If so, interesting.
If so, interesting.
without question, he is. the only other guys who have done it are africans. I would guess chris outweighs the 2nd-smallest sub 27 guy by 15+ lbs.
Mottram?
Mottram's best 10k is 27:34.48
IB wrote:
Mottram's best 10k is 27:34.48
not even the australian record anymore
Tergat is probably next and I think he weighed in the 130s. But it doesn't matter.
Mottrams 27:34 wasn't the Australian record. Shaun Creighton held it at 27:31.92 before Collis Birmingham ran 27:29.73.
On the day that Mottram ran 12:55 his fitness would probably of been better than a 27:34 10000m.
Hope he can return to his best
I saw one of our throwers in hs run 26.2 (he weighed 229)
He's the only sub 27 who doesn't have to run around in the shower to get wet.
interesting topic, does weight really matter, Solinsky looks very lean now but even when he wasn't as lean he still ran sub4 mile and sub 13:10
I'm sure of it. I think he's in the 180-185 range - and that's huge for a DR.
He's 170 and 6'1".
And yes, thats huge for a 10k sub 27.
The next closest is probably 140, and 6'0" (Hissou).
Mourhit was probably 135-140 but shorter.
Tergat was 130 and 6'0", so Solinsky is by far the most impressive.
Imagine a 200lb athlete running 3:45 in the mile, this is actually pretty similar.
I love it!! Does weight really matter?? I bounce between 148-158 at 5'11" and run solid times, and yes I'm 38 years old. But love to see the big guys setting records! Don't care if your 120 or 170, got to have big balls! Not biased here, but nice to see a non African transplant or a Nike baby, and a big dude set the US record!! Congrats Solinsky!
Of course weight matters. "They" generally say that each pound is 2 seconds per mile. So put ten pounds back on Solinsky and he would theoretically run 12 seconds slower and Rupp would have the American Record (and the collegiate record would be lower than the AR!).
rsbones wrote:
Of course weight matters. "They" generally say that each pound is 2 seconds per mile. So put ten pounds back on Solinsky and he would theoretically run 12 seconds slower and Rupp would have the American Record (and the collegiate record would be lower than the AR!).
ou
But you apparently struggle with simple arithmetic. In the end, your formula would be worth 124 seconds, or 2 minutes and 4 seconds, for Solinsky....
I was going to say....
I always understood it to be 2-3 secs/kg/km so ~1.8 secs/lb/mile.
I doubt he would have to struggle to break 29 if he weighed 10lbs/4.5kg more.
The longer the race, however, the greater the effect weight has. My personal experience is that I race faster when lighter (I'm 44). But I run 25% slower than CS.
runner39 wrote:
interesting topic, does weight really matter, Solinsky looks very lean now but even when he wasn't as lean he still ran sub4 mile and sub 13:10
Sure he was lean. Have you ever seen him in person? It's just that his backdrop is against tiny little distance guys.
Here's a photo I took of Solinsky at the Olympic Trials. I remember then thinking he was about as lean as humanly possible.
Ryan Hall is only 5'10" 130, but looks like a giant compared to world-class marathoners.
Off the Grid wrote:
I always understood it to be 2-3 secs/kg/km so ~1.8 secs/lb/mile.
4 more pounds and he'll have Bekele! Woohoo! Chris, put down that post-race beer!
jaxoffalot wrote:
But you apparently struggle with simple arithmetic. .
Nah, I just meant he'd have (at least) run the 12 seconds slower that would have resulted in a Rupp win. I'm pretty sure the formula is on the high side but in the very least those ten pounds would have cost him the race.