Speaking of the football 40

[Brutal]

Bullet Bob Hayes was running 4.4's as a Cowboy so he wasn't too far off his track speed.I'd guess he'd probably cook a 4.3 in 64. There we have the ultimate trackster/footballer running 4.4's. "Only" a 4.4? It's not like the Bullet wasn't fast out of the blocks keep in mind he also ran a WR 5.9 60. "Only" a 4.4??????

4.4 seemed to be the measuring stick when it came to speed. Then it happened! I heard this on a tv game I'm assuming they heard it right.

The Kansas City Chiefs had a diminutive kick returner out of Tennessee St he was tiny.I'm talking 5-6 155lbs. He went by the nickname "Super Gnat" he's name was Nolan Smith.Word was he ran a sizzlin' 4.1 at training camp. So the obscure Nolan Smith would wax the great Bob Hayes in a 40?

I gave up on the football 40 years ago,just too unreliable.

I started watching track and football seriuosly in 1962. Since that time I've seen a lot of speed. The fastest footballer I've ever seen (meaning speed on the field under game conditions) was Rocket Ismail while he was at Notre Dame. He was amazingly fast with a football under his arm. When we talk of speed and football it actually means little if the speedster can't "manuever" while running fast. Guys like a JJ Johnson or a Carl Lewis just don't appear to have the speed needed for football, that chug chug chug type speed just won't work. Ya need quicks AND speed.

Look at Alvis Whitted with the Raiders he of the 10.07 100 meters.I remember when Joey Porter was injuried you'd hear..."now the Raiders have nobody to strecth the defense.No deep threat" I'm thinking "a 10.07 guy can't strecth the defense? What about Whitted?" It appears Whitted just doesn't have "it" as a footballer despite the fact he's probably the fastest "sprinter" in the NFL.

[Track fan]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

They time by hand, and in the 70's I heard guys would sprint on a 39 yard, track, would run downhill, etc....

[paulthefan]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

The "football 40" (F40) is timed as follows:

1) timer stands at finish line.
2) runner at start line
3) "set" is called by either the timer or an assistant at the start line.
4) runner upon hearing the set gets into a "set position" usually a tracklike sprint stance without blocks.
5) runner at the moment of HIS OWN CHOOSING starts out sprinting the 40
6) timer upon SEEING the runner start, starts the clock.
7) timer STOPS the clock manually at the finish line.


The big and obvious difference is the fact that the F40 clock is started on the motion of the runner as perceived by the timer himself. It does not start by the mutual perception (of both timer and runner) of the gun of a starter as in a track hand timed race....there is no gun in a F40.

For this reason comparisions of the F40 and track and field sprinters at 40yd line on the way to a 100M finish line are useless unless the advantage of the starting method of the F40 is accounted for.


I hope folks will read the above and stop the mischaracterization of the F40. We seem to relive this every month. Either taking it too serious as a comparison with track or laughing at it as some kind of fake number... it is not phony.. it is what it is... and it is a valid test ...... for football.

[tafnut]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

the bottom line is that there is AT LEAST a .4 second difference between the F40 and the FAT40. The other stupid thing is the common reporting of F40's to hundredths of a second for a hand time.

[26mi235]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

In track and field, the standard is that hand times are reported to the tenth. For the F40 this is unnecessary since all of them are "hand times". In addition, even if there is the "noise" or error in recording the time, the time to the hundreths is still a better statistical estimate than the rounded-up rule, which essentially throws away information.

[tafnut]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

>time to the hundreths is still a better statistical estimate than the
>rounded-up rule, which essentially throws away information.

except for the most experienced timers, the hundredths digit is worthless anyway, so why keep it? Always rounding up to the next larger tenth (even .01 to .1) is the 'best' way to go.

[paulthefan]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

>the bottom line is that there is AT LEAST a .4 second difference between the
>F40 and the FAT40. The other stupid thing is the common reporting of F40's to
>hundredths of a second for a hand time.

Right, .. they are comparing apples and oranges, ... but the F40 is a tool for making quick assessments of talent at every level of football and you only need one person with a watch to do it.
It should not be dismissed, it can give useful information and I would imagine that many a great track athlete was first spoted and directed to track by a football coach using the F40.

Nevertheless as track enthusiasts we have to roll our eyes as some beer swilling football fan tells us that johnny soandso ran a 4.2 40, .. .. johnny is still probably more than a yard behind a world caliber 60M dash guy at 40yards.

[rosa saks]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

fastest first 40 yards in a major sprint final converted to football timing conditions works out about 3.9, although that's on a proper track wearing spikes, and with starting blocks...

[26mi235]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

So, just because the standard error is larger than 0.005 or even 0.01 seconds, you are staying that the best thing is to add an average of .005 to the times. But because we do not have perfect accuracy we will add a random amount to the times because this makes them more ... more accurate, more representative, more what? You would not have done very well in my statistics and econometrics classes.

[tafnut]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

Actually I got an A in Stats (which is pretty good for a Psych major!), but numbers have nothing to do with this problems - it's the random inaccuracy of the human's timing. Why would you record a time in hundredths when the variances in accuracy approach (and often exceed) .2 seconds?

A coach records a 4.41 time for his player. Given the .4 reaction time error (timer starts on motion (.2) & runner is not reacting to gun (another .2)) and the error inherent in human timing, that runner ran anywhere from a FAT of 4.70 to 4.90 (80% of the time - 20% of the time the errors will be even more egregious). So what did that 4.41 mean? Not too much. Given the inaccuracy range, rounding to the next higher tenth returns some sense of 'gross'ness to the data. This is exactly what experienced track timers are told to do when FAT is not present and the watches time in hundredths (as they all do now).

[paulthefan]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

... handtimes in TandF are biased upward specifically to demote their credibility....It is not certain that the .24 is an accurate accounting of that bias... is there a study on this?.. Id like to see it.

[tafnut]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

>... handtimes in TandF are biased upward specifically to demote their
>credibility....It is not certain that the .24 is an accurate accounting of that
>bias... is there a study on this?.. Id like to see it.

Actually, as I recall, there really WAS a study done by IAAF or ATFS or both together, that resulted in the .24 and .14 corrections. But that only represents 'experienced' timers, not the yahoos that show up for HS meets or a lot of football coaches (whose timing methods can best be described as 'wishful thinking' - I had four football players on my soccer team last year. The coach reported them as a 4.6, 4.8, 4.9 and 5.0. I timed them (twice) in 4.9, 5.1, 5.1 and 5.3)

[paulthefan]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

Thanks for the facts on the .24 correction. At any rate I trust that your anecdotal comparison with the F40 by the unnamed football coach was timed by you on the motion of the runner.

I have timed and football coaches I have known have timed the F40 and I can say that any kid that is timed at 4.5 and below in the F40 can go on to be, at the very least, a quality track sprinter at the HS level... it does not mean that he can go on to the college level but in general a 4.4 talent can run in the range 10.0 to 10.4 hand timed range 100yds (11.1-11.5 100M) and in most US states that is worth alot to a track team.




>as I recall, there really WAS a study done by IAAF or ATFS or both together,
>that resulted in the .24 and .14 corrections. But that only represents
>'experienced' timers, not the yahoos that show up for HS meets or a lot of
>football coaches (whose timing methods can best be described as 'wishful
>thinking' - I had four football players on my soccer team last year. The coach
>reported them as a 4.6, 4.8, 4.9 and 5.0. I timed them (twice) in 4.9, 5.1, 5.1
>and 5.3)

[tafnut]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

yes, and my one legit 4.5 boy ran a 10.68 FAT.

[paulthefan]

Re: Speaking of the football 40

tandf, that is a talented kid... Ive seen the tall skinny HS frame types run 4.4 or 4.5, and go on to 10.6FAT... have seen other types, often 5' 8" and under, run a 4.4 and it is just a different kind of 4.4, starts like an explosion but top end speed not as great... nevertheless a track team can use them all.