Hand Times - Boys vs. Girls
01/20/2014 7:03:17 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2414
Right now, the problem with hand times outranking FAT marks is MUCH bigger on the boys' side. It seems like a significantly larger percentage of the state's top girls have valid FAT times, whereas there are far more boys hitting the top 10 in the 55 or 300 with hand times (and no FAT to back them up). If anyone can explain this to me, I'd love to hear it.
Right now, the problem with hand times outranking FAT marks is MUCH bigger on the boys' side. It seems like a significantly larger percentage of the state's top girls have valid FAT times, whereas there are far more boys hitting the top 10 in the 55 or 300 with hand times (and no FAT to back them up). If anyone can explain this to me, I'd love to hear it.
01/20/2014 7:07:08 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2414
When it comes to school size, I understand the pattern: smaller schools with lower budgets (and often longer travel times) can less afford to get to indoor meets with FAT. In the 1A/2A boys, the top 8 marks in the 55 dash are all hand-timed, and 7 of the top 8 in the 300 as well. For the 1A/2A girls, it's 5 of the top 8 in the 55 dash, and only 3 of the top 8 in the 300. Again, the girls get more FAT marks. Is there bias on the part of male coaches (many of them football coaches) that inflates their boys' times more than their girls? Or is it that the best girls are much more likely to run for strong track programs, which find ways to get to big meets, whereas any school with a decent football team has a chance to have a male sprinter?
When it comes to school size, I understand the pattern: smaller schools with lower budgets (and often longer travel times) can less afford to get to indoor meets with FAT. In the 1A/2A boys, the top 8 marks in the 55 dash are all hand-timed, and 7 of the top 8 in the 300 as well. For the 1A/2A girls, it's 5 of the top 8 in the 55 dash, and only 3 of the top 8 in the 300. Again, the girls get more FAT marks. Is there bias on the part of male coaches (many of them football coaches) that inflates their boys' times more than their girls? Or is it that the best girls are much more likely to run for strong track programs, which find ways to get to big meets, whereas any school with a decent football team has a chance to have a male sprinter?
01/21/2014 11:27:06 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 144
I noticed that in a few events. They have a super hand-times in one meet and the rest are not even close. I feel its a dis-service especially to athletes with legit times that maybe a tenth off in qualifying. In Northeast NC we only have four Indoor Teams but still seem to travel to VA and get some legit times on an Indoor Track. Yes, its expensive but hey most schools have Wrestling programs that travel to Invitationals all the time. So why not make the sacrafice raise money and give our athletes a true look at our great sport. As for the male/female difference I just think many of the guys are doing other things and once a coach see they have a auto-time then they are finished until states. I just think its a dedication thing.
I noticed that in a few events. They have a super hand-times in one meet and the rest are not even close. I feel its a dis-service especially to athletes with legit times that maybe a tenth off in qualifying. In Northeast NC we only have four Indoor Teams but still seem to travel to VA and get some legit times on an Indoor Track. Yes, its expensive but hey most schools have Wrestling programs that travel to Invitationals all the time. So why not make the sacrafice raise money and give our athletes a true look at our great sport.
As for the male/female difference I just think many of the guys are doing other things and once a coach see they have a auto-time then they are finished until states. I just think its a dedication thing.
01/22/2014 8:58:14 AM
Coach
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 260
@CoachGeorgeRJR I just did some research and was very surprised at what I found. Using the 4A 55 qualifying times as an example. There are 26 girls that have run 7.44(FAT) or under in NC. The fastest is 6.99, which is a .45 faster than the qualifying time. There are only 9 boys in the state that have run 6.54(FAT). The fastest being 6.35, which is only .19 faster than the qualifying time. The girls equivalent to that .19 is a 7.25 which would be 5th place in NC. If you look at it Nationally, 184 girls have run 7.44(FAT) or better and only 55 guys have run 6.54(FAT). So you can make two conclusions. The boys time is too fast or the girls time is too slow.
@CoachGeorgeRJR
I just did some research and was very surprised at what I found. Using the 4A 55 qualifying times as an example. There are 26 girls that have run 7.44(FAT) or under in NC. The fastest is 6.99, which is a .45 faster than the qualifying time. There are only 9 boys in the state that have run 6.54(FAT). The fastest being 6.35, which is only .19 faster than the qualifying time. The girls equivalent to that .19 is a 7.25 which would be 5th place in NC.

If you look at it Nationally, 184 girls have run 7.44(FAT) or better and only 55 guys have run 6.54(FAT). So you can make two conclusions. The boys time is too fast or the girls time is too slow.
01/22/2014 12:20:34 PM
User
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 84
[quote=CDoug]@CoachGeorgeRJR I just did some research and was very surprised at what I found. Using the 4A 55 qualifying times as an example. There are 26 girls that have run 7.44(FAT) or under in NC. The fastest is 6.99, which is a .45 faster than the qualifying time. There are only 9 boys in the state that have run 6.54(FAT). The fastest being 6.35, which is only .19 faster than the qualifying time. The girls equivalent to that .19 is a 7.25 which would be 5th place in NC. If you look at it Nationally, 184 girls have run 7.44(FAT) or better and only 55 guys have run 6.54(FAT). So you can make two conclusions. The boys time is too fast or the girls time is too slow.[/quote] @CDoug Is it just a numbers thing? Have more girls ran the 55 and because of that more have qualified? Is football to blame because male sprinters may play football? Our football team won the state championship in 2A and we only picked up one sprinter because the rest wanted some time off this season (I am not saying any of them would run a qualifying time). I do think times may be too fast or too slow but I was just wondering about overall numbers.
CDoug wrote:
@CoachGeorgeRJR
I just did some research and was very surprised at what I found. Using the 4A 55 qualifying times as an example. There are 26 girls that have run 7.44(FAT) or under in NC. The fastest is 6.99, which is a .45 faster than the qualifying time. There are only 9 boys in the state that have run 6.54(FAT). The fastest being 6.35, which is only .19 faster than the qualifying time. The girls equivalent to that .19 is a 7.25 which would be 5th place in NC.

If you look at it Nationally, 184 girls have run 7.44(FAT) or better and only 55 guys have run 6.54(FAT). So you can make two conclusions. The boys time is too fast or the girls time is too slow.


@CDoug

Is it just a numbers thing? Have more girls ran the 55 and because of that more have qualified? Is football to blame because male sprinters may play football? Our football team won the state championship in 2A and we only picked up one sprinter because the rest wanted some time off this season (I am not saying any of them would run a qualifying time). I do think times may be too fast or too slow but I was just wondering about overall numbers.
01/22/2014 1:39:09 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 399
[quote=CDoug]@CoachGeorgeRJR I just did some research and was very surprised at what I found. Using the 4A 55 qualifying times as an example. There are 26 girls that have run 7.44(FAT) or under in NC. The fastest is 6.99, which is a .45 faster than the qualifying time. There are only 9 boys in the state that have run 6.54(FAT). The fastest being 6.35, which is only .19 faster than the qualifying time. The girls equivalent to that .19 is a 7.25 which would be 5th place in NC. If you look at it Nationally, 184 girls have run 7.44(FAT) or better and only 55 guys have run 6.54(FAT). So you can make two conclusions. The boys time is too fast or the girls time is too slow.[/quote] @CDoug Qualifying times in NC are based on a two-year average of those who made the final. If you ask me (and I'm sure you would :-)) the girls time is just right. Even with 26 girls qualifying, not all of those are in 4A. Does it really make sense to have more than 16-20 athletes qualify in a state meet? I don't think so. [As a side note, NC has gone through a spurt of elite female sprinters the last 3-4 years. Don't believe me? Check out the roster of the University of South Carolina. They are loaded with NC female sprinters!] As for the boys: [warning: sarcasm is near!] so many of them or going on to play D1 football and basketball, they do not have time to practice running. They have to get ready for Nike Sparq combine and AAU basketball season so they can be seen. No time to hone sprinting skills.:-@
CDoug wrote:
@CoachGeorgeRJR
I just did some research and was very surprised at what I found. Using the 4A 55 qualifying times as an example. There are 26 girls that have run 7.44(FAT) or under in NC. The fastest is 6.99, which is a .45 faster than the qualifying time. There are only 9 boys in the state that have run 6.54(FAT). The fastest being 6.35, which is only .19 faster than the qualifying time. The girls equivalent to that .19 is a 7.25 which would be 5th place in NC.

If you look at it Nationally, 184 girls have run 7.44(FAT) or better and only 55 guys have run 6.54(FAT). So you can make two conclusions. The boys time is too fast or the girls time is too slow.


@CDoug Qualifying times in NC are based on a two-year average of those who made the final. If you ask me (and I'm sure you would ) the girls time is just right. Even with 26 girls qualifying, not all of those are in 4A. Does it really make sense to have more than 16-20 athletes qualify in a state meet? I don't think so.

As for the boys: so many of them or going on to play D1 football and basketball, they do not have time to practice running. They have to get ready for Nike Sparq combine and AAU basketball season so they can be seen. No time to hone sprinting skills.
01/26/2014 9:14:13 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 110
We have some of the issues that coach eazy said. We have basketball players running indoor track. So therefore no practice at all. We did 1 polar bear meet and 2 JDL meets and that is all we are doing. With no practice you get no block time. So in our Polar bear meet our top sprinter luckily got a great start and ran 6.49 hand time for the 55. We rounded up to 6.5 and then you add the .24. At the first JDL meet he had a horrible start and ran 6.8. And yesterday he had a reasonable start and ran 6.76. Needless to say the start makes a huge difference in the 55m. Could be one of the reasons why you get crazy times. Also bad timers. I like to look at the kids 100m times to compare though when it comes to the 55m. Probably the best way to do it. Our kid ran 10.97 fat in the 100m last year. So his 55m times are comparable with that. Now if you get a 11.4 kid running 6.5 then there is some questions unless he just hit puberty over the summer
We have some of the issues that coach eazy said. We have basketball players running indoor track. So therefore no practice at all. We did 1 polar bear meet and 2 JDL meets and that is all we are doing. With no practice you get no block time. So in our Polar bear meet our top sprinter luckily got a great start and ran 6.49 hand time for the 55. We rounded up to 6.5 and then you add the .24. At the first JDL meet he had a horrible start and ran 6.8. And yesterday he had a reasonable start and ran 6.76. Needless to say the start makes a huge difference in the 55m. Could be one of the reasons why you get crazy times. Also bad timers. I like to look at the kids 100m times to compare though when it comes to the 55m. Probably the best way to do it. Our kid ran 10.97 fat in the 100m last year. So his 55m times are comparable with that. Now if you get a 11.4 kid running 6.5 then there is some questions unless he just hit puberty over the summer
01/26/2014 1:21:21 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2414
@jds0130 Good insight. We all saw this weekend that sometimes the hand times can be [i]slower[/i] than the athlete's potential, as in the case of Juwan Crowder.
@jds0130 Good insight. We all saw this weekend that sometimes the hand times can be slower than the athlete's potential, as in the case of Juwan Crowder.
01/26/2014 3:41:22 PM
User
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 77
Lucky for the runners, there is FAT timing available. For throwers, there's no electronic solution to replace officials with bad eye sight that miss identify where the implement landed. And when meets don't allow the coaches a place to watch the landing, because they are the only ones who can contest the officials right then, then there is no hope for accurate measurement and accurate results.
Lucky for the runners, there is FAT timing available. For throwers, there's no electronic solution to replace officials with bad eye sight that miss identify where the implement landed. And when meets don't allow the coaches a place to watch the landing, because they are the only ones who can contest the officials right then, then there is no hope for accurate measurement and accurate results.
01/26/2014 3:56:38 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2414
@Ready2Throw Agree! I've often thought that it's just as likely for there to be officiating/measurement errors in the field events as it is for running events. That's an often-overlooked part of the problem.
@Ready2Throw Agree! I've often thought that it's just as likely for there to be officiating/measurement errors in the field events as it is for running events. That's an often-overlooked part of the problem.
01/27/2014 7:37:05 PM
Coach
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 95
@ptgillespie The boys time is WAY too fast. The 100m equivalent (with many variables is about 10.8... But the 4a qualifying time is 11.0. When I ran in 99' the 55m qualifying time was 6.65 with a 100m 10.9. Most of the guy who ran an fat 6.65 ran a fat 10.99 or faster. Every year since the change you always only have about 3-8 outright (fat) 55m qualifyers.
@ptgillespie
The boys time is WAY too fast. The 100m equivalent (with many variables is about 10.8... But the 4a qualifying time is 11.0. When I ran in 99' the 55m qualifying time was 6.65 with a 100m 10.9. Most of the guy who ran an fat 6.65 ran a fat 10.99 or faster. Every year since the change you always only have about 3-8 outright (fat) 55m qualifyers.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.