|
|
Post by tentboy on May 29, 2014 21:02:03 GMT -6
Have any of you ever ordered a 40 yard dash timer? An electronic one?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachfloyd on May 30, 2014 7:11:15 GMT -6
just jump mat. can do vertical, 40s, shuttle and anything thing else you need to time. its awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jun 7, 2014 19:07:15 GMT -6
How does it start the timer?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachfloyd on Jun 14, 2014 5:57:46 GMT -6
It starts on your sound and stops when they hit the pad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jun 14, 2014 7:05:12 GMT -6
so your times will be .2-.3 slower than laser-laser and much slower than hand-laser, but it will be fairly consistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachfloyd on Jun 23, 2014 10:08:21 GMT -6
so your times will be .2-.3 slower than laser-laser and much slower than hand-laser, but it will be fairly consistent. should be similar to hand laser. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jun 23, 2014 10:48:22 GMT -6
I tried this the other day for the first time.
Previously, I was hand timing on their first movement of the down hand. So I estimated that I was probably about .3 faster than lasers. I have done this for 20 years. My times have been pretty consistent with the hand times my kids get at camps or combines.
Laser time would be most accurate. Starts on their movement and ends when the cross. This is what I am theoretically trying to measure.
I figured that the just jump pad would be even slower than that. Now the reaction was on them. So I estimated that it would be about .5 to .6 slower than my hand times. This proved to be uncannily true.
Fastest time - hand time. The reaction is on the person timing, so the clock will start after the runner moves.
Accurate time - lasers that start on movement. This is what we are trying to measure.
Slowest time - just jump. Now the runner does not start until he hears the whistle which means the clock starts before his first movement.
So a kid that we all say runs a 4.8 (hand timed), probably runs a 5.0 to 5.1 on lasers and a 5.3 to 5.4 on just jump. The point is to be consistent and easy. The just jump is both.
Would love to hear others take on this, because those are my guesses after using it ONE day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jun 23, 2014 12:30:09 GMT -6
so your times will be .2-.3 slower than laser-laser and much slower than hand-laser, but it will be fairly consistent. should be similar to hand laser. I don't think so, hand-laser starts about .2 after the runner starts, whereas just jump starts .2 before the runner. There's no standard way to do this, because the proper equipment is prohibitively expensive. Ideally we'd have double or triple-beam start and finish and a fixed start point (front foot 18" behind start line) but it's not feasible, so come up with a consistent method and do lots of testing to get baselines. |
|
|
|
Post by coachfloyd on Jun 23, 2014 12:40:59 GMT -6
i was under the impression that hand start laser finish was no different than a stop watch with a laser finish.
But I am more concerned with consistency than the most accurate way to time. If they get faster I want it to be because of the training program and their effort and not because Im having a good thumb day.
|
|
|
|
Post by jg78 on Jun 23, 2014 13:41:33 GMT -6
i was under the impression that hand start laser finish was no different than a stop watch with a laser finish. But I am more concerned with consistency than the most accurate way to time. If they get faster I want it to be because of the training program and their effort and not because Im having a good thumb day.
Exactly.
The 40 yard dash time is perhaps the most inaccurate and exaggerated measurement in all of sports, even among people with honest intentions. How many times have you heard of a high school kid running a 4.4-4.5 40 only to watch the NFL Combine (where they are electronically timed) and see the fastest RB's, WR's and DB's coming out of college struggle to run times that low? The 40 definitely has its place, but there's a pretty significant margin for error even among two people timing the same kid in the same run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Jun 23, 2014 13:59:01 GMT -6
At our local track meet, the fastest kid on our football team ran an 11.22 100 meter race (hand timed). I hand timed his 40 yard dash at 4.55
Not sure what this means...I guess I'm wondering if this sounds right. Those of you with many years of experience doing this, have you found some strong correlations between track 100 m times and 40 times? For example, I imagine a kid would have to run a sub 11 second 100m race to have 4.4 speed in the forty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jun 23, 2014 17:22:57 GMT -6
Real HS students running a real 4.4 are so rare as to be nigh on mythical. If the fastest kid on your team runs a real 4.55 that's pretty darn good, and it fits his 100 time, which is probably off by the same amount as the 40 time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Jun 23, 2014 17:42:40 GMT -6
Real HS students running a real 4.4 are so rare as to be nigh on mythical. If the fastest kid on your team runs a real 4.55 that's pretty darn good, and it fits his 100 time, which is probably off by the same amount as the 40 time. Agreed. There were only 7 high school kids in Ontario (population approximately 13.6 million) that ran sub 11 second 100 meter races at our provincial track meet this year. Finals 1 Bolade Ajomale A Mackenzie -RiH 10.59 2 Deion Barker St. Marcellinus 10.66 3 Nick Palomino Dr. G W Williams 10.81 4 Xavier Collis Fr. Henry Carr 10.82 5 Shermar Paul St Paul - Ottawa 10.82 6 Norris Spike St. Augustine SS 10.97 7 Jayden Kelly Joan of Arc -Bar 10.97 8 Ramzi Abdullahi John Polanyi CI 11.07 I'd say that only the top two runners would be legit 4.4 guys....the other 5 would be close...it would depend on if they were quicker off the start type runners or more guys who can maintain their top speed. So bottom line, we're lucky if we can 5 high school kids in an region 13.6 million people capable of running legit 4.4 forty yard dashes. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jun 23, 2014 19:21:19 GMT -6
Do you know how OFSAA times the 100?
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Jun 23, 2014 19:46:18 GMT -6
Do you know how OFSAA times the 100? I think OFSAA laser times...but I'm not 100% sure. I'd be shocked if they didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by gators1422 on Jun 23, 2014 21:21:10 GMT -6
At our local track meet, the fastest kid on our football team ran an 11.22 100 meter race (hand timed). I hand timed his 40 yard dash at 4.55 Not sure what this means...I guess I'm wondering if this sounds right. Those of you with many years of experience doing this, have you found some strong correlations between track 100 m times and 40 times? For example, I imagine a kid would have to run a sub 11 second 100m race to have 4.4 speed in the forty. We have a kid very similar, ran a 11.17 100m and we consistently have him running a 4.49 to a 4.58 hand timed. He was hand timed at 2 camps this summer, one a 4.52 the other a 4.61 so I would think a sub 11 100 meters is close to a 4.4 hand timed. |
|
|
|
Post by coachfloyd on Jun 24, 2014 5:41:07 GMT -6
I don't think you can correlate 100 times and 40 times. 40 times are start driven and 100 times are how long you can run your fastest. Charles Poliquin has some good stuff on the 100 time splits.
But getting back to the original point, I think the best way to test the 40 for the money is the just jump mat. Take human error out as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by fcboiler87 on Jun 24, 2014 6:35:33 GMT -6
I had an electronic timer at my last school. It was several years old so I replaced batteries and everything to get it working again. When it worked, it was nice, but it was never consistently working. Perhaps the brand just wasn't good, but I could never count on it to be functional. When it was working, I had them run the laser time but also hand timed it. Consistently there was a .2 second difference with the hand time of course being faster. As nice and accurate as the laser timers are, the pain of having to set up the one I had coupled with its inconsistencies and cost, I won't go back. I'll stick to hand timing it and teaching the difference in my time versus a laser timer. As long as it's consistent in how it's measured, it will provide valid enough results for my classes and players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Jun 24, 2014 7:36:53 GMT -6
I don't think you can correlate 100 times and 40 times. 40 times are start driven and 100 times are how long you can run your fastest. Charles Poliquin has some good stuff on the 100 time splits. But getting back to the original point, I think the best way to test the 40 for the money is the just jump mat. Take human error out as much as possible. Agree that the jump mat is a very consistent and reliable method, but I don't like the fact that it gives slower times (even if they are very consistent). The kids won't be happy if our fastest player recorded a 5.0 forty. I suppose we could just subtract .4 from everybodies time. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Jun 24, 2014 7:41:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by fcboiler87 on Jun 24, 2014 8:59:30 GMT -6
I read your response and I was thinking to myself... I cannot remember the brand for the life of me. Then I click the link you posted and there it was! I can't recommend that brand based on my personal experience. I'm not saying it won't work, but for how long is really the question. Like I said this model is probably 5-6 years old at this point, but for what you pay for them, it should last longer than that, at least in my opinion. The more expensive model may be better, I do not know. But the wires and everything becomes a real pain. I mean I always had my kids help but it inevitably gets tangled and knotted and it's no fun to deal with. If I were going to purchase a laser timer, I'd definitely prefer it be a wireless one. Obviously there will be a higher cost with that but worth it in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by coachfloyd on Jun 24, 2014 9:48:51 GMT -6
I don't think you can correlate 100 times and 40 times. 40 times are start driven and 100 times are how long you can run your fastest. Charles Poliquin has some good stuff on the 100 time splits. But getting back to the original point, I think the best way to test the 40 for the money is the just jump mat. Take human error out as much as possible. Agree that the jump mat is a very consistent and reliable method, but I don't like the fact that it gives slower times (even if they are very consistent). The kids won't be happy if our fastest player recorded a 5.0 forty. I suppose we could just subtract .4 from everybodies time. ours werent anything like that. Our fastest this year was a 4.45 on the mat and last year I had the same guy at that on a hand time. Now hes faster this year because of another year in the weight room so its tough to compare. I would say a .2 difference is about the most you will see. The thing you eliminate is the times that are just all over the place. I cant tell you how many times this year when we timed where a kid would get the exact same time 3 or 4 runs in a row. It was very consistent. From what I remember, a .2 drop is about the norm when comparing hand times to electronic times. Most of my kids ran the same or faster when comparing over a years time. |
|
|
|
Post by jml on Jun 24, 2014 12:55:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Jun 24, 2014 13:14:39 GMT -6
coachfloyd, The jump mat starts on sound, correct? Are you giving a verbal/sonic cue for the athlete to start? Or are you making a noise to start the timer when you see the kid start to move?
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jun 24, 2014 14:20:36 GMT -6
coachfloyd, The jump mat starts on sound, correct? Are you giving a verbal/sonic cue for the athlete to start? Or are you making a noise to start the timer when you see the kid start to move? I have to admit I am curious also considering he had one run a 4.45 on this. My kids are starting on the whistle and I have it set for 120 feet. I had a kid run a 4.98 as my fastest the other day, and this kid can FLY!!! He stole 30 bases this baseball season and is one of the fastest kids I have had in my programs and I have coached 10 D1 players. He is a kid that would run a 4.4 to 4.6 for sure at a combine. A 4.45 makes him .54 second faster than him. I can't even imagine that kind of speed. |
|
|
|
Post by coachfloyd on Jun 25, 2014 5:36:17 GMT -6
coachfloyd, The jump mat starts on sound, correct? Are you giving a verbal/sonic cue for the athlete to start? Or are you making a noise to start the timer when you see the kid start to move? I start when he moves. Thats why I say its closer to hand start-laser finish. Maybe we have been mixing up terminology? |
|
|
|
Post by coachfloyd on Jun 25, 2014 5:44:24 GMT -6
coachfloyd, The jump mat starts on sound, correct? Are you giving a verbal/sonic cue for the athlete to start? Or are you making a noise to start the timer when you see the kid start to move? I have to admit I am curious also considering he had one run a 4.45 on this. My kids are starting on the whistle and I have it set for 120 feet. I had a kid run a 4.98 as my fastest the other day, and this kid can FLY!!! He stole 30 bases this baseball season and is one of the fastest kids I have had in my programs and I have coached 10 D1 players. He is a kid that would run a 4.4 to 4.6 for sure at a combine. A 4.45 makes him .54 second faster than him. I can't even imagine that kind of speed. like I posted a few seconds ago, we are really testing two different things and that accounts for the difference in speed. You are testing reaction time in addition to speed. Im just testing speed. For this reason, I don't think 40 times are worth much at all when comparing program to program. Kind of like a squat max. People and coaches act like whatever you time is legit when there is a ton of room for error and interpretation. I tell our kids all the time when they go to a combine or camp that you are at the mercy of whoever is timing the 40 that day. They may or may not know what the crap they are doing. Some people only want fast times no matter what. I really only care about improvement to see if my training program is getting the job done. At my last school, our best improvement in times didnt coincide with our fastest avg times. The year we had the fastest I was working with better raw materials but didn't do as good of a job as the year with the best improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jun 25, 2014 9:13:05 GMT -6
coachfloyd, The jump mat starts on sound, correct? Are you giving a verbal/sonic cue for the athlete to start? Or are you making a noise to start the timer when you see the kid start to move? I start when he moves. Thats why I say its closer to hand start-laser finish. Maybe we have been mixing up terminology? This makes sense now. |
|
|
|
Post by planck on Jun 25, 2014 14:39:02 GMT -6
Forty times are always a bit dodgy. I am familiar with a kid who had the highest sparq score at a nike combine who was timed with "only" a 4.6 at said combine (I have no idea how they timed). Kid was unreal. Thinking that there are more than just a few rare kids faster than that seems unlikely.
|
|
