[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
I guarantee 90% of the male population under 25 could run a 4.7 (football-timed) if they devoted the proper time to training for it.
[/quote]
You may be right, but it’s still relative. You’ll have guys that could run a 4.35 without training as well. The dif between 4.7 and 4.35 is astounding.
[quote]Roy wrote:
Whoever said sprinting was 90% genetics needs to shut up. I’m so sick and tired of genetic copouts. I ran track in high school as a skinnyfat irish kid, with a 4.38 mind you.
Yes, most olympic level athletes do have good genetics, but olympic athletes only make up about 1% of all the athletes populating this small planet.
I’ve seen plenty of competitive sprinters without awesome hip placement and hamstring strength.
I’d say it’s 90% training and 10% genetics. But that 10% is normally what people base their decision to stay in the game or not off of. That’s probably what the moron who made that statement did. “Well I’m not a tall, ripped african with great genetics, so I give up on sprinting.” [/quote]
4.38, faster than most guys in the NFL. Pretty good. Of course I’m quite skeptical, but I’m not going to say its not possible. I’ve seen stranger things athletically.
When you look at the general population, genetics is a WHOLE lot more influential than 10%. If you’re only looking at the other sprinters you competed against in high school, then that’s already genetically speedier than probably 70% of the general population. So when you look at the top collegiate guys and professional guys, back in high school, they were definitely already the top 10% before even stepping on the track. And it has nothing to do with what you look like. Just cuz you were a “skinnyfat Irish kid” doesn’t mean you weren’t genetically more gifted for speed, through whatever combination of fast twitch muscles, favorable joint angles, or limb length that you do have that works to get your body down the track. Go run track professionally in Europe and you’ll see that speed is not just gifted to “tall, ripped African” descendants (maybe a large portion, but not all by any means). Like another poster said, you’ve just negated your whole argument using your own example. That’s evidenced by the fact that you were already fast in high school, without any significant training. Also, in many phases of high school, kids haven’t even finished all their growing yet, so we really can’t even make this comparison unless you’re looking at college age kids. For example, I was butt slow in 8th and 9th grade. By the end of my senior year, I’d added another inch in height, all my levers were in place, and I’ve been quite speedy ever since. Even through college, my improvement was never really to my all-out foot speed, it was just to sprint endurance and technique. I Olympic lifted and squatted a shitload more than the super-fast 100M sprinters on my team, but I was never going to touch them on the track.
To get to the top levels of sprinting, you have to have the genetics. Sure, in high school and somewhat in college, you can out-train someone else, but at the international level, those guys were faster than 97% of the world the day they first laced up spikes.
[quote]pushpulljunkie wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
I guarantee 90% of the male population under 25 could run a 4.7 (football-timed) if they devoted the proper time to training for it.
You may be right, but it’s still relative. You’ll have guys that could run a 4.35 without training as well. The dif between 4.7 and 4.35 is astounding.
[/quote]
Improving a 40 time does not mean you are significantly faster. It means you have learned how to run a 40 more efficiently.
[quote]Roy wrote:
Whoever said sprinting was 90% genetics needs to shut up. I’m so sick and tired of genetic copouts. I ran track in high school as a skinnyfat irish kid, with a 4.38 mind you.
Ummmm me thinks not.
That would have put you in the top 5 fastest times at this years NFL combine.
Quick… make up something else.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
This is a ridiculous statement. You damn sure can coach speed. Most people just have no clue how to do it.
There’s obviously a huge genetic component, but there are plenty of people have trained themselves to be significantly faster and plenty of genetic freaks who have never reached great levels of success due to poor coaching or laziness.
Most people just don’t train for speed or don’t train properly… so of course they’re not going to be fast!
It’s like a skinny guy who hardly lifts weights saying that bodybuilding is all genetics because he’s smaller than naturally muscular guy who doesn’t lift.
I guarantee 90% of the male population under 25 could run a 4.7 (football-timed) if they devoted the proper time to training for it.
[/quote]
Since my three sentence post was easily misunderstood, let me try again.
A person cannot improve their sprinting speed to the same degree that they can improve nearly every other facet of athleticism. It’s not anything at all like the skinny kid complaining that he can’t put on muscle.
Sure, you can get a little faster. But you cannot take a slow kid and make him fast. You CAN take a skinny kid and make him large. You CAN take a weak kid and make him strong. But you cannot take a slow kid and make him fast. It’s been tried over and over and over again, and coaches have failed time and time again.
You can coach a slow kid and make him not-quite-as-slow. You can take a fast kid and make him just-a-little-faster. But that’s it. You aren’t taking a moderately well trained individual and improving his 40 time from 5.2 to 4.4. That’s just not happening.
Sprinting speed depends very heavily on what God gave you, unlike size or strength. Once you’ve put in some time learning to run, your window for improvement in short sprints just isn’t very large, unlike just about every other athletic endeavor.
And that “90% under 25 can run a 4.7 40” is ridiculous. A legit 4.7 40 is FAST! Your typical friendly neighborhood high school running back is probably running a 4.7-4.8. Find a third-string D-IA BCS College WR and race him. That kid is probably running a 4.6-4.7 40.
You think 90% of the under-25 population can match that?
[quote]Roy wrote:
Whoever said sprinting was 90% genetics needs to shut up. I’m so sick and tired of genetic copouts. I ran track in high school as a skinnyfat irish kid, with a 4.38 mind you.
Yes, most olympic level athletes do have good genetics, but olympic athletes only make up about 1% of all the athletes populating this small planet.
I’ve seen plenty of competitive sprinters without awesome hip placement and hamstring strength.
I’d say it’s 90% training and 10% genetics. But that 10% is normally what people base their decision to stay in the game or not off of. That’s probably what the moron who made that statement did. “Well I’m not a tall, ripped african with great genetics, so I give up on sprinting.” [/quote]
You’re a moron.
I’m not making a genetic copout. However, I’ve been around football players who did NO training on their own through high school, had absolutely horrid nutrition, and were still running in the 4.4’s when they got to college.
On the contrary, I know equally sized football players who absolutely busted their ass trying to improve their speed with awesome training programs, had great nutrition, blah blah, and never broke the 4.8 barrier.
You’re stuck with the genetic makeup your were born with, you can only alter your muscular function, especially in regards to speed, so much.
Also, your 4.38 is a crock of shit. What’d you time that with, a sun dial?
The FASTEST collegiate player I played with ran a 4.35, and is currently playing for the Cincinnati Bengals. Also… wait for it… he’s WHITE!
What NFL team do you play for?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
And that “90% under 25 can run a 4.7 40” is ridiculous. A legit 4.7 40 is FAST! Your typical friendly neighborhood high school running back is probably running a 4.7-4.8. Find a third-string D-IA BCS College WR and race him. That kid is probably running a 4.6-4.7 40.
[/quote]
Absolutely. A true electronic 4.7 40 is smoking.
I remember way back watching American Gladiators, there was a speedy little contestant that went by “Two Scoops” who was the fastest guy they ever had show-up for a try-out, was an awesome athlete, etc.
He ran a hand-timed 4.9 40.
Gives you some perspective about 320 pounders like Warren Sapp who can run a 4.6
I would honestly say a more accurate statistic would be that 70% of adult males don’t have it in their genetic makeup to run under a 4.7, regardless of training.
I urge those that think they’re fast to get electronically timed in the 40. It will probably be a very humbling experience.
[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
Having spent some time around some fairly elite athletes, I’d have to say that sprinting speed is probably 90% genetic, and 10% training.[/quote]
Probably true in most cases, but how do you think Adam Archuleta fits in with the 90/10 model.
Archuleta was purported to be ‘slow’ before training with Jay Schroeder. While training with Schroeder, Archuleta’s time went from something like 4.8 to 4.3ish. Another words, he improved from ‘who cares’ speed to damn fast for a 220 pounder. His vertical leap was claimed to have improved by over 15 inches during the same time frame.
I’m not disputing the claim that world class sprinters are born with fortuitous genetics, but that intense training may play more than a minor role in an athletes development/progress.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Since my three sentence post was easily misunderstood, let me try again.
A person cannot improve their sprinting speed to the same degree that they can improve nearly every other facet of athleticism.[/quote]
I’ll give you that, for sure. Although I still do think that you can improve sprint speed more than you think.
[quote]
Sure, you can get a little faster. But you cannot take a slow kid and make him fast. You CAN take a skinny kid and make him large. You CAN take a weak kid and make him strong. But you cannot take a slow kid and make him fast. It’s been tried over and over and over again, and coaches have failed time and time again.[/quote]
Many coaches have failed time and time again. But there are some coaches out there who are consistently producing great sprinters year after year. Tony Wells comes to mind; do you think there’s something in the water in Colorado that makes everybody out there fast or does he have a little idea on how to make somebody faster?
[quote]
You can coach a slow kid and make him not-quite-as-slow. You can take a fast kid and make him just-a-little-faster. But that’s it. You aren’t taking a moderately well trained individual and improving his 40 time from 5.2 to 4.4. That’s just not happening.[/quote]
A 4.4 is jaw-dropping, world-class speed. Most NFL d-backs aren’t running 4.4’s (football-timed, because none of them are running that electronically). So to say you can’t take a moderately well trained individual and improve his 40 time from 5.2 to 4.4 is like saying you can’t take a moderately well-trained individual and take his squat from 315 (comparable to the 5.2) to 900 (comparable to the 4.4).
Which I would say is pretty true. There are MORE people who could be trained to squat 900 than could be trained to run a 4.4, but most of the human population is never squatting 900 pounds, no matter how hard they train, just like most will never come close to a 4.4.
[quote]
Sprinting speed depends very heavily on what God gave you, unlike size or strength. Once you’ve put in some time learning to run, your window for improvement in short sprints just isn’t very large, unlike just about every other athletic endeavor.[/quote]
In 1991, Michael Johnson won the World Championships with a 20.01 200m. In 1996, he ran a 19.32. In 1984, Ben Johnson placed 3rd in the olympics with a 10.22. In 1988 he ran a 9.79. Those are pretty significant improvements in elite level sprinters.
So wait… first you use 4.4 in your example, then you tell me how fast 4.7 is? Which is also why I said a football-timed 4.7, which is just about an electronic 5.0. That is fast, but not unattainable.
90% was way too much, I’ll admit that. I have a bias being involved in athletics my whole life so I forget the average population.
The thing is, how many people legitimately train for speed? Not many. Most that do, get fast. To say that people can only get a little bit faster is ridiculous. To use your example above, no a moderately-trained athlete running a 5.2 couldn’t sniff a 4.4, but he could definitely get under 4.9 with proper training, assuming he’s not very heavy.
[quote]unearth wrote:
Bauer97 wrote:
Having spent some time around some fairly elite athletes, I’d have to say that sprinting speed is probably 90% genetic, and 10% training.
Probably true in most cases, but how do you think Adam Archuleta fits in with the 90/10 model.
Archuleta was purported to be ‘slow’ before training with Jay Schroeder. While training with Schroeder, Archuleta’s time went from something like 4.8 to 4.3ish. Another words, he improved from ‘who cares’ speed to damn fast for a 220 pounder. His vertical leap was claimed to have improved by over 15 inches during the same time frame.
I’m not disputing the claim that world class sprinters are born with fortuitous genetics, but that intense training may play more than a minor role in an athletes development/progress.[/quote]
Maybe in his case it was as simple as technique. Either way, if he is an exception, that only proves there are exceptions to most rules (and that goes for nearly everything concerning biology), not that the exception IS the rule.
My grandfather smoked cigarettes for over 60 years. He never got lung cancer. that doesn’t mean that cigarettes aren’t a risk for lung cancer. It means my grandfather was the exception to the rule.
[quote]unearth wrote:
Probably true in most cases, but how do you think Adam Archuleta fits in with the 90/10 model.
Archuleta was purported to be ‘slow’ before training with Jay Schroeder. While training with Schroeder, Archuleta’s time went from something like 4.8 to 4.3ish. Another words, he improved from ‘who cares’ speed to damn fast for a 220 pounder. His vertical leap was claimed to have improved by over 15 inches during the same time frame.
I’m not disputing the claim that world class sprinters are born with fortuitous genetics, but that intense training may play more than a minor role in an athletes development/progress.[/quote]
Good example. There are always exceptions to the rule.
Trust me, I am not discounting the value of training. I took over half a second off my 40 time while I was at college, so it’s obviously not all genetics.
However, with people continually using the 40 as a measure for speed, don’t discount that a lot of the improvements seen in 40 times are from learning technique, not gaining the actual physical ability to run faster.
You may improve your starting technique, or your full-speed-stride, but the true speed that matters most in all non-straight-ahead-sprinting athletics, the ability to accelerate, decelerate, and then accelerate again, is something that is extremely genetic, in my opinion/experience.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Maybe in his case it was as simple as technique. Either way, if he is an exception, that only proves there are exceptions to most rules (and that goes for nearly everything concerning biology), not that the exception IS the rule.
My grandfather smoked cigarettes for over 60 years. He never got lung cancer. that doesn’t mean that cigarettes aren’t a risk for lung cancer. It means my grandfather was the exception to the rule.[/quote]
Of course Archuleta may be (more than likely is) an exception to the rule.
However, what I was doing was attempting to support the idea that a 90/10 model may be a bit off.
10% may be under-estimating the importance of intense training.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
unearth wrote:
Bauer97 wrote:
Having spent some time around some fairly elite athletes, I’d have to say that sprinting speed is probably 90% genetic, and 10% training.
Probably true in most cases, but how do you think Adam Archuleta fits in with the 90/10 model.
Archuleta was purported to be ‘slow’ before training with Jay Schroeder. While training with Schroeder, Archuleta’s time went from something like 4.8 to 4.3ish. Another words, he improved from ‘who cares’ speed to damn fast for a 220 pounder. His vertical leap was claimed to have improved by over 15 inches during the same time frame.
I’m not disputing the claim that world class sprinters are born with fortuitous genetics, but that intense training may play more than a minor role in an athletes development/progress.
Maybe in his case it was as simple as technique. Either way, if he is an exception, that only proves there are exceptions to most rules (and that goes for nearly everything concerning biology), not that the exception IS the rule.
My grandfather smoked cigarettes for over 60 years. He never got lung cancer. that doesn’t mean that cigarettes aren’t a risk for lung cancer. It means my grandfather was the exception to the rule.[/quote]
I agree with the Prof on this - Have people here never heard of the normal curve? Given enough sample, speed will be distributed normally. Grandpa was lucky enough to be on the tail of the curve that gave him exceptionally resistant lungs. Lucky him.
The first time I realized genetics may be a major force behind sprinting when I read about a german guy who ran the 400 meters for the first time in his life during some school competition.
He did no sports beforehand and was more of a slacker. The result was a sub 50sec time (don’t remember if it was 49 or 48), which is like someone benching 350 the first time he touched a barbell.
I worked my ass off for achieving 58 sec, and my running genetics are rather good.
Ok heres what i’ve learned. Some slow people have a greater potential for improvement then others. But if your genetically fast, you can pretty much do anything you want except maybe, sumo, and marathons.
[quote]triple-10sets wrote:
Ok heres what i’ve learned. Some slow people have a greater potential for improvement then others. But if your genetically fast, you can pretty much do anything you want except maybe, sumo, and marathons.[/quote]
I dislike you
bodybuilding has nothing to do with sport training and it is almost stupid that most people think that bodybuilders leads to the ulitmate sport athlete.
Is a bodybuilder strong and and in great shape — hell yah…
But is a bodybuilder at a professional level ready to compete in a sport; no; but he could be adapted to do such in time with a different training program … but then he would not look like a bodybuilder any more …
Baloney.
Sprinting Speed is almost entirely genetic. It’s one of the few things in athletics that IS almost entirely genetics.
You can’t coach speed. Either you got it or you don’t.
Bodybuilders excuse for been slow as hell…
Big Muscles does not mean speed by the way. There is something called nervous system also that cannot be regulated in weight gain…sorry guys. How can we have a big light with a 1000watts light bulb and weak electricity supply ??? Not a chance…
Every guy that is powerful is also very strong, past a certain level additional strength gain and weight gain even If It’s via muscle mass is pointless. True when you start, becoming stronger must increase performance along the power curve…as long as you are able to use your rate of force development properly in the field. Something bodybuilders don’t even know how to spell properly. I’ll say It again RATE OF FORCE DEVELOPMENT
The bodybuilders have no technical aspects of running fast. They only know front double biceps. In addition to that they run on flat tires, no feet at all, always the same… A big huge monster of 300 pounds that can’t even hold his weight on a depth drop situation without touching his heels on the floor.
Sorry that was a sad story, but magic ain’t everywhere and transforming a bodybuilder into a sprinter is very very rare, almost impossible. Bodybuilders are often those who haven’t excel in any sports or are at the decline…sad, very sad. They teach their nervous system to hold tension, and they do a good damn job with It, but that is not required in sprint.
They can run, only us can sprint…
Summary:
Bodybuilders are Big, fucking big and slow
Sprinter are less Big and are fucking fast, not average fast
adonail
[quote]adonail wrote:
Baloney.
Sprinting Speed is almost entirely genetic. [/quote]
Oh my Gawd, this was brilliant. Sure, we already mentioned this several months ago (a full year), but it is always good to have someone come along nearly 12 months later just to yell out “baloney” and tell us the same shit over again.
Thanks.
Yes, I believe it was Bauer in Feb 2007 who wrote:
[quote]LOL, ‘because of their big muscles’ made me laugh.
Having spent some time around some fairly elite athletes, I’d have to say that sprinting speed is probably 90% genetic, and 10% training.
The fact that Parenthesis Devers (that’s fucking hilarious, by the way) can run fast probably has little to do with the fact that he’s developed impressive musculature through bodybuilding, but rather primarily because his last name is Devers.
That said, however, the fast-twitch dominant fibers that are so dominant in great sprinters have also been shown to be very dominant in elite bodybuilders, so assuming a guy like Tom Platz could actually perform a sprinting stride with quads his size, I bet they’d be pretty fast.[/quote]
Contrary to popular belief, many of us “bodybuilders” started out playing other sports.
That includes some of those 300lb’ers.
Just timed myself, 5.5 and I thought I was fast…