Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="sufandu, post: 3569679, member: 874"]
This is just one article. And you're reading the data wrong. The difference isn't .08, that was the +/-. They found that the hand times were "faster" by an average of .18 with a range of .10 to .26. There have been other articles posted on here that I'm not going bother finding and posting, and the study I posted references that it is "generally accepted by professionals" that hand times are faster. The other articles also all conclude that hand timed 40 times have consistently been inaccurately faster than electronically timed. There certainly is a chance that hand timers could err the same way at the finish as the start but that's not likely. At the start, they have to react to the athlete starting his movement whereas at the finish line there is an aspect of anticipating the finish and clicking the watch on time or an instant early. The difference between the methods is why everyone at the NFL combine has historically timed slower than any other time they've ever had and why so few guys have ever timed below 4.3 at the combine. The differences in times is probably changing a little now that electronic timing has trickled down to lower levels and also explains why guys that are considered to be really fast in high school now seem to have slower times than guys did 20 years ago. Remember when Jammi German was supposed to run sub 4.2?

To answer the last question, probably not quite, but certainly the closest we've had in a long time.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?