coachhuey.proboards42.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=speed&thread=1172630753&page=1#1174953339Där har du orsaken till att jag inte testade det själv med tidtagare. Dessutom ville jag ha info om vad som krävs innan och snacka med andra coacher än de jag brukar ha.
Jag har nu förstått att du inte tror jag kommer platsa på college, men rent ut sagt ger jag blanka fan i vad du tycker. Jag kommer fortsätta träna stenhårt för att nå college ändå. Entusiasm och viljan att bli bättre är bland de viktigaste faktorerna, hur tror du Bondeson & Co. kunde fortsätta träna för att senare uppnå såna resultat som de gjort? Jo med entusiasm och viljan att bli bättre liggande i bakhuvudet hela tiden, 24-7, 365dagar om året.
Kopierar det istället för de som inte vill registrera sig.
This is a bit long but very interesting.
Hi Rich,
>>It's NFL Combine time and that can only mean one thing:
>
>My email inbox is filling up with coaches and athletes asking
>how to improve 40 yard dash times.
>
>There's something about hearing fast 40 times that gets football
>people salivating.
>
>There's only one problem.
>
>You can't believe 99% of the times you hear even at the highest
>levels of the game.
>
>Why not you ask.
>
>That can't be true you say.
>
>After all you saw so-and-so from such-and-such high school run
>a 4.5 last year.
>
>You timed it yourself...
>
>I believe one of the things about the 40 yard dash that make it
>such an enigma is the fact that it's really one of the only
>objective facets of football that can be universally understood
>by everyone involved in the game.
>
>You can rush for 300 yards against a terrible team and look like
>Barry Sanders. But against a great defense you get stuffed for
>30 yards. Those totals are subjective based on the competition.
>
>So human nature and therefore Ego takes over and we see 40 times
>creeping down ever so slowly.
>
>That 4.7 your best player ran last year has magically become a
>4.6 in this year's conversations and would have been a 4.5 if
>he hadn't been sick that day...
>
>So now guess who's 40 time seems to have magically improved.
>
>(Don't get me wrong, I see the same mysterious improvements with
>track sprinters ALL the time.)
>
>If we ignore the fact that the 40 has no bearing on football skill
>whatsoever, it doesn't matter what level you play at or how
>competitive your conference is. A 4.5 is a 4.5 is a 4.5.
>
>Right?
>
>Wrong.
>
>Let's take a look at how and why the 40 time is arguably the most
>inaccurate number in all of sports.
>
>We'll start with a base time like 4.6. I hear this time a lot.
>When I do I'm never sure whether to laugh or cry.
>
>Sometimes I do both.
>
>So Johnny ran the 40 yesterday at his camp or practice.
>
>Well, chances are it was hand timed. That means there was no
>electronic equipment used. Just a coach with a stopwatch.
>
>So let's say Johnny's coach has him at 4.61.
>
>The rule with a hand time/stopwatch time is that you MUST ROUND
>UP to the next tenth even if it's a 4.61. Now Johnny's coach
>probably told him he ran a 4.6 but the fact is he ran a 4.7.
>
>Now, if a stopwatch was involved anywhere in the process, the
>time isn't accurate. Once the gun goes off there is a delay in
>the amount of time before the coach starts the watch. At the finish
>the coach doesn't accurately stop the watch at the exact moment
>the athlete crosses the line.
>
>So the rule is that you must add .24 seconds to compensate for
>the difference between a manual/hand time and an accurate fully
>automatic time.
>
>Where does this 'rule' come from?
>
>Track and Field where accurate timing is critically important.
>
>So if you have any interest in accuracy Johnny's 4.7 has now
>become a 4.94.
>
>Now let's be generous and say that Johnny used one of those
>timing pads that starts the clock as soon as his hand lifts off
>the pad.
>
>Since the clock starts at his first movement and not the sound of
>a gun connected to a computer connected to a laserbeam at the
>finish line, his 40 time is not accounting for the reaction time
>between the gun and his start.
>
>If you look at reaction time of a quality sprinter, they're looking
>at a delay of between .2 and .3 seconds between the start of
>the clock and when they actually start moving.
>
>So since the vast, vast majority of 40s and combines don't use
>a track and field start (aka an accurate start) you'll have to
>add (let's be nice) another .2 seconds to that 4.94.
>
>So Johnny's accurate 40 time is 5.14 seconds even though his
>coach had him at '4.6'.
>
>The truth hurts my friends and I doubt many people, even if they
>knew this, would actually take it into account when handing out
>times to their athletes or telling their peers about their times.
>
>What fun is it to know that you're not as fast as you think you
>are or that your athletes aren't as fast as you thought they were?
>
>So when you hear about that high school kid who runs a 4.4, he
>doesn't.
>
>When you hear about how Deion Sanders ran a 4.29 in the 40, he
>didn't. (It was run in 1989 and the NFL didn't start using any
>electronic timing until 1990.)
>
>Even at that, the timing used in these combines isn't as accurate
>as the timing that dictates official times and world records
>in track and field.
>
>So that means a couple of things if we want to truly talk in
>terms of equality.
>
>The only people who can run times approaching sub 4 seconds are
>elite track and field sprinters.
>
>Asafa Powell (the world record holder at 100 meters) would make
>a mockery of the fastest NFL guys on their best days.
>
>If you applied typical 40 yard dash timing rules to elite sprinters,
>Powell's 9.77 second world record at 100m would be something
>in the range of 9.2.
>
>Let me give you one more example to prove my point. In 1988 Ben
>Johnson ran a then world record of 9.79 seconds to win the Olympic
>Gold medal.
>
>Well it turns out that he was on steroids at the time and was
>stripped of his title.
>
>Subsequent breakdowns of his 'roid induced run timed him as he
>reached the 40 yard mark. (By the way his times at 50 and 60
>meters were faster than the current world records at that
>distance.)
>
>His time?
>
>4.38 seconds.
>
>Mark Zeigler sums this up perfectly:
>
>'He was running in spikes . . . on a warm afternoon perfectly
>suited for sprinting . . . with a slight tailwind . . . with
>years of training from arguably track's top coach, Charlie
>Francis . . . with Carl Lewis and six others of the fastest men
>on the planet chasing him . . . with 69,000 people roaring at
>Seoul's Olympic Stadium . . . with hundreds of millions of
>people watching on TV . . . with the ultimate prize in sports,
>an Olympic gold medal, at stake.'
>
>Yet he only ran a 4.38 40 yard dash?
>
>Knowing that, can you really believe any of the 40 times you
>hear? Does it seem likely that any high school kid can run a 4.6?
>
>You have people claiming 260 pound linebackers have 4.5 speed.
>
>Well they don't. These times aren't real and you just shouldn't
>believe them.
>
>After reading this article, I hope you look at all the 40 times
>you've been hearing about with a healthy dose of skepticism.
>
>If you want to build athletes who run fast times in real
>life, in any sport, not just made up times from a stop watch you
>have to make sure you're teaching them proven speed training
>techniques.
>
>Focus on creating better overall athletes.
>
>Educate yourself on what top coaches do to train their athletes
>who have legitimate speed.
>
>You don't want your athletes getting exposed as frauds because
>the results of their training turned out to be, literally, a
>slight of hand.
>
>
>
>Yours in speed,
>
>Latif Thomas
>www.athletesacceleration.com
