It holds no significance to me either. Jerry Rice is the greatest wide receiver of all time, yet he didn't run a fast 40-yard dash. Football is played in pads, not in shorts, so a 40-yard dash time is largely irrelevant. Nevertheless, I'm not delusional enough to think that Gatlin can run a sub-4.0 40-yard dash, nonetheless a 3.5 to 3.8 as some posters in this thread have suggested.
Justin Gatlin (Merged)
- Thread starter Mr. Rockytop
- Start date
It holds no significance to me either. Jerry Rice is the greatest wide receiver of all time, yet he didn't run a fast 40-yard dash. Football is played in pads, not in shorts, so a 40-yard dash time is largely irrelevant. Nevertheless, I'm not delusional enough to think that Gatlin can run a sub-4.0 40-yard dash, nonetheless a 3.5 to 3.8 as some posters in this thread have suggested.
thunder5
Cause I like to party
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 10,560
- Likes
- 8,746
I agree that a 40 time is practically meaningless when it comes to playing football...but I think you're mistaking about this time. Jason Allen clocked this same time electronically at the NFL combine. Do you really believe that Jason Allen is as fast as probably the fastest man ever (Johnson)? Are you sure that time wasn't over 40 meters and not 40 yards. 40 yards is 120 feet whereas 40 meters is 132 feet. Even the best sprinter would take two more strides over that distance...so it's not inconceivable that if he did 4.38 seconds over 40 meters that he did sub-4.0 over 40 yards.
thunder5
Cause I like to party
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 10,560
- Likes
- 8,746
thunder5
Cause I like to party
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 10,560
- Likes
- 8,746
Mullet
The Voice of Reason
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
- Likes
- 6
For what it's worth this is the most concisely informative post on this subject I have yet found:
Ben Johnson was at 40 yards in 4.37 seconds (not 4.38). But that INCLUDES his reaction time of 0.13 seconds. So his actual running time was 4.24 seconds. Here were his 10-meter splits --
RT 0.13 (0.00 running time, 0.13 total time)
10 1.70 (1.70 running time, 1.83 total time)
20 1.04 (2.74 running time, 2.87 total time)
30 0.93 (3.67 running time, 3.80 total time)
40 0.86 (4.53 running time, 4.66 total time)
50 0.84 (5.37 running time, 5.50 total time)
60 0.83 (6.20 running time, 6.33 total time)
70 0.84 (7.04 running time, 7.17 total time)
80 0.85 (7.89 running time, 8.02 total time)
90 0.87 (8.76 running time, 8.89 total time)
100 0.90 (9.66 running time, 9.79 total time)
Forty yards is 36.576 meters. He was at 30 meters in 3.67 seconds running time (3.80 total time), then covered the next 10 meters in 0.86 seconds. Given his rate of acceleration, he covered those initial 6.576 meters in 0.57 seconds, putting him at 4.24 seconds running time (4.37 total time) when he was at 36.576 meters, or 40 yards.
And Johnson doesn't even hold the record. When Maurice Greene ran a 9.82 in 1999, he covered the first 40 yards in 4.18 seconds. His splits were 1.69 for the first 10 meters (tied for the fastest ever), 1.00 for the second 10 meters (tied for the fastest ever), 0.92 for the third 10 meters and 0.86 for the fourth 10 meters. So he covered the first 30 meters in 3.61 seconds. We have to extrapolate the next 6.576 meters, and it comes out to 0.57 seconds. Total running time over 40 yards: 4.18 seconds.
And when Asafa Powell set the world record in the 100, he covered the first 40 yards in 4.25 seconds.
At the Combine, they use a hand start (on the runner's first move) and an electronic finish. So the only adjustment to make between a fully electronic 40 and an electronic 40 at the Combine is the hand-timer's reaction to the player's first move, which could be anywhere from 0.10 to 0.25 seconds. In other words, had Maurice Greene been running at the Combine, his electronic 40 would have been recorded as somewhere between 3.93 and 4.08 seconds -- or more than 0.20 faster than the Combine record.
Really, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out the inherent differences between an NFL 40 and a track race, but none of these articles that supposedly debunk the 40 have realized what those differences are.
On a completely personal observation, and no disrespect meant to a fine athlete, but if Matt Jones can run an electronically timed 4.37 at the NFL combine I can't help but wonder what the likes of Gatlin could pull off on a fast surface.
Ben Johnson was at 40 yards in 4.37 seconds (not 4.38). But that INCLUDES his reaction time of 0.13 seconds. So his actual running time was 4.24 seconds. Here were his 10-meter splits --
RT 0.13 (0.00 running time, 0.13 total time)
10 1.70 (1.70 running time, 1.83 total time)
20 1.04 (2.74 running time, 2.87 total time)
30 0.93 (3.67 running time, 3.80 total time)
40 0.86 (4.53 running time, 4.66 total time)
50 0.84 (5.37 running time, 5.50 total time)
60 0.83 (6.20 running time, 6.33 total time)
70 0.84 (7.04 running time, 7.17 total time)
80 0.85 (7.89 running time, 8.02 total time)
90 0.87 (8.76 running time, 8.89 total time)
100 0.90 (9.66 running time, 9.79 total time)
Forty yards is 36.576 meters. He was at 30 meters in 3.67 seconds running time (3.80 total time), then covered the next 10 meters in 0.86 seconds. Given his rate of acceleration, he covered those initial 6.576 meters in 0.57 seconds, putting him at 4.24 seconds running time (4.37 total time) when he was at 36.576 meters, or 40 yards.
And Johnson doesn't even hold the record. When Maurice Greene ran a 9.82 in 1999, he covered the first 40 yards in 4.18 seconds. His splits were 1.69 for the first 10 meters (tied for the fastest ever), 1.00 for the second 10 meters (tied for the fastest ever), 0.92 for the third 10 meters and 0.86 for the fourth 10 meters. So he covered the first 30 meters in 3.61 seconds. We have to extrapolate the next 6.576 meters, and it comes out to 0.57 seconds. Total running time over 40 yards: 4.18 seconds.
And when Asafa Powell set the world record in the 100, he covered the first 40 yards in 4.25 seconds.
At the Combine, they use a hand start (on the runner's first move) and an electronic finish. So the only adjustment to make between a fully electronic 40 and an electronic 40 at the Combine is the hand-timer's reaction to the player's first move, which could be anywhere from 0.10 to 0.25 seconds. In other words, had Maurice Greene been running at the Combine, his electronic 40 would have been recorded as somewhere between 3.93 and 4.08 seconds -- or more than 0.20 faster than the Combine record.
Really, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out the inherent differences between an NFL 40 and a track race, but none of these articles that supposedly debunk the 40 have realized what those differences are.
On a completely personal observation, and no disrespect meant to a fine athlete, but if Matt Jones can run an electronically timed 4.37 at the NFL combine I can't help but wonder what the likes of Gatlin could pull off on a fast surface.
thunder5
Cause I like to party
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 10,560
- Likes
- 8,746
That was a fantastic post...and it answered a question I've had for a while. I always wondered where some of these 40 times were coming from. I know that some of them are completely bogus..like the ones you hear about high school football recruits running 4.2's and all. But I was really confused how some of these guys at the NFL combine could post sub-4.4 times then a guy like Ben Johnson could only run a 4.38...it just didn't add up. Great post :salute:
If you go back and read the article that I linked (first posted by GAVol very early in this thread), you will see that article discusses the differences to which you're referring, and you missed at least one.
In addition, your post is using his rate of acceleration (which would not necessarily be constant) to extrapolate his time for the last 6.576 meters of the 40-yard dash. The story that I linked actually had experts break down the actual film of him running that 100 meters and take the actual time that he ran the first 40 yards, and it was 4.38 seconds, not the 4.37 seconds that your extrapolation calculates.
From the article that I linked:
"Track coaches go to Pro Timing Days, and they see scouts starting their stopwatches with their thumb, which has a slower reaction time than the index finger. They see them crowding the finish line and anticipating -- guessing, basically -- when someone will cross it. They see running surfaces that weren't professionally measured or leveled. They see no starter's gun, no automatic timing device, no wind gauge.
Grizzled track coaches love to say that the "clock doesn't lie." Well, it does in football.
Say someone clocks a hand-timed 4.35 in an NFL workout.
The accepted standard to convert a hand-timed event to its automatically timed equivalent is to round up to the nearest tenth of a second -- in this case 4.4 -- and add .24 seconds. Now you're at 4.64.
Most football 40s don't go on a starter's pistol but on an athlete's motion. The average reaction time among elite sprinters (from the gun to the moment they exert pressure on the starting block's electronic pads) is about .15 seconds; for a football player with little track experience it probably would be closer to .2. Add that in, and you have 4.84.
Now say it's a breezy day and you're running with a tailwind. Say it's 10 mph. Accepted track tables say that would provide a .07-second advantage over 40 yards. Add it in, and your 4.35 is suddenly a 4.91.
There's no shame in running a 4.9-second 40, of course. World-class sprinters get a bad start or get a cold day, and they go through 40 yards in the high 4s, too."
Vol423
Though GV182 may be indifferent it's still the off season for a few more days so, what the heck? Anyway, your first incorrect assumption is that I wrote the body of the post. I did not, so addressing previous links or statements in the thread is not applicable. Only the first line and last paragraph are mine.
First, the 4.37 vs 4.38 debate is silly since that 1/100th in either direction is meaningless to the discussion. Second, and more importantly, I'm not sure what the apparent arguement you are making to my post actually is. Is your arguement that hand-held 40 times do not correlate with the massive scrutiny of elite sprinters? Look back over my post and that arguement isn't contradicted in the least. This thread seemed to have degenerated into what COULD an elite sprinter accomplish over 40 yards and the Zeigler article you quote has some serious flaws that were, in fact, addressed in my post. To wit:
Ben Johnson did not run a 4.38 "football" 40, he ran a 4.25. (using your 4.38) 4.38 -.13 reaction time = 4.25. You mention this factor in your own reply.
The real trouble starts with the oh-so-arbitrary .24 added to any hand-timed 40. It's not even being arguemenative to wonder how that figure was arrived at, is it? The reaction time of the timer in relation to the runners start and finish? Perhaps with a grain of salt I'll take that though it sounds like it'd be at the long end but I'll roll with it. But wait! Now AFTER we've slung nearly a 1/4 second on our time, NOW we're going to add a .2 for reaction time? Didn't we just do that? And it's simply gratuitous to the discussion to wedge a breeze in there. What if? Sure. How about if it's a headwind instead of a tailwind? Wouldn't that have made an otherwise 4.35 really a 4.28? I say leave the wind out of it.
What it seemed, at least to me, this thread was concerned with was what could some truly elite sprinter (like Gatlin) do in a 40 yard dash. I think my original post (though primarily the work of some track dude) makes a strong arguement that such people can indeed run VERY low 40 times. (including faster than Ben Johnson did) Here's one more thing to chew on; if Jonathan Wade ran an electronic (NOT hand) timed 4.36 at the Indy combine and had a 10.21 100 meters what would a 40 look like for someone that could shave a whole .44 seconds off that time?
Nobody claimed that Ben Johnson ran a “football (i.e., fictitious) 40”. Zeigler’s article was not in the least bit flawed. He is stating that the man that was at the time that he wrote the article the fastest man in the world (and doped up on steroids for the event) only ran a 4.38 40-yard time during the race in which he set the world record for the 100 meters. He is stating that under professional, track meet conditions, the time is started at the gun. Therefore, the runner has a reaction time of approximately 0.15 seconds from the time of the gun to when they first push out of the blocks. Since NFL fictitious 40 times don’t start off a gun, but rather at the player’s first movement, you have to add that time to the NFL player’s time to equate it to a true and accurate time as measured under track meet conditions. He claims that a non-professional sprinter’s reaction times are a bit slower than a professional sprinter (which makes sense), so his reaction time would be approximately 0.2 seconds.
He then claims that on average the use of non-electronic timing deducts approximately 0.24 seconds from a hand-timed 40-yard time due to the reaction times (and guessing on the timer’s part to compensate for reaction times) at both the start and finish of a hand-timed 40. The portion of this 0.24 seconds attributed to the start of a hand-timed 40 would be in addition to the 0.2 seconds added to the sprinter’s reaction time to the gun since a hand-timed 40 is started on the sprinter’s first movement.
The discussion of the tailwind is to once again translate an NFL hand-timed 40 time to a professional sprinter’s time under competitive conditions. World records measured in a track meet are only official if they are not wind-aided. Therefore, if an NFL 40 yard dash is timed with a tailwind, then you would need to add back the time due to the tailwind to equate it to a track meet event. If there was no wind, then there would be no adjustment. If there were a headwind, then there would be a negative adjustment. However, his article was comparing NFL hand-timed 40-yard dash times to the truly accurate 40-yard time run in Ben Johnson’s record setting (and, therefore, non-wind aided) 100 meter race.
What this discussion is getting at is that the 4.2 and 4.3 times that you hear about football players being timed at are a total FANTASY. The elite sprinters of the world (like Ben Johnson and Justin Gatlin) run actual 40 times in the 4.30 to 4.38 range when times are precisely measured (i.e., gun starts, no wind aid, electronic times). The point is not to ask what Gatlin could run if he were timed in the absolutely useless way that NFL players are timed due to the numerous inaccuracies introduced to their timing methodology. NFL athletes that are said to run in the 4.2 to 4.4 range are actually running in the 4.6 to 4.9 range if they were timed properly.
Who cares what a totally inaccurately timed 40-yard dash time is? Hell, I could have my daughter time me in a bunch of 40-yard dashes, and I’m sure some of them could potentially be in the 3.5 second time (she’s only 4, so yes that would be possible). It’s still totally fiction, and so are the times thrown around for NFL combine 40-yard dashes. Why try to adjust a real 40-yard time (which for Gatlin would likely be in the 4.25 to 4.38 range) to a fantasy land NFL garbage 40-yard time?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 97,207
- Likes
- 116,946
(Sigh)
First, c'mon man, comparing Johnson's 4.38 electronic 40 to those "hand-timed" 40's turned in by football players is precisely the arguement Zeigler is making. His failure is in following up on it.
Ok, I'm obviously not getting through at some level so let's try a different angle altogether:
If Zeiglers conversion numbers are accurate to ADD to a hand-timed 40 they must then be SUBTRACTED from an true and legit fully electronic track time, right?
Is it your (and Zeigler's) contention that Ben Johnson ran a "hand-timed" 4.01 40?
4.38 -.24 - .13(Ben's actual recorded RT) = 4.01.
Even better, is it your position that Maurice Greene's "hand timed" 4.18 40 would (by Zeigler's numbers mind you) be:
4.18 -.24 -.15 = 3.79.
I thought a time like that is precisely what the majority of this thread (and Zeilger) was claiming to be absurd?
So, if Maurice Greene can run a "hand-timed" 3.79 (Zeigler's conversion numbers, not mine) why couldn't somebody that's genuinely "fast" (though not elite sprinter fast) run a legit "hand-timed" 4.2 or so? .4 seconds seems a reasonable amount of charity for a distance that short.
I honestly don’t see how you can possibly continue to miss the point that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LEGIT “HAND-TIMED” 40. Any hand-timed 40-yard dash time is inherently flawed. Electronically timed 40-yard times run off a gun start with no wind (as is the case for Ben Johnson’s 4.38 second 40-yard dash split-time from his record setting 100 meter race) are the ONLY legitimate times.
An NFL player being clocked at a 4.2 in the 40-yard dash at the NFL combine does not mean that player can run a 4.2 second 40-yard dash. It just means that he had crappy timers operating the stopwatch.
He does seem a bit wound up, doesn't he?
VOL423
As a courtesy would you please review the following that you apparently overlooked or dismissed in my last post:
If Zeigler's conversion numbers are accurate to ADD to a hand-timed 40 they must then be SUBTRACTED from an true and legit fully electronic track time, right?
Is it your (and Zeigler's) contention that Ben Johnson ran a "hand-timed" 4.01 40?
4.38 -.24 - .13(Ben's actual recorded RT) = 4.01.
Even better, is it your position that Maurice Greene's "hand timed" 4.18 40 would (by Zeigler's numbers mind you) be:
4.18 -.24 -.15 = 3.79.
I thought a time like that is precisely what the majority of this thread (and Zeilger) was claiming to be absurd?
These are your numbers sir. OK, perhaps not yours but the ones you cite. I ask you again sir, if numbers YOU provide convert a known track time to a 3.79 "hand-time", what would make the idea of of a lesser (though still very fast person) running...say...a 4.25 40 so unthinkably outlandish? Your mistake is that you have been convinced that all this time (.2 here and .24 there) is supposed to be slathered onto some football players 40 time AND THEN HAVE THAT REFLECT THE "REAL" HAND-TIMED 40 HE JUST RAN. If you thought that through at all you would see that's incorrect. If you're point is that time, converted to what he would have run under starting gun/reaction time blah blah track conditions would be slower then, you're right! Moreover, I've never contended otherwise! Don't you see? By (again) your conversion figures you can ONLY compare Johnson's 4.38 to a footballer's 4.25 if you do one of the following:
Johnson's track time- 4.38
Footballer's track time- 4.25 + .2 + .24 = 4.69
OR
Footballer's time- 4.25
Johnson's time- 4.38 - .15 -.24 = 3.99
Apples to apples. (For those just tuning in the .05 difference between the two reaction times is from the assumed faster reaction of a trained sprinter vs a football player, again as cited by Vol423)
And I believe the last part of your post might be in error by default since it is my understanding the NFL combine has now gone to pressure pad/electronic eye measurement so timers operating a stopwatch aren't part of the equation, crappy or otherwise. It might surprise you to hear I'm with you that a 4.2 combine 40 is extremely unlikely. What person of that sprint caliber is going to come out of college football and run at the combine? It may never happen.
I didn't overlook this comment in your previous post. If you want to make the point that Gatlin and other world class track sprinters are much faster than these NFL players that are being reported as having 4.2 to 4.3 40-yard dash times, then I agree (and have been repeatedly making this point all along). However, if you want to state that deducting items from a correctly timed 40-yard dash to arrive at some mythical time that would be the equivalent of a garbage NFL combine hand-timed event, then I disagree. The whole point is that NFL combine hand-timed 40-yard dashes are inherently worthless because of the numerous flaws in the timing mechanisms. These timing flaws are not constant. They are different for one sprinter than for another, and make comparisons virtually worthless from a realistic standpoint.
Advertisement
