Maybe my son's 22.3 was not so bad for a large 9 year old. We are going to work on it.
Why do these things matter? Only thing that counts in tennis is beating your opponent.
Why do these things matter? Only thing that counts in tennis is beating your opponent.
So why does anyone measure anything in any sport during development? Why run 40s, measure jumps, serve speeds, anything? Of course only wins matter at the higher levels. But you measure along the way to address weaknesses, measure development.
You maximize the physical tools each kid has, help them improve if they are slow, then let the intangibles decide which kids can turn those tools into wins. How can you tell your methods of making a kid faster are working with no measurements?
As long as they are not used to filter out kids, I suppose they are OK. But I suspect they will be used to reject kids, sooner or later.
Also, why not just observe matches to see if the kid runs fast or not? Or serves fast or not? What is the need to quantify?
As long as they are not used to filter out kids, I suppose they are OK. But I suspect they will be used to reject kids, sooner or later.
Also, why not just observe matches to see if the kid runs fast or not? Or serves fast or not? What is the need to quantify?
You make valid points. I originally asked this question to see how my son compared to other players his age. It makes for a good comparison of speed on the court. It does not take into account other factors such as anticipation or the ability to read the point as it happens.
My general rant was about too much testing and quantification in general, whether in school or at work. It assumes that divide and conquer is the best strategy, and does not address the holistic nature. I was reading just yesterday that some companies are moving away from their annual employee appraisal strategies. It has come to a point where even intangible things are required to be quantified and assigned a score. True creativity cannot flourish in such an atmosphere.
Tennis is a game that, taken as a whole, is a system far too complicated to truly improve measurably. You break it down into drills and mini games so that you can see improvement in areas. Then these improved areas, if the drills are properly designed, positively influence the system. The same is true for metrics in business.
I agree in general, but the flip side is motivation. Athletes like to compete against themselves (ie, the clock) as a measure of improvement. As a former track athlete, we tracked times and distances as a gauge of progress - in addition to competing against others, of course.
I time my kids doing drills and races just for the fun of it - they love it and don't want to stop. They want to see if they can keep beating their time. It's something fun to focus on in a competitive way.
I completely agree that using it to weed out at young ages isn't good. I've seen kids change dramatically in physical ability in just a few years.
If you don't mind when did you compete , what events? Have ever competed at the olympic level or just collegiate?
College level in the 90's - 110HH, Long Jump. Although it was "just collegiate", it made for some of the best memories of my youth. Also played some college basketball while getting an education that has served me well.
Did you know a runner by the name of Ray Brown , if so was he good ? Know what college he ran at ?
Hmm... not much info to go on. My older brother ran against a middle distance (800m) runner named Ray Brown from University of Virginia in the late 80's. If that's the guy you're asking about, he was really good - top D1 quality, ran in some international competitions, ran in the 1988 Olympic Trials. Certainly a world-class level runner.
I will try to get some times at practice later. We can compile a decent list on this thread I would think.
A video for those who need it.
http://www.5min.com/Video/How-to-do-a-Spider-Drill-27820989
Maybe the same guy , know he ran the 100m not sure what else, this guy did run O trials ,at 44 he still can move , classy guy , works with DB every so often to clean up his technique.
The guy I know of went to UVA from '81-'84, which would make him older than 44. Also, rarely do you see runners at that level compete in 100m and 800m. Probably not your guy.
Let me verify his age , I thought he said 44 I may have got that wrong , as for competing , you misunderstood , he ran a few times demonstrating what needed to be done ,trust me No stop watch needed this guy is still extremely quick.
Watching him from the side his strides look like a horses , also his head was as still as a models on a walkway while at full speed .
The focus has been on the driving for the 1st 12-15 meters , with the arms doing the work with very little upper body movement , I never realized how much technique was involved in running.
Yes. Top runners have refined technique as well on top of a ton of natural ability - mostly having to do with keeping everything in a straight line (ie - no wasted movement) and staying relaxed. The kinetic chain is also involved - the mechanics of stride and use of the arms, etc.
You're right about being quick. A modern world-class 800m is considered a long sprint. These guys are fast and running 8 consecutive 13 second 100s to cover 800m. They can certainly run a single 100 somewhere in the mid to high 10 seconds. Even at his older age, if this guy is still in shape, he probably makes running look effortless.
How about 28.9 seconds...
In a wheelchair...
bouncing a basketball...
no..?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjV1yg8L3a8
Cheers