Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

reaction times

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • jhc68
    replied
    Re: reaction times

    I knew a world class decathlete who, decades ago, decided that leg turn-over speed was a function of reaction time and, from that, concluded that if he could just train at a quicker turn-over rate then that would condition neural pathways to work faster and he would eventually be able to run faster. He calculated that maximum velocity for the fastest sprinters was more or less 27 miles per hour and then he rigged up a bunge to the back of his car and had his wife accelerate the car gradually up to 27 miles per hour over a grassy surface while he ran behind. He fell every time and was lucky not to have killed himself. This all says a lot more about the mentality of decathletes at the time than it does about training for reaction times!

    Leave a comment:


  • anna
    replied
    Re: reaction times

    Kinda don't expect a reply, but I am doing a dissertation on reaction times, wondered if you actually did any training on trying to improve your reaction time, and what was it? If you did, did it work?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: reaction times

    The Drummond charts indicate that wouldn't work: triggering the blocks (legal or illegal) isn'tthe same as actually starting.

    Leave a comment:


  • abinferno
    replied
    Re: reaction times

    How about the officials take everyone's finishing time, and subtract the recorded reaction times for each athlete to get the official time? Then we would really know who covered the 100m the fastest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: reaction times

    Starting to write a dissertaion on reaction times and the relationship with 60 meter times during competition. Also comparing male/female. I am looking for some additional articles to beef up the review, and hopefully come to some conclusions that can help us out with this topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • tafnut
    replied
    Re: reaction times

    "Do you think it's possible that some of the women, men, or hurdlers that were close to 0.100 were anticipating just a little bit? If so, then shouldn't they be dq'ed, or at least warned?"

    It's possible, but fruitless to police them, because .10 could be legit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: reaction times

    <<...those reaction times DO lead one to believe that .10 is the floor.>>

    You're probably right. However, if the goal is to catch those who anticipate the gun, it may not be adequate. Do you think it's possible that some of the women, men, or hurdlers that were close to 0.100 were anticipating just a little bit? If so, then shouldn't they be dq'ed, or at least warned?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: reaction times

    I noticed that too. Now those reaction times DO lead one to believe that .10 is the floor. Didn't someone mention before that women DO have faster reactions?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: reaction times

    Take note of those reaction times in the womens 100m and compare them to those in the mens 100m.

    I am really quite surprised.

    Leave a comment:


  • JRM
    replied
    Re: reaction times

    >If we accept the speed of light is 300 m/sec, it
    >would take about 0.330 seconds for light or an
    >electrical signal to travel from a starters gun
    >to a measuring device located at the finish line.

    Last time I checked, the speed of light was 300,000,000m/s.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: reaction times

    "Nice to see that when the chips are down and there's huge bucks on the line, the boys have no trouble pulling out reaction times that are right down there near the 0.100 limit, ain't it?"

    Huh? The best of the world are trying and they did NOT even get close (relatively speaking) to .10! I see
    0.136
    0.140
    0.150
    0.150
    0.161
    0.162
    0.170
    0.176

    I would expect numbers in the 0.11-0.13 range if the bottom limit really were 0.10. Looks closer to 0.12 to me. These are the best in the WORLD, trying as hard as they can to react instantaneously! 0.100 is generous.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: reaction times

    > If we accept these numbers then we are
    >saying that it takes .100sec to hear the gun.

    If we accept the speed of light is 300 m/sec, it
    would take about 0.330 seconds for light or an electrical signal to travel from a starters gun to a measuring device located at the finish line.

    In hand-timed races, a stop-watch wouldn't even be started before this.

    When people are disqualified for moving before 0.100 seconds, you'd hope that some effort is put into dealing with signal propagation delays - and ensuring that measuring devices are properly calibrated. Just as a human can't react in zero time, neither can the timing apparatus.

    Let's assume that on-one can react faster than 0.120 seconds. Then the rule allows 0.020 seconds margin for errors. Now signal propagation over the distance from lane 1 to lane 8 could make 0.033 seconds difference - well over the margin.

    You need to be sure that all the propagation delays have been scientifically accounted for.

    Especially when finishers and world records end up separated by less than 0.03 seconds.

    I'm guessing, but maybe someone would have to get around with synchronised high-precision atomic clocks to measure the propagation delays from each starting block and finishing line position (and perhaps to wherever the finish line slit-camera is positioned).

    Does anyone know if this is what is done, or how it might be done ? Or are all these rules pretending an degree of accuracy that isn't justified ?

    Leave a comment:


  • rmayes
    replied
    Re: reaction times

    Nice to see
    >that when the chips are down and there's huge
    >bucks on the line, the boys have no trouble
    >pulling out reaction times that are right down
    >there near the 0.100 limit, ain't it?

    Also notice the top 3 reaction times were also the top three finishers (in the same order they reacted in too). I know it was pointed out earlier that the fastest reaction times don't always mean the fastest finishers but maybe that only applies when the fastest times are anticipated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: reaction times

    GP Final numbers

     Williams Bernard USA 0.136

     Capel John USA 0.140

     Emedolu Uchenna NGR 0.150

     Collins Kim SKN 0.150

     Powell Asafa JAM 0.161

     Aliu Deji NGR 0.162

     Gatlin Justin USA 0.170

     Chambers Dwain GBR 0.176

    Nice to see that when the chips are down and there's huge bucks on the line, the boys have no trouble pulling out reaction times that are right down there near the 0.100 limit, ain't it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: reaction times

    "idiots like yourself keep clicking on the link"

    Exactly my point. Keep clicking!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X