Sprint Testing for Athletes: 10 m, 20 m and the 40-Yard Dash | Starke Industries

Speed is one of the most valued qualities in sport, and one of the most poorly measured. A "4.6 forty" can mean very different things depending on who timed it, how, and from what start. If you want to know whether an athlete is actually getting faster, the testing has to be consistent.

Pick distances that match the question

Different distances show different parts of a sprint:

• 0–10 m: Acceleration. This is where most team-sport sprints are won or lost.

• 10–20 m or 20–30 m splits: The transition toward higher speed.

• 30–40 m and beyond: Closer to maximum velocity for many athletes.

• 40-yard dash: A common football and combine test. Useful for comparing to that context, especially with splits.

Haugen and Buchheit's review of sprint performance monitoring provides an assessment of how useful speed evaluation is over distances from 5 to 40 m, and of the factors that affect measurement at each one [1].

Timing method matters more than people think

This is the biggest source of error in sprint testing.

Handheld stopwatches. Hetzler and colleagues compared handheld stopwatch times with electronic timing [2]. Handheld times were faster than electronic timing in about two-thirds of the splits they recorded. The absolute errors were large and scattered enough that no reliable correction factor could be developed. The authors concluded that stopwatches may be acceptable for group data, but electronic timing should be used when precision matters [2].

Timing gates. Haugen and Buchheit identified timing gates among the most accurate tools for sprint monitoring. They advised against manual timing and single-beam photocells over short distances (10–20 m) because of large absolute errors [1].

GPS. The same review described GPS as satisfactory for longer distances (over 30 m) and maximal velocity in team sports, but noted reliability is questionable and multiple observations are still needed [1].

The practical takeaway: if your goal is to track individual improvement, use the same electronic system every time. Never compare a hand-timed result with a laser-timed one.

Whatever timing method you choose, use the same system every session so results stay comparable.

Standardize the start

The start position changes the time. A three-point stance, a two-point stance, and a flying start each produce different results, and so does where the first gate sits relative to the athlete's front foot.

Pick one, write it down, and repeat it:

• Same stance

• Same distance from the start line to the first gate

• Same rule for when timing begins (first movement or breaking the first beam)

Control the conditions

• Surface. Turf, track, hardwood, and grass aren't interchangeable.

• Footwear. Spikes and trainers produce different times.

• Wind and weather if outdoors.

• Warm-up. Use the same routine each time.

• Fatigue. Test early in a session, before conditioning or heavy lifting.

How to tell real change from noise

Every sprint test has some measurement error. A 0.02-second improvement in a 10 m sprint might be real, or it might be within normal day-to-day variation.

Haugen and Buchheit recommend considering both the smallest worthwhile change in performance and the typical error of the measurement when judging individual changes. They note that typical error can be reduced by repeating trials [1]. In practice:

• Take two or three trials per test with full recovery between them.

• Use a consistent rule for which time counts, such as best or average.

• Look at trends across several sessions, not just one before-and-after pair.

What sprint testing doesn't tell you

A sprint time tells you how fast an athlete covered a distance, under those conditions, on that day. It doesn't say why. Pairing sprint data with force plate jumps, strength testing, and video gives coaches more to work with when deciding what to train.

Questions athletes ask

My coach hand-timed me faster than your gates. Which is right? Electronic timing is the more accurate measurement [1, 2]. Hand times commonly come out faster, which is one reason they can't be compared directly.

How often should I test sprints? Often enough to guide training, but not so often that testing replaces training. Testing at the start and end of a training block is a sensible default.

Should I test in spikes? Use whatever you'll be able to repeat. Consistency matters more than the specific shoe.

A simple sprint testing protocol

Here's a general template coaches can adapt:

1. Standardized warm-up, including a few build-up runs. 2. Two or three 10 m or 20 m sprints, with gates at the start and finish (and at split points if available). 3. Full recovery between trials, typically two to three minutes or more. 4. Record every trial, and note the stance, surface, footwear, and any problems.

Use the same template at every re-test. Write it down so a different coach can run it the same way.

The bottom line

Good sprint testing is boring on purpose: same distance, same start, same timing system, same conditions. That consistency is what makes improvement visible.

Related reading

• Summer Off-Season Training for High School Athletes: How to Plan the Break
• Training in the Heat: Heat Illness Basics for Summer Workouts
• Squat Jump vs. Countermovement Jump: What the Difference Tells You
• Single-Leg vs. Double-Leg Jumps: Why Test Both
• train for speed
• force plate jumps
• re-test
• assessment

References

• Haugen T, Buchheit M. Sprint running performance monitoring: methodological and practical considerations. Sports Med. 2016;46(5):641–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0446-0 (online Dec 14, 2015)
• Hetzler RK, et al. Reliability and accuracy of handheld stopwatches compared with electronic timing in measuring sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(6):1969–1976. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318185f36c (published Nov 2008)
• ---

Fill out our quick contact form at starkeit.com/contact, or call or text (847) 750-3025. Starke Industries is in Palatine, IL.