Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

reaction times

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #46
    Re: reaction times

    >>Is it
    >necessary for Garry to present both sides of an
    >argument when he posts here? As a journalist, I
    >would expect his writings to be unbiased. But
    >this applies to the articles he writes for T&FN.
    >If he visits and contributes to this message
    >board, I would hope he does so for his own
    >reason, to express his own views and opinions.
    >The same applies to anyone who posts here,
    >journalist or not.>>

    I'm definitely interested in seeing both sides presented (whether I participate directly or not) in VALID arguments. This is not one of those cases. The Alston piece is--perhaps stretching the analogy a bit--a National Enquirer piece. It's not the other side of any argument.

    Personally, I'm a firm believer--even though I can't cite chapter and verse--that the IAAF has done/seen sufficient research that the 0.100 cutoff is more than fair. If there's data to the contrary I'd love to see it, but I doubt there is.

    If some sprinter really can REACT (not anticipate) faster than that, they should get a reputable researcher (I'm sure any big-league university's physiology department would jump at the chance) to run experiments and show that contrary data to the IAAF. Simply saying "I'm faster than that" doesn't mean a thing.

    gh

    ps--I also believe that the way the blocks read false starts is not immune to error, and that Drummond got penalized for lateral motion that gave him zero aid. But that's not the issue in this thread. The question remains: can anyone come up with one whit of scientific data that shows ANYBODY capable of reacting faster than 0.100?

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: reaction times

      The Alston piece is--perhaps stretching
      >the analogy a bit--a National Enquirer piece.

      W H A T?????????????????????????
      SO WHAT MADE YOU PRINT IT?????

      ps--I also believe
      >that the way the blocks read false starts is not
      >immune to error, and that Drummond got penalized
      >for lateral motion that gave him zero aid. But
      >that's not the issue in this thread. The question
      >remains: can anyone come up with one whit of
      >scientific data that shows ANYBODY capable of
      >reacting faster than 0.100?

      AND THE QUICK GUN.....

      TRUE

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: reaction times

        Louise you better watch it or you'll wear out the "?/" key. Or do you just hold it down?

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: reaction times

          "But, to discourage this "anticipation", (DARN, YOU WERE DOING GOOD UNTIL HERE!!! institute the
          "one false start and you're out" rule.

          While anticipating the gun may not be specifically forbidden by the rules, it shouldn't be encouraged, either. If an athlete wants to try to gain such an advantage, there should be consequences if he fails. Otherwise, we're back to 100m races with a half dozen restarts.

          Someone suggested earlier that the start of the race should be randomized. This makes sense. Let the starter call the runners to SET. Once he's satisfied everyone is ready, he presses a button that (or pulls the trigger). But, instead of the gun immediately firing, a random period of time passes (say 1 to 2 seconds?) before it fires. With this sytem, do away with the gun. How about a tone?


          P.S. While the reaction time standard may seem ridiculus, the current "one false start for the field" rule is by far the most ridiculus and unfair rule of all. My opinion, of course!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: reaction times

            "how long have we had the .1 second rule?
            what does everyone think of the rule?
            of course, changing it now would make it easier to set new records, but it does seem kind of silly"

            It does, doesn't it? Armin Hary used to be the fastest starter alive. Some people say that he routinely got out of the blocks within .05 of the gun. He had one of his 10.0 world records called back, because the starter thought he jumped the gun. They ran the race again, and he ran ANOTHER 10.0!

            Dennis Mitchell was one of the fastest starters of recent memory. He routinely got out of the blocks between .085 and .115 after the gun. His 1991 World Championship performance of 9.91 in Tokyo was accepted as a third-place performance, despite the fact that his reaction time was somewhere between .090 and .1, because his fast start was not thought to be a deliberate attempt to jump the gun (although T&FN thought so, and refused to accept that performnance as one of the 10 best at that time). Let it be said that he didn't get away with his fast starts all the time. Sometimes he was caught, and on maybe one or two occasion he was clearly shown to have had a rolling start. But I didn't see such a case at Tokyo in 1991.

            How much force does the average sprinter apply to the blocks just as he or she makes his or her move to get out of the blocks? I ask that question, because maybe they ought to run an extensive study (if they haven't already), to see at what point a runner is actually applying pressure to start running. They may want to apply a pressure-sensitive strip (perhaps 2 to 6 inches wide) at the starting line, where the hands are set. Maybe this will make the .1-second reaction time rule obsolete, and put to rest the suspicion that some fast times were the result of rolling starts, especially if the reaction time is as lightning-fast as was Mitchell's.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: reaction times

              >>Dennis Mitchell was one of the fastest
              >starters of recent memory. He routinely got out
              >of the blocks between .085 and .115 after the
              >gun. His 1991 World Championship performance of
              >9.91 in Tokyo was accepted as a third-place
              >performance, despite the fact that his reaction
              >time was somewhere between .090 and .1, because
              >his fast start was not thought to be a deliberate
              >attempt to jump the gun (although T&FN thought
              >so, and refused to accept that performnance as
              >one of the 10 best at that time).>>

              Nice attempt at rewriting history, but it won't wash. Mitchell at Tokyo was 0.90. Why wasn't he called back? Because the starter wasn't wearing his headset and didn't hear the FS signal go off.

              As for his "routinely" getting out between 0.85 and 0.115, kindly provide some numbers to back that up. At the moment, only ones I have in front of me are for the other two World Champs finals he ran in. In the 100 in '93 he was 0.128, and in the indoor 60 that same year he was 0.164.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: reaction times

                How much force does the
                >average sprinter apply to the blocks just as he
                >or she makes his or her move to get out of the
                >blocks? I ask that question, because maybe they
                >ought to run an extensive study (if they haven't
                >already), to see at what point a runner is
                >actually applying pressure to start running.
                >They may want to apply a pressure-sensitive
                >strip (perhaps 2 to 6 inches wide) at the
                >starting line, where the hands are set. Maybe
                >this will make the .1-second reaction time rule
                >obsolete, and put to rest the suspicion that
                >some fast times were the result of rolling
                >starts, especially if the reaction time is as
                >lightning-fast as was Mitchell's.

                you go, cookymonzta...yea!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: reaction times

                  The thing about Armin Hary was that the starter would call set, and then wait for Hary to get into the start position, and then when Hary 'took off', the starter would then fire the gun. In effect, the starter's of races would almost 'allow' Hary to start the race.
                  Once Hary knew this, he would use it to his advantage.

                  I wonder what the IAAF today would have to say about that???
                  Hmmm...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: reaction times

                    Why put a limit on possible reaction times? Why not just go back to making any movement after the gun ( > .000) legal? If an athlete is talented enough to time it or anticipate correctly, I give him kudos for being skilled and experienced. Based on current "data," I bet most physiologists and scientists in the 1940s believed that a 3:43 mile would always be humanly impossible. Relying on data back then wouldn't have led us to the wrong conclusion. Not that there's anything wrong with analysizing data, but it shouldn't necessarily be the supreme deciding factor.

                    And charging a false start to the field is wrong; The IAAF needs to fix that.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: reaction times

                      >Why put a limit on possible reaction times? Why
                      >not just go back to making any movement after the
                      >gun ( > .000) legal? If an athlete is talented
                      >enough to time it or anticipate correctly, I give
                      >him kudos for being skilled and experienced.
                      >Based on current "data," I bet most
                      >physiologists and scientists in the 1940s
                      >believed that a 3:43 mile would always be humanly
                      >impossible. Relying on data back then wouldn't
                      >have led us to the wrong conclusion. Not that
                      >there's anything wrong with analysizing data, but
                      >it shouldn't necessarily be the supreme deciding
                      >factor.

                      And charging a false start to the
                      >field is wrong; The IAAF needs to fix that.

                      WHERE DID ALL YOU THINKING PEOPLE COME FROM? YEA!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: reaction times

                        > I bet most
                        >physiologists and scientists in the 1940s
                        >believed that a 3:43 mile would always be humanly
                        >impossible.

                        Nice try on the standard "slap down modern science" comparison. Unfortunately, it's over-used and usually weakly applied (e.g. "Einstein said no one can travel faster than light, but they also said man would never break the 4 min mile!").

                        There is a HUGE difference between performance improvements due to training, and changing the travel-time of electro-chemical nerve impulses. The latter is what determines a reaction time, and is a function of physical/chemical structures. I very much doubt (extremely doubt) one could change these in any significant way through "hard training". The only way I would think one could possibly change this (if at all) is by external chemical means, and that would be considered doping.

                        If there are studies which suggest this actually can be done, I would be interested in knowing about them (and we're not talking about synaptic plasticity or conditioning in the brain here).

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: reaction times

                          Nice try yourself, but I wasn't slapping down modern science. No disrespect to Garry Hill, the IAAF or any scientist, but I prefer to evaluate myself instead of agreeing because (insert important authority here) says so.

                          I never said reaction times could be improved with hard training, nor that they could not be improved.

                          But why is the allowable set at .100 seconds? Why not .110 or .090 seconds? The .100 seconds figure is mostly arbitrary. Is it a coincidence that it is a "round" number? It has the precision of the thousandths place but it happens to be divisible by one tenth. Why? Because the IAAF chose it. If the IAAF believes the best legal reaction time is .110, and they gave an extra .010 seconds for "cushion," why did they choose .010 seconds for the cushion? If the best legal reaction time is .110 seconds, then shouldn't .105 seconds be a false start? Unless you set the standard at .000, everything is arbitrary.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: reaction times

                            >I wasn't slapping down modern science. No
                            >disrespect to Garry Hill, the IAAF or any
                            >scientist, but I prefer to evaluate myself
                            >instead of agreeing because (insert important
                            >authority here) says so.

                            This statement is self-contradictory. You aren't "slapping down modern science", but you just refuse to believe what researchers have found? Your motive -- as I read it -- seemed to be to discredit the 0.100s reaction time because the available reaction time data was "too old", and that somehow it would have evolved over time thanks to training advances.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: reaction times

                              But why is the allowable set at .100
                              >seconds? Why not .110 or .090 seconds? The .100
                              >seconds figure is mostly arbitrary. Is it a
                              >coincidence that it is a "round" number? It
                              >has the precision of the thousandths place but it
                              >happens to be divisible by one tenth. Why?
                              >Because the IAAF chose it. If the IAAF believes
                              >the best legal reaction time is .110, and they
                              >gave an extra .010 seconds for "cushion," why
                              >did they choose .010 seconds for the cushion? If
                              >the best legal reaction time is .110 seconds,
                              >then shouldn't .105 seconds be a false start?
                              >Unless you set the standard at .000, everything
                              >is arbitrary.

                              AT LEAST SOMEONE IS DOING SOME THINKING RATHER THAN ACCEPTING...GREAT! AND THEN MAYBE SOME TESTING WILL BE DONE...WHEN YOU HAVE A PAYCHECK AT THE FINISH LINE, AND PUNISHMENT HANGING OVER YOUR HEAD, THAT'S NOT TESTING!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: reaction times

                                but you just refuse to believe
                                >what researchers have found?

                                WHO ARE THEY? where's the research?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X