap your other hand like with a stop watch. These won't give much accuracy, but ok for a general idea.

Wind is important too of course.

RayCun · 19-10-2015 02:39PM

if you're interested in something more general, "how fast am I over a short distance", a more common thing is to use speed gates. Usually measure people off a running start, and over shorter distances, because those are more relevant to field sports.
There's no real point in timing yourself doing a 100m if it isn't from a block start and the timing is not precise.

Utdfan20titles · 19-10-2015 04:39PM

I ran 100m in 11 seconds but I'm not boasting about it. That's nearly two seconds off the world record. I doubt Usain Bolt is too worried about me haha

walshb · 19-10-2015 04:40PM

Utdfan20titles wrote: »

I ran 100m in 11 seconds but I'm not boasting about it. That's nearly two seconds off the world record. I doubt Usain Bolt is too worried about me haha

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

19-10-2015 04:46PM

Utdfan20titles wrote: »

I ran 100m in 11 seconds but I'm not boasting about it. That's nearly two seconds off the world record. I doubt Usain Bolt is too worried about me haha

It's a pity you didn't show up for this year's senior title race so, you would have ranked 7th nationally, no mean feat

Chivito550 · 19-10-2015 04:55PM

28064212 wrote: »

It's a pity you didn't show up for this year's senior title race so, you would have ranked 7th nationally, no mean feat

Judging by his post I'd guess National Juvenilles would be more appropriate.

Chivito550 · 19-10-2015 05:50PM

Joeface wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZqEj-Qyg6U

decent enough example

Good comment in the comments section:

There are so many myths and bull**** surrounding how fast footballers are. Most would struggle to break 12 seconds in the 100m, the fastest would be low 11s, the only ones running in the 10s would be people who crossed over from doing track. Most footballers guesstimate their times based on what they did as a kid which is dubious at best. As for the brass tax, Theo Walcott's only confirmed time is a hand timed 11.58 as a 14 year old. That's moderately quick, but since a lot of British kids who run quicker than that then actually keep training as sprinters as adults and struggle to get in the low to mid 10s, it's dubious to just presume Walcott must be loads quicker now. Also there is absolutely no evidence that Gareth Bale ran 11.4 as a kid, again the only confirmed times he ran are 2 min 24 in the 800m and 4min 59 in the 1500m set in 2002. Everything else is just rumours and guessing. Also the quickest sprinters in the NRL did a 100m race, proper on track with spikes, the winning time was 11.1, and rugby league players are a lot more explosive and powerful than footballers

Your 100m Sprint Time?

Comments