my friend thinks u. bolt could run a sub-4:30 mile

"anyone should be able to run at least one 4:30" thats the most absurd thing I've read on this board.

No doubt, huh?

Are you as optimized as they are for distance running? No.

Plus, your 12.15 after a mile "just to see where you are at" is likely a hand time, and probably a self-timed hand time.

Your 12.15 is a 12.35-12.50, which is pretty decent. Because you don't practice block starts, you are probably faster from a standing start, which puts you between 12.5-13 for a FAT block-start 100m.

No shame in that, you are a 16:30/4:39/2:06 guy.

Certain elites may indeed be faster than you over 100m, maybe even Rupp, but they would not easily run low 11.xx from the blocks. Even if your 12.15 was FAT and actually done after a fast mile, you would have a world of hurt trying to run 11.5 fresh. I can jog a 12.15 for repeats all day long, from a standing start, but a 11.5 is infinitely more difficult. My current hand times are right around 11.00-11.20 from standing start.

The logic that because somebody is 20% faster than you over distance means that they will be faster than you over 100m still escapes me--please explain it.

Let me ask you this: has Bolt ever actually run a timed mile on a track?

He's in his 30's, he has a real job, and I said he was a specialist "as judged by his training", which means his training is focused on the 100, not on the 400

"You will be surprised the amount of distance runners who can break 11 sec"

FAT, from blocks? No, I won't.

xcblong wrote:

I agree, there is no doubt that those elite guys could easily run under 12 for the 100m. I'm a high school xc 5k/1600m,800m runner who runs about 16:30,4:39,2:06, and i just ran in a 100m to see where I am at, and I ran 12.15 after running the mile, with a standing start. So there is no doubt that these elites who run a good 20% faster than me would easily run low 11s

They would be slower than you think. Ovett ran a few 100's and never broke 11

I don't know any non-sprinters that can break 11 for a 100. In our 10 million person state, the winning time for the 100 in HS was 10.5. He was so fast that for the 200x4 relay, he would get the baton in third place and race pass the next two guys for the win. It was a man against boys.I just looked up some random track meets for our school (one of the biggest big-10 schools, we've produced olympians but are in a down phase) and some guys are barely sub 11.The number of distance runners (even elite) that can break 11 will be very small indeed.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

He's in his 30's, he has a real job, and I said he was a specialist "as judged by his training", which means his training is focused on the 100, not on the 400

"You will be surprised the amount of distance runners who can break 11 sec"

FAT, from blocks? No, I won't.

Now Jeilan, like Lagat, could go fast in the 100m.

Maybe it's a black/white thing. Rupp would suck at 100m--ditto pretty much any other decent white distance guy I can think of, who runs distances greater than the mile. No pop. Period. They're like diesels, vs very-fuel-efficient gasoline engines like Lagat and Jeilan.

I leave 800/1500 specialists out of this, they might actually have some speed, guys like Webb and Coe.

I loved Jeilan's form last year--that was the closest thing to sprinting form that I have ever seen from a distance runner. There was absolutely no question, once they hit the home straight, that Jeilan would win. Farah was displaying that unbelievabe 11.2 flying 100 speed, and got absolutely blown away by one move by Jeilan--it was a joke. It wasn't that Farah wasn't moving, it was that he was standing still relative to something resembling an actual sprint.

How do you think Rupp would have looked in that race? Just like he looked against Lagat. Pathetic. Unbelievably slow. Why? Because next to anything resembling an actual sprint, it IS slow. And to not be able to make, or go with, a serious move tells me all I need to know about his ability in the first 30m of a 100m--totally useless.

And we're not talking "thin", as in "wiry"--we're talking sickly thin. No pop. No chance.

Unlike Lagat or Jeilan.

I'm talking about 800/1500m specialist..

'It's also dumb to think that skinny people can't sprint. You will be surprised the amount of distance runners who can break 11 sec.'

Suprise me my providing a link with a recorded time

Coe closed 1500's with a 12.5 12.4 says a lot. I think if he would be fresh he could snatch of .4 or .5 secs.

Coe also has the fastest last 100m on record for an 800m 11.3.

Bram Som also has ran 10.90 for the 100m.

This brings the md runners with wheels on the same level as elite 100m females.

I'm kinda bored so I guess I'll join in:

You people who think Bolt can "easily" break 4:30 because it's an "average" high school time are being a bit obtuse in your reasoning.

First of all, 4:30 is not average according to actual statistics. You are just exaggerating. No, it's not an outstanding high school time, but it certainly isn't average. Sub-4:30 is a decent mile time.

Second of all, take a moment to look at a picture of Usain Bolt. Now look at a picture of your typical 4:20 miler. Notice any differences? The man is HUMONGOUS compared to most distance runners. He weighs over 200 lbs. And the fact that he's a WR holder in the 100 doesn't help his case either. You people need to understand that being a great athlete in one discipline does not automatically mean you'll be good at other things. The 100 and the mile are VERY different events.

I'm not saying he could never break 4:30 with the right training. But I assure you he would NEED a fair amount of training to be able to do it. And even then I'd be kind of surprised. He'd be looking good about 800m in, and then....THE WALL.

Tranel Hawkins (1984 OG 6th place 400IH) lived on my street while I was in high school. I watched him run 3 x 800 @ 1:56-2:00 during the spring of 1986 or 1987. He was taking full recovery, but to think that he couldn't string two of those back to back in 2:15 is pretty much of a stretch.

I also used to see the guy heading out for road run, yes runs on the road, not sprinting, on a regular basis.

quarter milers do aerobic work, but it isn't generally your easy 10 miler aerobic work. It is more like the workout I listed above.

Usain Bolt spent his youth as a quarter miler. While I think it unlikely that he could go out and pop a 4:30 right now, the thought that he could do it is not completely out of the question.

'Coe closed 1500's with a 12.5 12.4 says a lot. I think if he would be fresh he could snatch of .4 or .5 secs.'

Not sub 11

'Coe also has the fastest last 100m on record for an 800m 11.3.'

Not sub 11 and I've never seen that stat

'Bram Som also has ran 10.90 for the 100m.'

Who?

This brings the md runners with wheels on the same level as elite 100m females.[/quote]

Garbage

Provide links with actual 100m times under 11 seconds for elite distance runners

Well Bekele closed in 11.xx for his final 100meters for his world record 10k

Figuring in clyde harts training and id take the bet wariner could run 430 around jan/feb.

Bolt, im not so sure. Maybe 459 in november depending on jamaican buildups

I can remember timing one of my team mates in a 100m hand timed at the end of a workout (mid D) to 11.1. He was about 1:50 flat and 3:48 1500. This is in trainers no blocks from a standing start and the guy was very thin.

I've run under 12 countless times myself in distance spikes. 200 PR is 22.8. And I never trained to sprint, nor did any other Mid-D runner that ran 11-12 for 100 I knew. This is all off intervals, long runs, and light drills like knee lifts and stadiums.

It was in our team's time trial mock meet. It was hand timed and yes I agree the margin of error probably doesn't put me exactly there but my point isn't that I am a great sprinter, and I'm not arguing that 20% faster in distance translates to 20% faster in sprints, I am just saying that someone who runs that much more competitively, who runs at a much faster pace in their race can, almost definately run a faster 100m. Of course there are exceptions but these guys who are closing 1500m-5000m races with quarters in the low 50's will most likely sprint a lot faster than a guy like me who finishes a 1600 with a 66 or 67

HS junya wrote:

"anyone should be able to run at least one 4:30" thats the most absurd thing I've read on this board.

Couldn't agree more

Bolt's time for 1600m:

200: 23.50 - dang! fast start!

400: 47.00 (23.50) - oh snaps, killer pace!

600: 1:12.50 (25.50) - dang! dude is rolling smoothly

800: 1:51.00 (28.50) - nice job, but form is waivering

1000: 2:30.00 (39.00) - oh, dude is starting to struggle

1200: 3:15.00 (45.00) - you can do it Usain! Kick it in!

1400: 3:55.00 (50.00) - Come on! Show us that killer 200m speed!

1600: DNF

oops, I meant 38.50 from 600 to 800

and 4:05 at the 1400m.