Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

reaction times

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: reaction times

    Bruggemann, GP and Glad, B 1988,
    >'Biomechanics of sprint events - Reaction time'.
    >Scientific Research Project at the games of the
    >XXVIVth Olympiad - Seoul 1988. Final Report -
    >Time Analysis of the Sprint and Hurdle events, pp
    >26-27. International Athletic
    >Foundation.

    Jongsma, DM, Elliott, D & Lee, TD
    >1987, 'Experience and set in the running sprint
    >start', Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64,
    >547-550

    thanks...i will speak to gp bruggemann in athens in oct...he is a chair at the Vll ioc olympic world congress on sport sciences.....

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: reaction times

      (for college-aged
      >humans.


      not acceptable...

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: reaction times

        Certain athletes have great reaction times. If you look at the times for Colin Jackson over the years you'll find that he averaged between 0.11 and 0.12. Back at the end of the 1950's some tests were done in Germany. The average reaction time of the best athlete (with 1 exception) was 0.12 seconds. This gives some credence to a level of 0.10 as being a reasonable level. Of course it tells us that Maurice Greene runs the 100m at his best in 9.69 rather than 9.79 - but that's in a perfect world. The 1 exception was Armin Hary (known in Germany as "the thief of starts"), whose reaction time was 0.04 seconds. He definitely anticipated, and won the '58 Europeans on a flying start. Having the 0.100 (rather than 0.000) is an effort to put the athletes on an even field at the start.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: reaction times

          >Certain athletes have great reaction times.
          The 1 exception was Armin Hary
          >(known in Germany as "the thief of starts"),
          >whose reaction time was 0.04 seconds.

          linford/ato, etc. will tell you the same thing...so, if "certain" athletes have great reaction times, what might the .100 be doing for them?????

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: reaction times

            Ms. Tricard: in relation to Christie's claim I need only to repeat your mantra of the last couple of days: "where's the lots of data?" A testimonial by one deluded athlete does not scientific evidence make.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: reaction times

              >linford/ato, etc. will tell you the same
              >thing...so, if "certain" athletes have great
              >reaction times, what might the .100 be doing for
              >them?????

              I always find it amusing when people think they're wild exceptions to the norm, with no quantitative backing to their statements. Gut feelings don't cut it in the world of published results.

              The incident in 1996 with Linford was based on the notion that he *knew* his reaction time was naturally faster than 0.10s, and refused to leave the track on that premise. If this was clearly known to him, and not just a hunch, then why didn't they share their data with the rest world? It would certainly provide support for changing the rule!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: reaction times

                >Ms. Tricard: in relation to Christie's claim I
                >need only to repeat your mantra of the last
                >couple of days: "where's the lots of data?" A
                >testimonial by one deluded athlete does not
                >scientific evidence make.

                Good point, Lightening! Yes, Ms. Tricard, if you have scientific data that suggests humans can routinely react to the gun (without anticipation) in <0.1 sec, please share it with us. The suspense is killing us!

                Under the assumption that neither you nor DGT can produce data supporting either claim, this is a pointless discussion. The IAAF has chosen to use 0.1 sec as the standard. It may be arbitrary, but it is the rule.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: reaction times

                  >


                  (for college-aged
                  >humans.


                  not
                  >acceptable...

                  Louise, do you have data that contradicts this? Please share!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: reaction times

                    hey guys...read the posts...others are claiming data....not me..... you know the old commercial, where's the beef???? well, it's me saying....where's the data?????
                    testing of olympic level 100m sprinters and reaction times...i haven't found any...but looking.....come on, help

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: reaction times

                      this is way long, but I think worth inserting at this point. This was published in the March '97 edition of T&FN, after Linford Christie threw his i-didn't-false-start tantrum in Atlanta (we won't even get into why IAAF didn't sanction him for disrupting a meet as long as Drummond did, and on a far bigger stage).


                      Christie Not Robbed

                      A noted statistician says the numbers clearly show that the Olympic false-start call was the right one

                      Was Linford Christie an innocent victim of obsolete technical equipment and rules when he got his second false start charge in the Olympic 100 final? That was the opinion expressed by engineer William Alston in the February issue of T&FN. According to Alston, Christie has achieved an ability to consistently react quicker than the limit of 0.100 allowed by the IAAF rules, and his 0.086 "reaction time" in Atlanta shouldn't have been ruled illegal.
                      Respected Swedish statistician A. Lennart Julin begs to differ. "Actually, a more thorough analysis of the situation in Atlanta shows that Christie's false start was even more blatant than what the strictly numerical difference of 0.014 to the limit seems to indicate," he says.
                      Julin says only one rule can apply when it comes to a fair start: "Every competitor remains still in the blocks until they have 'experienced' the sound of the gun. Then, and only then, good reaction ability is a valuable asset while clairvoyance or luck plays no part."
                      Julin also notes that neuromuscular processes mandate that if athletes wait for the gun there will be an inevitable delay before they get moving. "It has nothing to do with 'will' and nobody has (yet?) been able to show that more than marginal improvements could be achieved through training," he says.
                      "Reactions have another significant characteristic. They are repeatable, as they are 'automatized body reflexes.' So if some athlete was gifted with superhuman reactions, that ability would show up in every start in every race. It is then quite interesting to look at the numbers actually produced by individual athletes in a sequence of races.
                      "Let's look at Gail Devers, well known for her always very strong early part of the races. In Atlanta she ran eight races on the straight-away and she recorded the following reaction times:

                      Heat Quarter Semi Final
                      100 0.189 0.175 0.177 0.166
                      100H 0.183 0.193 0.181 0.189

                      "Thus the variation for eight different starts was a mere 0.027 and she had six of eight crammed into 0.014. That is what it looks like when true reactions are in place. And Devers was far from unique in this aspect in Atlanta. Other typical examples: In the men's 100 Donovan Bailey had his four within 0.011 and Frank Fredericks his within 0.014—and in the women's 100H Michelle Freeman squeezed her four into 0.008.
                      "Now the obvious question is: what did Christie achieve in his other races in Atlanta? The answer: he had 0.160,0.134 and 0.125 in the 100 rounds, and 0.151 and 0.148 in his two 200 races. Slightly better than average but nothing exceptional and absolutely nothing indicating that he had an 0.086 up his sleeve.
                      "It's also interesting to look at the times recorded for Ato Boldon, who complained after the 100 final for being recalled and penalized for an 0.082 time. For Boldon the numbers were 0.137, 0.160, 0.145 and 0.164 in the 100 and 0.182, 0.148, 0.160 and 0.208 in the 200. Would a true 0.082 reactor be so slow on all other occasions in Atlanta when so much was at stake?
                      "Thus the claim by Alston that 'consistent reaction times below 0.100 are easily attainable among athletes so trained' lacks any kind of factual support in current reality. Absolutely nobody has been able to demonstrate consistency at those levels.
                      "Nobody has shown consistency lower than 0.12-0.13, and furthermore, no trend of improvement can be found. In the '72 Olympics (system giving reaction times only in 100ths) Valeriy Borzov recorded 0.12, 0.12, 0.12 and 0.13 in his four 100m races! Compare that, for example, with Christie's 0.130,0.142,0.129 and 0.110 in the '95 World Championships.
                      "So we can all rest assured that the warnings given to Boldon and Christie in the 100 final in Atlanta were deserved. Neither the equipment nor the rules did them any injustice. They were caught not because they were too skilled, but because they tried—perhaps sub consciously—to guess the gun."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: reaction times

                        >While I can't cite chapter and verse, I'm
                        >confident in my recall that the IAAF engaged in
                        >(or commissioned) some real research before
                        >setting the 0.1 limit.

                        believe it's not something that's directly
                        >related to athletic ability, and no amount of
                        >training is going to change it.

                        (t&fn 2/97 article by alston-"consistent reaction times below 0.100 are easily attainable among athletes so trained"

                        but the IAAF
                        >took the precaution of cutting off a couple more
                        >100ths, just to be sure that any outliers weren't
                        >unfairly nabbed.
                        "cutting off" where's the data????

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: reaction times

                          This was published in the March '97
                          >
                          garry...post the first article by alston also....

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: reaction times

                            and then you have julin's later article about faulty times because of the distance between starter and the lane that the athlete is in....(atlanta 1996) vs. the current seiko silent gun
                            (he claims mo's wr should have been 9.82 not 9.87)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: reaction times

                              Garry,

                              Please post the data used to support Alston's claim that "consistent reaction times below 0.100 are easily attainable among athletes so trained" as well. We couldn't possibly believe this is true unless there's sufficient data, could we?



                              >This was published in the March
                              >'97
                              >
                              garry...post the first article by alston
                              >also....

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: reaction times

                                i just said please post the article.........
                                we do want 2 sides to each story, don't we???

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X