Always wanted to know.

7

one of the USA 100m sprinters tried out for the texans, and i heard he ran a 3.8

www.google.com

hth

0.000000122 seconds









Mr. Light

Gig'em Aggies

[This message has been edited by tymanAg08 (edited 4/27/2007 1:07p).]

quote:

---

At the 2001 World Championships in Edmonton, Maurice Greene had what is considered to be the fastest start ever. Green covered the first 40 meters in 4.51 seconds running time and matched Johnson's 60-meter time of 6.33 seconds. Despite running into a 0.2 mph headwind and pulling his quadriceps 60 meters into the race, Greene finished the 100 in 9.82 seconds. [13] He covered the first 40 yards of that race in 4.21 seconds, making it the fastest 40-yard dash ever recorded using fully electronic timing.

---

www.wikipedia.com

[This message has been edited by StrongbadAg (edited 4/27/2007 1:07p).]

This guy drank his in like 35 seconds......but he also gave some to his 'homies'

I think that Rae Carruth and Joey Galloway both clocked a 4.19. I think there was film of Carruth's, but I don't know if either of those was electronically timed.

Joey Galloway's wasn't electronic timed. Rather, it was 6 guys and they averaged their stopwatch times together and got 4.19.

I seem to recall reading an article (don't remember where) that some doctor or physiologist stated that it was actually physically impossible for a human being to run faster than 4.25 seconds. The human skeletal, joint, and muscular system won't allow for anything faster, no matter how strong or quick you are.

The world use to be flat to...

The only times that could be considered legit for the purpose of a record would be full electronic times. Hand times are not accurate. In track and field, a hand time for a race 400m or less is converted by rounding up to the next tenth and then adding .24 sec. So, the 4.19 forty is rounded up to 4.2 + 2.4 = 4.44 sec. Even this is a guestimate. Take all hand timed forties with a grain of salt.

This comes up so often.

Please remember that track 100M have little or noting to do w/ 40y football times.

The biggest single difference is that a 40 football time has not reaction time. The clock starts upon the players movement. Heck, for hand timed it's a negative reaction time since the timer has to react to the player's movement!

Also, the races are run differently. A good 40y guy, while obviously fast, may or may not translate to 100M track. Same vice versa.

Curtis Dickey ran 60M in 6.39 seconds. 40y / 60m = .6096. That would equate to a 3.89 second 40 yard dash time. Yes, that's probably not accurate since the 60 includes more time at full speed, but a 40 includes not reaction time - so it's probably a fairly accurate estimate.

Mister Doctor, physicians at one time concluded the 4 minute mile was physiologically impossible.

........then Roger Banister proved otherwise.

I remember watching a Cowboy's spring training game a few years ago and they were talking about how Rocket Ishmael's (sp????) fastest 40 was 4.07 and there was a guy that was trying out (ended up not making the team) that was faster and his fastest was like 4.03. That guy and a guy whose last name was Rambo were getting good time but Rambo made it and the other guy didn't.

I think the guys name was Toya Jones who played for A&M around 98-00. Somewhere in there. He came over from the track team, and he was supposed to have run a 4.09 40 time.

I am sure it wasn't electronic, but that is the fastest guy I remember for the football team.

"They say football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, its much more serious than that."

The correction for track hand times has nothing to do with the athlete's reaction time. It has everything to do with the timer's reaction time. All hand times are inherently inaccurate.

You bring up a good point about the way football 40's are generally timed. Many start the clock on the athlete's first movement. Why????? Reaction time is an integral part of football. If they really wanted to know how fast someone would be on the football field, they should suit them up in the gear they will be playing in and then run the forty.

One last point...The actual time is somewhat irrelevant. What matters is how it compares to other athletes who are playing the same position. That's why it seems silly to me for anyone to rely on hand times instead of electronic times.

Best bet would be to look at Ben Johnson's roided up 100M run in the Olympics. I've seen the splits in print format but I'm sure its online if you Google it.

Bottom line, running on an engineered surface, precisely timed and on drugs Johnson's splits are slower than most 40's that are "visually timed" by scouts.

Which really calls into question the validity of 40 times that scouts provide.

[This message has been edited by Baylor81 (edited 4/27/2007 3:16p).]

Split times for sprinters are not the same as running a 40 yard dash. Carl Lewis one of the best 100m sprinters ever never ran faster than a 4.6 40 yard dash. The reason for this is 100m sprinters use differnt running styles to get the maximum speed out of 100m. A prime example is Justin Gatlin. When he ran for the NFL he ran a 4.4ish forty. His split time when running the 100m on his WR was 4.54.

[This message has been edited by ironmanag (edited 4/27/2007 3:33p).]

I think Toya may have been the fastest human being ever. I would kill to have that guy covering punts again.

It would be great to have Toya back, over running the play and generally making 80,000 people begin to cheer only to drop a collective ahhhhhhhhhh as he flew harmlessly by the returner.

ONE MORE TIME! TRACK RACES ARE RUN DIFFERENTLY!

THE RUNNER CAN'T GO UNTIL HE HEARS AND REACTS TO THE STARTER. THIS TAKES TIME! 40 YARD FOOTBALL RACES DON'T DO THAT!

As stated in a couple of posts above, the difference between and NFL 40 and 100m split is the reaction time. Therefore, Gatlin would have a 0.14 reaction time.

Toya never lived up to his potential!

AAAAAg

Toya never lived up to his potential!

AAAAAg

I currently hold the record. My wife came home and found the living room a mess and she was pms'ing at the time.....

Toya fininshed strong:
(1) Recovered fumbled against Mizzou which allowed us to win game at end
(2) tackled KState WR who caught Hail Mary at one yard line

TWO VERY PIVOTAL PLAYS

I ran a 4.12 in high school.

Toya never ran that fast. The fastest 40 ever recorded by a Aggie (look at the champion wall) is Sir Parker with a 4.24. D Goynes ran a 4.26, Bethel ran a 4.27 as did LMAC, R McCray ran a 4.29.

Where do you guys get this info. Toya was a long strider, but on the field, he was fast but not blazin. In fact, I don't think Toya ever broke a legit 4.4.

The fastest NFL Combine was a 4.25 from Fabian Washington. then it was D Williams and J Mathis with 4.29.

Joey Galloway may have run a hand timed 4.19 but his former teammate S Springs beat him in a race.

The fastest time ever with pads and helmet was D Green in a 4.4 better than L Burrell's 4.44

There are three primary separate issues being raised and, in my opinion mixed up, here:

1) 40 (first movement) vs. 100 (reaction to gun) - valid, makes most 40 times relatively faster

2) hand timing (40) vs. electronic timing (100) - valid, makes most 40 times relatively faster

3) "the 100 is run differently than the 40" - essentially an argument that 100m sprinters somehow pace themselves at the beginning of the race, e.g. Tommie Smith "drive phase" - Not so sure this is valid, since data show that world-class sprinters continue to accelerate until about 60 m and then try to minimize their deceleration until the end of the race (see table below).

cecil77, If Curtis Dickey was a typical world-class sprinter, the distance ratio calculation you gave would result in a faster 40 than expected because Dickey would have continued to accelerate between 40 yds. and 60m. You seem knowledgable about track, what are your thoughts?

4) a point not yet raised - the 40 essentially tests ability to start well and accelerate quickly - there are a lot of guys who run a great 40 and would not run a good 60 and would suck at a 100m dash - in 1964, researchers tested olympic athletes in Tokyo - the olympic weightlifters had the best 30m dash times, even better than the sprinters, because they were so explosively strong. therefore, maybe track times are not a real good measure of the lower limits of possible 40 times.

Maurice Greene velocity at each 10m mark during a 100m race:

00 0.00
10 8.71
20 10.47
30 11.14
40 11.50
50 11.67
60 11.80
70 11.68
80 11.57
90 11.51
100 11.30

[This message has been edited by Its Texas Aggies, dammit (edited 4/27/2007 9:16p).]

Did anyone say Alvin Harper yet?

No wait. It was Alexander Wright. A much crappier Cowboys WR in the early 90s.

dammit, I hadn't thought it through that way, I was mainly trying to show that the 4.4 40 for a 100M sprinter just isn't logical. Dickey was a freak, so I'm not sure how long his accel phase lasted.

And yes, track is just different. My 15 year old last year at the Aggie camp had a .75 difference in his 40 and short shuttle, when a .5 is considered typical for the "fast" guys. Running the 100m in track he's usually 2 meters ahead at the 10m mark, 3 meters ahead a the 20m mark, a meter ahead at the 40m mark and finishes 4m behind the winner. It's just different. I really think the short shuttle is a better measure of football speed.

I would guess Darrell Green is the fastest 40 guy ever. I saw him walk Herschel Walker down from behind in a game between the Redskins and Cowboys. 3-4 years earlier, I saw Walker, when he was a junior at Georgia, narrowly lose to a guy named Carl Lewis in the indoor 60. Lewis set the world record in that race. To see Green catch a world-class sprinter like that was amazing.

Seems like I remember reading in the 1986 Cotton Bowl program that Bo Jackson had been timed at 4.18 in the 40. I found that hard to believe but after he broke loose on that little screen pass and almost scored I was a believer. Dude was unbelievable.

Darrel Green also ran down a young Tony Dorsett and made him look slow. That dude had unbelievable football speed.