by IAAF 18:1; 13-22 2003

Lateral foot placement analysis of the sprint start

By Tom E. Parry, Phillip Henson, John Cooper

Dr Phillip Henson is Assistant Chair of the Department of Kinesiology at Indiana University. He has been involved in many aspects of the Track in Field including coaching successfully the university level, serving as the Competition Manager for the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta and as an IAAF International Technical Official (ITO). He has written numerous articles on all aspects of performance enhancement. Dr John Cooper is one of the most recognized sport biomechanists in the world. He is currently Professor Emeritus at Indiana University. He has written many texts and articles on a variety of sports including the events of Track and Field.

Introduction
hroughout the history of track and field, speed has been the quality man has most endeavored to conquer. Within the athletics realm, the 100 metres is perceived as the definitive test of human speed. The grandeur associated with success in the event has led to the investigation of the various elements involved, specifically the sprint start.

New Studies in Athletics no. 1/2003

Ever since starting blocks were introduced in 1928-29 to facilitate more reliable starting in the sprint events (IAAF, 2000), substantial research has been conducted to eval-

uate the relationship between the sprint start and overall sprint performance (Baumann, 1976). However, the structure of the starting blocks has received little modification from the earliest models. Research has covered many areas related to the sprint start, with longitudinal block spacing (Har13

AUTHOR

Ever since starting blocks were introduced in 1928-29 to facilitate more reliable starting in the sprint events, substantial research has been conducted to evaluate the relationship between the start and overall sprint performance. However, the design of the starting blocks has received little modification from the earliest models. This study investigated the effect of alternative foot-width placements in modified starting blocks on performance at distance interval split times up to 30 metres. The findings suggest that a wider foot placement leads to a more effective start because it reduces the lateral deviation of the initial step, thus optimising the athletes linear momentum.

ABSTRACT

Thomas E Parry is a PhD student majoring in human performance and kinesiology at Indiana University. He is an integral part of a research support team for the Universitys Track and Field teams and has particular interest in the development of sport equipment and expert skill learning.

Lateral foot placement analysis of the sprint start

land & Steele, 1997), block angle obliquities (Guissard, Duchateau & Hainaut, 1992), types of start (Stock, 1962; Sigurseth & Grinaker, 1962; Mendoza & Schllhorn, 1993), the biomechanics of the start (Mero, Luhtanen & Komi, 1983; Schot & Knutzen, 1992), acceleration (Menley & Rosemier, 1968; Murase, Hoshikawa, Yasuda, Ikegami & Matsui, 1975; Van Coppenolle, Delecluse, Goris, Diels, Seagrave & Kraayenhoff, 1989), muscular strength, power, and force production (Henry, 1952; Mero & Komi, 1990; Guissard & Duchateau, 1990; Young, McLean & Ardagna, 1995), being the main topics of the literature. Only very limited research currently exists on foot placement width and its relation to sprint start effectiveness (Biancani, 1975). A high-quality sprint start can be summarised as the product of effective drive from the blocks and transition to maximal running speed as rapidly as possible. Although a number of variables can positively or negatively affect the effectiveness of the sprint start, it is established that technique is the underlying factor of success. Research has demonstrated movement in a straight line is the optimal path to attain maximal speed. Deviation from a straight line will elicit a loss in horizontal forward force and therefore loss in speed (Biancani, 1975; Mero, Luhtanen & Komi, 1983; Schot & Knutzen, 1992). However, observational analysis shows a deviance from the centerline of the lane when exiting the starting blocks at the first or second steps. This movement could be a product of narrow foot placement in the starting blocks and the physical response the body makes to maintain balance. The question of the width of foot placement on the starting blocks was originally conceived at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, where several athletes mentioned that the starting blocks being used appeared to be very narrow and hence uncomfortable. This raised the question as to whether optimal exit from the starting blocks could be achieved with the current stance or if a greater lateral spacing would provide equal or improved exit and transition to maximal running speed.
14

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the current starting block design, in particular the relationship between width of foot placement employed and start performance at distance interval split times up to 30 metres.

Methods Participants 12 male and 10 female varsity level sprinters gave informed consent to participate in the study. For the males the mean (SD) age was 20.1 1.1 years, height 172.89 14.89 cm, and weight 73.29 5.83kg; for the females the mean (SD) age was 19.4 2.32 years, height 161.8 9.45cm, and weight 58.7 5.39kg. Instrumentation A conventional Pacer starting block was modified by Gill Athletics by extending the width of each foot pedal to 30cm rather than the normal 15cm found on a regular block. Three different toe-to-toe foot widths 24cm, 38cm and 52cm, were investigated on the modified block as a determinant of reaction time and start speed.

Image 1. Block mounted Reactime start sequencer

New Studies in Athletics no. 1/2003

Lateral foot placement analysis of the sprint start

Image 2a: Distance interval timing sensor

A Reactime reaction time monitor (Image 1) with automated start sequence was used to determine reaction time and provide a randomised order of start sequence length. This eliminates any anticipation and learning effect, of the start signal on the results obtained. To measure the 5 metres, 10 metres, 15 metres, 20 metres, and 30 metres start split times, a photo-electric timing system was set up on the borders of a Mondo indoor track lane, with the light on the left hand side of the lane and the light beam receiver (Image 2a) on the opposing side. At 30 metres, a strobe was placed directly opposite the finish line camera, enabling blip marks to be recognised on the data collection software (Image 2b). The lights and receivers were set at a height of 1.2 metres, with the exception of the first one, which was set at 1.0 metres to eliminate missed 5 metres split times from subjects who exit the blocks at a low angle. All split times from the photoelectric system and the photo finish camera were transferred to the Finishlynx time analysis computer program, where they were analysed to the 1000th of a second.

Image 3. Foot placement Grid A grid one meter in length, composed of 15cm sections was used to determine the first foot placement from exiting the blocks relative to the foot position used on the blocks. All data collected was stored on a computer database for analysis.

Image 2b: Finish line Strobe

New Studies in Athletics no. 1/2003

Conditions of Testing Each subject completed a total of twelve trials of sprint starts, split into two different sessions. Each session comprised two trials at each of the three separate foot spacing from the block centrepiece. The toe-to-toe foot spacings are classified as:
Conventional (Condition 1): Intermediate (Condition 2): Lateral (Condition 3): 24cm 38cm 52cm

Each subject controlled their own start line to front block spacing, inter-block spacing and block angle obliquities to minimise the amount of manipulated variables and ensure that the
15

Lateral foot placement analysis of the sprint start

(RT) processor, with a randomised start sequence length. The first foot placement from exiting the starting blocks was recorded on a track mounted grid relevant to foot starting position and each start was graded by each athlete on a perception scale of 1-5, 1 being a poor start and 5 being an excellent start.

Pilot Study A number of pilot trials using the modified starting block were conducted using high jump athletes who had performed conventional sprint starts previously. The pilot study underlined a few refinements to the collection procedure needed to ensure comprehensive data collection. These were:
1. Some female athletes were not powerful enough to trigger a reaction time measure from the Reactime measuring device. 2. Foot placement grid squares needed to be in line with the three different footing positions to obtain a relevant measure between foot placement on the blocks and first foot placement on exiting the blocks. 3. The photo electric timing lights positioned at 5 metres needed to be lowered by 20cm as some subjects exited the blocks at a low angle and therefore ran below the timing light beam not triggering a time. 4. Some subjects created multiple breaks in the timing light beam, therefore, in the cases of two and three flashes the second was taken, the assumption been that the lead arm broke the beam first. Image 4 a. b. c. Condition 1, 2, 3 foot placement on blocks a. Condition 1, b. Condition 2, c. Condition 3z main independent variable was foot width. The trials were completed in a randomised order to eliminate any learning effect. Three minutes of rest time were allowed between trials to remove the effects of fatigue. Subjects were started using an auditory start sequence from the Reactime reaction time

16

All results collected were recorded to 1/1000th of a second and are presented in mean scores and standard deviation across all three foot-placement conditions for reaction time (RT) and the times for the 5 metres, 10 metres, 15 metres, 20 metres and 30 metres intervals (Table 1).

New Studies in Athletics no. 1/2003

Results

Lateral foot placement analysis of the sprint start

Condition RT 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Mean 0.184 0.196 0.210 1.458 1.436 1.447 2.184 2.178 2.190 2.825 2.826 2.820 3.396 3.423 3.432 4.598 4.591 4.596 3.370 3.359 2.924

SD 0.040 0.064 0.072 0.110 0.193 0.111 0.153 0.153 0.151 0.197 0.196 0.202 0.404 0.243 0.240 0.359 0.353 0.354 0.881 0.909 0.947

5m

placement conditions in reaction time. The mean time of Condition 1 (0.184s) exhibited a 0.012s and 0.026s, quicker reaction time than Condition 2 (0.196s) and Condition 3 (0.210s) respectively. Figure 1 displays the variance pictorially illustrating the faster initiation of movement from the blocks at Condition 1 and the differences observed at condition 2 and 3 respectively. For the 5 metres interval the advantage gained in reaction time at Condition 1 has diminished with Condition 2 producing the fastest mean time (1.436s), 0.022s and 0.011s faster than condition 1 (1.458s) and condition 3 (1.447s) respectively. Differences are exhibited in Figure 2 below.
5m time in seconds
1.460 1.455 1.450 time in seconds 1.445 1.440 1.435 1.430 1.425 1 5m time in seconds 2 condition 3

10m

15m

20m

30m

Rating 1 2 3 Table 1.

Figure 2. The difference gained at the 5 metres interval is emulated at the 10 metres interval, with Condition 2 once again providing the fastest mean time at 2.178s, however, the mean difference between Condition 2 and Condition 1 considerably decreased to 0.006s, with Condition 3 being 0.012s slower than Condition 2.
10m time in seconds 2.192 2.190 2.188 2.186 2.184 2.182 2.180 2.178 2.176 2.174 2.172

Reaction time
0.215 0.210 0.205
time in seconds

0.200 0.195 0.190 0.185

time in seconds

New Studies in Athletics no. 1/2003

0.180 0.175 0.170 1 reaction time 2 condition 3

Figure 1. Table 1 illustrates a difference at the initiation of the start between the three foot-

1
10m time in seconds

2
condition

Figure 3.

17

Lateral foot placement analysis of the sprint start

time in seconds

At the 15 metre interval from the starting blocks the fastest time was observed at the mean score of Condition 3 at 2.820s. This was faster than both Condition 1 and Condition 2 by 0.005s and 0.006s respectively, which were only separated by 0.001s at this interval. Figure 4 depicts the distinction between Condition 3 and Conditions 1 and 2.
15m time in seconds 2.828

slowest at 4.598s. Figure 6 represents the mean times observed at the 30 metres interval.
30m time in seconds 4.600 4.598 4.596 4.594 4.592 4.590 4.588 4.586

2.826 2.824
time in seconds

1 30m time in seconds

2 condition

2.822 2.820 2.818 2.816

Figure 6. Using the time data collected at each distance interval, acceleration was calculated over four subsequent 5 metres intervals and the final 10 metres interval across the three footing conditions. Acceleration data is presented in Table 2. The data illustrates that a common curve exists amongst all three footing conditions up to the 20 metres interval where Condition 1 exceeds both Condition 2 and Condition 3 by 0.379 metres per second and 0.582m/s respectively. However, this appears to be the mean peak acceleration gained at Condition 1, with Condition 2 and Condition 3 continuing to accelerate over the 20 metres to 30 metres time period. A comparison of the acceleration curves of each footing condition is presented in Figure 7.

1
15m time in seconds

2 condition

Figure 4. Mean scores for the 20 metres interval demonstrate a faster time from Condition 1 (3.396s) than both Conditions 2 and 3 by 0.027s and 0.036s respectively. However, the standard deviation from Condition 1 is almost two times the size of its counterparts. Figure 5 represents this difference graphically.
20m time in seconds

3.440 3.430 3.420

time in seconds

3.410 3.400 3.390 3.380 3.370 1

20m time in seconds

2 condition

3
acceleration in m/s

Figure 5. The differences observed for the 30 metres interval are again reversed to the common trend exhibited at earlier distance intervals, with Condition 2 providing the fastest time at 4.591s. Condition 3 provided the second fastest time with 4.596s and Condition 1 the

18

Figure 7.

New Studies in Athletics no. 1/2003

Lateral foot placement analysis of the sprint start

Condition 1 2 3 Table 2

0-5m 3.429 3.483 3.455

5-10m 6.887 6.733 6.736

10-15m 7.799 7.716 7.931

15-20m 8.754 8.375 8.172

20-30m 8.326 8.565 8.590

First foot placement from exiting the blocks was observed and recorded on a scaled version of the foot-placement grid. The co-ordinate points were then graphed in relation to foot-placement starting position to observe any variability from a straight line and observe the mean depth of foot placement into the track (Figure 8).

Discussion
As the results illustrate, there is a marked difference between the three foot-placement conditions in reaction time. Condition 1 produced the mean fastest RT time at 0.184s, 0.012s and 0.026s faster than Condition 2 (0.196s) and Condition 3 (0.210s) respectively. However, this difference can be expected, with reaction time being a product of a learned motor programme. Schmidt & Lee (1999) classify reaction time as a measure of movement programming with every movement having its own unique pattern. With training this pattern becomes more efficient and hence reaction time will become faster. Therefore, it can be assumed the reaction time of the extended foot-width placements at Condition 2 and Condition 3 could provide comparable reaction times to Condition 1 through a training regime. Although reaction time results present an expected advantage exiting from the regular Condition 1 starting position, times recorded at 5 metres do not adhere to the advantage gained in reaction time. Condition 2 provided the fastest mean 5 metres time at 1.436s, over 0.022s faster Condition 1 (1.458s) and 0.011 seconds faster than Condition 3 (1.447s). Analysis of first foot placement from exiting the blocks (Figure 8) provides a probable cause for the distinction between conditions. Observational analysis has shown a deviation from the centreline of the lane when exiting the starting blocks at the first or second steps. Figure 8 demonstrates from a conventional (Condition 1) start the first foot placement deviates 8.7cm towards the border of the lane supporting the theory of
19

Figure 8. Data presented demonstrates the mean first foot placement of athletes whose initial foot plant is with the right foot. Left-footed exits did not provide enough data points to provide representative mean data. The data shows Condition 2 deviated the least from the starting point centreline, only 0.02cm, with Condition 1 deviating a mean distance of 8.7cm to the right and Condition 3 deviating a mean distance of 1.65cm to the left from starting foot position to first foot placement. Depth of foot placement produced similar data with Condition 2 providing the longest distance at 48.10cm, 1.14cm and 4.74cm greater than Condition 3 and Condition 1 respectively.

New Studies in Athletics no. 1/2003

Depth of first foot placement into track (cm)

Lateral foot placement analysis of the sprint start

lateral deviance and therefore loss of forward momentum. Exits exhibited from Condition 3 illustrate the opposite of Condition 1, by deviating towards the centre of the lane by a mean of 1.65cm providing a similar deficit in speed production. However, the first foot placement from Condition 2 demonstrated a deviation of only 2mm from starting point, providing an almost direct linear exit from the starting block position. The effects of such a deviation can be presented with the acceleration data, illustrating Condition 2 (3.48m/s) accelerating the fastest, followed by Condition 3 (3.46m/s) and finally Condition 1 (3.43m/s). The movement of the centre of mass in a direct linear path from starting position will provide an immediate advantage by moderating any lateral deviation observed from the centerline and optimising linear momentum. The times at 10 metres illustrate the continuation of advantage gained at the 5 metres interval, although to a lesser degree. Condition 2 was again the fastest with 2.178s, followed by Condition 1 (2.184s) and then Condition 3 (2.190s). The difference between the fastest, Condition 2, and Condition 1 decreased by 16/1000ths to only 6/1000ths of a second, however differences observed between Condition 2 and Condition 3 increased from 11/1000ths of a second to 12/1000ths of a second. The conflicting differentiations between conditions, observed at the 5 metres and 10 metres intervals may be attributed to a learned motor programme. A programme has already been formed for the sprint start at Condition 1. Both Conditions 2 and 3 are adaptations of this programme and therefore a specific motor programme has to be developed for the movement. It is evident from the data that a sprint start executed from Condition 1 has an assembled movement pattern for the acceleration phase of the start and hence has recovered some of the detriment over the first ten meters. But, with a training programme of sprint starts exiting from the Condition 2 and Condition 3 starting positions, time differentials will be held if not increased through the ten meter mark with

Condition 2 maintaining the advantage gained through the first 10 metres. The sprint times observed at the 15 metres and 20 metres marks appear to deviate from the trend developing. Prior to this point, Condition 2 provided the greatest mean benefit at both the 5 metres and 10 metres distances, an advantage maintained over the conventional Condition 1 and the greater width of Condition 3. The digression of these times from the norm can be associated with subject variance within the trials and therefore the disruption of the developing trend. At 15 metres the distinction between conditions is not significantly large, with Condition 3 (2.820s) holding a 5/1000ths and 6/1000ths advantage on conditions 1 and 2 respectively. Such a difference could establish Condition 3 as the most effective, however, the gain possesses no rationale for being fastest at this interval, being defeated at every interval excluding the fifteen meter point. At the 20 metres point it appears that Condition 1 (3.396s) has surpassed the other conditions between 15 metres and 20 metres, with a time 0.027s and 0.036s faster than both Condition 2 (3.423s) and Condition 3 (3.432s) respectively. However, analysis of the distribution of times of each condition at this interval, illustrates a greater inconsistency of times attained at the Condition 1 foot position than both the Condition 2 and 3 times. This is displayed through the standard deviation from the mean times, with scores being 0.404s, 0.243s and 0.240s for the three conditions respectively. Such a difference in variability demonstrates subjects are less consistent from the Condition 1 start position therefore, producing an extensive range of times. The classification of this interval as a divergence from the developing pattern is substantiated with the advantage once again returning to Condition 2 at the final 30 metres interval. The fastest time is 4.591s, achieved from Condition 2, with Condition 1 (4.598s) and Condition 3 (4.596s) trailing by 7/1000ths and 5/1000ths respectively. The evident advantages gained from a wider than conventional foot placement position, demonstrate

20

New Studies in Athletics no. 1/2003

Lateral foot placement analysis of the sprint start

the prospect of improved block exit from this position. The earlier time measurements at 5 metres and 10 metres provide a strong case for the use of a wider lateral foot position on the blocks, by giving the greatest advantage immediately after block exit. This proposal is also supported by direction of the first foot placement following block exit, illustrating a direct linear movement of the body mass, and hence a highly effective sprint start.

The present study has explored lateral footwidth placement as a potential variable of success of an athletes sprint start. Further studies are to be completed on the development of technique and movement patterning related to the additional starting block width at Condition 2 and Condition 3. In addition to further studies, a new starting block design is currently under construction in conjunction with Gill Athletics with an endeavor to further improve the initial gains observed. Thanks are forwarded to Indiana University and Indiana State University track coaches and athletes for their help and participation, and to the Indiana University Grant-inAid Program for their financial support of this research paper. For more information regarding this paper please do not hesitate to contact Tom Parry at thparry@indiana.edu. A follow up study is to be conducted to assess the effects of a learning schedule on early sprint start characteristics, in conjunction with Gill Athletics. References HENRY, F. M. Force-Time characteristics of the sprint start. Res Q. 23(3): P301-318. 1952 STOCK, M. Influence of various track starting positions on speed. Res Q. 33(4): P607614. 1962. SIGERSETH, P. O., & GRINAKER, V. F. Effect of foot spacing on velocity in sprints. Res Q. 33(4): P599-606. 1962. MENLEY, C. R., & ROSEMEIR, A. R. Effectiveness of four track starting positions on acceleration. Res Q. 39(1): P161-165. 1968. BIANCANI, A. Lateral foot placement for faster starts. Res Q. 62: P1961. 1975. MURASE, Y., HOSHIKAWA, T., YASUDA, N., IKEGAMI, Y., & MATSUI, H. Analysis of the changes in progressive speed during the 100m dash. P200-207. In Komi, P. V. (1976) Biomechanics V-B.
21

Conclusions
The present study provides relevant information on the optimal foot-width position to attain the most efficient sprint start. From this data it can be postulated that the conventional start (Condition 1) may not provide the optimum exit from the starting blocks, and may in fact hinder optimal block exit and consequently speed production. A possible rationale for the choice of Condition 2 could suggest the feet in the conventional start position being too close together, and therefore creating an unbalanced Set position. This in turn will cause deviance from the centreline on block exit, as the foot has to achieve a greater lateral plant position to compensate for the unbalanced exit. This is clearly observable from analysis of the times collected at the 5 metres and 10 metres points. Data accumulated from the Condition 2 starts exemplify the direct linear exit generated (Figure 8), and the subsequent advantage in speed production in the early stages following block exit. This can be highly related to the elimination of lateral deviance at the start. Condition 3 provides ambiguous results related to its effectiveness as an adaptation of a sprint start. It would appear that Condition 3 places the athlete at the opposite end of the continuum to Condition 1, with the initial foot placement deviating towards the centreline of the lane, creating a comparable unbalanced situation observed at Condition 1. In conclusion, Condition 2 provided the optimum sprint start up to the 30 metres mark. Direct linear exits from the blocks and transition to rapid acceleration distinguish Condition 2, as the most effective of the three starts investigated.

New Studies in Athletics no. 1/2003

Lateral foot placement analysis of the sprint start

BAUMANN, W. Kinematic and dynamic characteristics of the sprint start. P194-199. In Komi, P. V. (1976) Biomechanics V-B. MERO, A., LUHTANEN, P., & KOMI, P. V. A biomechanical study of the sprint start. Scandanavian Journal of Sports Sciences. 5(1): P20-28. 1983. VAN COPPENOLLE, H., DELECLUSE, C., GORIS, M., DIELS, R., SEAGRAVE, L., & KRAAYENHOFF, H. Evaluation of the start action of world class female sprinters. IOC World Congress on Sport Sciences. P293-294. MERO, A., & KOMI, P.V. Reaction time and electromyographic activity during a sprint start. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 61: P73-80. 1990. GUISSARD, N., & DUCHATEAU, J. Electromyography of the athletic sprint start. Journal of human movement studies. 18: P97-106. 1990. GUISSARD, N., DUCHATEAU, J., & HAINAUT, K. EMG and mechanical changes during sprint starts at different front block obliquities. Medicine and Science in Sports and exercise. 24(11): P1257-1263. 1992. SCHOT, P. K., & KNUTZEN, K. M. A Biomechanical analysis of four sprint start positions. Res Q. 63(2): P 137-147. 1992. MENDOZA, L., & SCHOLLHORN, W. Training of the sprint start technique with biomechanical feedback. Journal of Sports Sciences. 11: P25-29. 1993. YOUNG, W., MCLEAN, B., & ARDAGNA, J. Relationship between strength qualities and sprinting performance. Journal of Sport Medicine and Physical Fitness. 35: P1319. 1995.
New Studies in Athletics no. 1/2003

HARLAND, M. J. & STEELE, J. R. Biomechanics of the Sprint Start. Sports Medicine. 23(1): P11-20. 1997.
Photo: Getty Images

SCHMIDT, R. A. & LEE, T. D. Motor Control and Learning A Behavioral Emphasis. 3rd Edition. Human Kinetics Publishers. 1999. IAAF Website - http://www.iaaf.org/TheSport/index.asp. 2000.
22