STARTING BLOCKS - Unbanned Sprinting Technique! 

😂😂😂🤣

Thanks for watching!

This one had quite a bit of information to sift through at that was contradictory. I found a story about how Eddie Tolen (“the Midnight Express”) apparently traveled to meet with Charlie booth and bring pair of the blocks down to American, but that was said to have happened in 1922. But Tolens Australian tour was in the 1930s

Ya they are still around. The track my daughters team practices on is cinder too.

Thanks for watching!

Hahaha

I always feel the urge to duck, lol!

Thanks!

The logic is that It's only because they want athletes to react to the gun, not anticipate it. Less than 0.1s and it's likely that the signal from your brain to your legs was before the gun, and even as you start moving, there will still be a split second before you transfer weight off of the blocks.

@@RatzaChewy vary when the gun sounds so there's no way to anticipate it. If you're still on the blocks not moving before the gun I don't see how that can be declared cheating. If they really want to get into thst much detail, what about the time it takes for the sound to reach them? Technically the sound happens after the shot. So theoretically that gives them more time to react. Also it's not fair to all the athletes, sound has to travel through air at a finite speed. The one closest to it would hear it ever so slightly first before the athlete furthest away from it.

@@poisonpotato1 Most Track races now use a boop, boop, boooop and a taping sound over the announcing speakers for the sound now over a gun becuse they have had found the sound issue of getting to the furthest runner is a problem for the stadiums with the speakers all over the place, it makes more sense. Also, some places it is getting harder to even find cap guns due to the ban on all guns even non weapons as they were used in heists after the gun had its part that is orange or whole gun orange painted black, mainly Japan and a few countries in Europe these cap guns are ban.

@@RatzaChewy Yes, but test have shown that some athletes can be a little faster then 0.1 not much but end up at 0.9 to 0.098 or so as they do allow 0.99 with a 0.01 difference due to the error in the timing or the blocks either of them reading fast, at least they do now.

Back in the mid 70s I ran on a cinder track. In one meet they were apparently in some big damn hurry to get all the different events done so while the 100 yards at the time were being run the 440 yards were running as well, but nobody bothered to move the starting blocks out of the way of the 440ers.. That turned out great at all 6 (I think it was six) rounded the track they all had to navigate the blocks with no notice..It didn't end well.. LOL

His story is pretty wild too. He was a long and triple jumper who was converted to sprints. Similar to Marcell Jacobs.

Thats interesting , thats like turning up to Wimbledon on steroids with a cricket bat and they say no you have to use a tennis racket and then you win...

@@cattycats4 hahaha

wasn't he barefoot too at first?

😁

I think you could use it, but it gives you no advantage to get you to your maimum speed. So it's unnessasary. Maybe it would get harder to be exxactly on the jumping spot.

I looked through the World Athletics rulebook on Competition, and there was no mention of blocks in the jumping section. So I guess it might be legal, although as mentioned, it might not offer any advantage really

No reason too do so.

Ya a few people have commented on that. I need to be more direct moving forward. I appreciate the feedback.

Not quite, because Simpson's time was for 100 yards, which is about 91% of the 100m distance

LOL, It takes youtube about 20min after it posts for them to update to higher quality. check back in a few minutes.

@@JumpersJunction nah, the video was good enough to suffer through the quality

@@ralphkirsipuu3772 ha I appreciate it.

@@JumpersJunction you know you don't have to make a video public as soon as you post it, you can upload it as unlisted, wait an hour, then publish it

@@jakerussell135 definitely going to start doing that from now on. Thanks for the suggestion.

the rule has always been the shot must remain above the should otherwise people would be throwing it

Anatomically speaking, it's still atop the shoulder.

Hahahah

But you can’t tell a person he is allowed o use it and later when that person wins, tell him it is not recognised and ban him for life.

@@kmdsummon world athletics never said anything to allow him, the officials at the event did

@@jakelynch7389Video doesn’t say which officials banned him and which officials organised that official event. But if that event was organised by world athletics, they must accept. If not, then unless in their rules were explicitly specified that only digging holes with specific “hole digger” is allowed and no more equipment is allowed (which I doubt), they also should.

If it was legal at the time then another athlete might have broken the record with the blocks. It gave him an unfair advantage over his contemporaries who were not given that chance. Equally sometimes legal items are retroactively banned, such as some swimming suits and some track bikes. Those records should still stand as historical records though not for today

Well you're wrong

Hey no worries. Everyone has their own preferences and it’s not for everyone. But I appreciate the comment. My goal is to learn from my audience about what works and what doesn’t and every video I make get just alittle bit better.

​@@JumpersJunction Glad you read comments. It could entirely be subjective taste on my part, and if the content is primarily (or at least by a large chunk of your audience) meant to be consumed as audio, like with podcasters who upload their vids on youtube, I don't mind as much. (Though I DO mind when those podcasters pull up visual aids and speak as if most of their audience should be able to see the visual aid.) But anyway, you do you. I personally only watched all your 'banned' videos, so I'm only from that crowd. And I don't think my criticism is something that would make your future videos more or less popular if you took it to heart; there are plenty of informational / video essay style videos with only a dude's face talking. I don't watch any of them, but they're out there, and they're popular sometimes. Who knows? With the advent of AI, people might start WANTING a face, once deep fakes start getting more and more real. But personally, I haven't been able to stand it ever since I saw how easy it was for egomaniac sophists to manipulate their audience with the right combination of tone, facial expressions, and gesticulation, with a pretense at logic and reason to back it all up. Without a face, there's less a manipulator can do, they have to rely more on the facts at hand, which makes it easier for me personally to evaluate the content. Not that I'm accusing you of doing any of this, it's just that when I saw this video, after seeing all the others, it stood out to me that you were going down the face route, when part of the reason I liked the other banned videos is that you DIDN'T do that, you accompanied your audio with highly relevant still images, which I GREATLY prefer. For entertainment reasons if nothing else.

@@hobbyist518 I appreciate that feedback. There is always more to learn and the more feedback the better. I started including face time on more recent videos as an experiment. But also to simplify editing. I do all the editing on my phone and it just takes too much time. I think that was one of your earlier comments about “lazy editing” but in my case it’s just time efficient.

@@JumpersJunction I can understand time efficiency as an argument. From the perspective of your audience who can't see the behind the scenes work, it looks like the content creator is sacrificing quality for the sake of ease. Call that what you will, laziness or time efficiency, at the end of the day it amounts to the same thing from the viewer's perspective: lower quality compared to what came before. "Laziness" is an insulting way to put it, but also one that cuts straight to the heart of the matter. Plus, it comes with a lot of implicit baggage. Someone who cares passionately about their product will put in that extra work, even if nobody ever sees it. Someone who's slowly losing their passion, either because they're not getting the views they thought they would, or the money, or both, or something else entirely... people pick up on that. Not everyone, at first. But eventually, everyone notices. I didn't watch any of them, but going by view count, your tutorial videos on the long jump and other similar content didn't garner much interest from the wider internet. Speaking as someone who creates stuff on the internet himself (though not on YT)... yeah, that can feel like a big OOF, when the things you're interested in, or the things you think will take off, aren't the things most people are interested in, and they don't take off. And even when something DOES take off, but it doesn't make bank, or interest slowly drifts away and you feel like you've lost that lightning in a bottle... It's your job to decide what you'll do in that circumstance.