Is there any difference in effectiveness between these forms in the case of starting to a sound sign (race or training) or starting independently (training)?
Is there any reason for the existence the 0.1sec rule? (The sprinter have to disqualify if the block sensor measured lower value than 0.1s reaction time.) Colin Jackson once said that he could break this time. Is it possible?
You may take a look at these two papers:
Which starting style is faster in sprint running--standing or crouch start? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15079987)
Sprint starts and the minimum auditory reaction time. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17127583)
To achieve a good start using starting blocks you need a lot of training (and power!): you have to accelerate horizontally AND rise your center of mass. With a standing start your CoM is already high, so you can direct your power only to horizontal acceleration.
The drawback is that with a standing start it is almost impossible to have 8 sprinters stand perfectly still and wait for the gun, therefore starting blocks are mandatory in sprint events.
Dear Paolo,
I have been training for almost 30 years as an athlete (long jump, 400m hurdle, 60m, 100m, 200m, 400m and decathlon). I have never been in world class just in national upper class. (100m - 10.61s, 200m - 21.70s, long jump 7.60m). My experience is – to run a short distance (from 30m - to 200m) from standing start always bring better result than from block start (independent start – no sound, clap or starter gun, stopper stared for the movement of the leg). Always! There is something strange in it, because this is not logical from biomechanical point of view. This one is tell us that the block start is a very complicated, massive technical question. For example the question of the swinging arms (the question of the arm swinging backward), and/or the question of the role of the head (6kg part CG) raising etc.
But. To start to a sound sign is much more different. The blocks counteract the energy loss (backward movement) if the block angles, hip highness, knee angles, CG positioning are adjusted correctly. While the runner starting from block (to a sound sign) push her/himself forward, the runner starting from standing position will not help any “equipment” to support the heel (it true that you don’t need to raise your CG and there is no such weight on quadriceps).
So. Is the standing or block start a more effective at track and field sprint events, from a point of view of performance and biomechanically? It depend on the starting procedure (to a sound sign – like in race circumstances, or to independently – like in training circumstances) or it depend on technical, power, experience level of the sprinter or …? I think this is not so obvious.
You asked if there was reason for the .1 "rule"...I've never understood this rule because if you start AFTER the gun signals then it should be good. Yes it is related to reaction times and anticipating the gun and probably most importantly minimizes false starts. But I've always considered that anticipation is a part of the "skill set" of becoming a better sprinter. Note: I am a marathoner :)
Yes, you are right. I think that this rule was made only because the starter judge can not able to assess many times that the start was good or false. The block sensor help the work of him/her.
Hey Beres,
I was only referring to DQing a runner if they start prior to a human's ability to react to the start gun (.1 s)...yet after the gun indicates the start of the race. If the clock has started I say it's fair game for the runners to start...if they successfully anticipated the gun and started before the .1s RT limit. Of course this leads to too many sprinters false starting and being DQed after 2 FSs which in turn leads to slower progress of the T&F schedule. I believe the RT rule was created mainly to minimize the numerous false starts from those miss-anticipating the gun...not as a condition of identifying human limits. This really doesn't have much to contribute to the original question...just an opinion of mine on something you mentioned.
4 or 5 years ago they abolished the Dqf after the 2nd start. The new rule define that you are dqf after first false start. There is no room to do any mistakes. Just like in swimming. This is good for the media (more accurate scedule, more advertising time) but wrong for the audience and the athlete. Less wrong starts, less possibility to achieve top perfomances. I think if you "give me rules" what are wrong for me as a sprinter, please compensate me with well reasoned, logically estabilished new rules are good for me as well.
I tried to justify my statements. After I made this little analysis I think I have to repeat this. After some more similar study I can state things a bit more sure.
https://youtu.be/-S6BEi8s0ms?list=PLuFamRuHjPOmbal29B1a_XltCEmydPnvH
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry