| Analogizer |
| ||
So I am not the best athlete in the world and I was able to make 65 free throws out of 100 with just a little practice. Brett Favre is a very good athlete, judging by his excellent quarterback skills. Therefore, since he is a better athlete than me and with a little more practice, he would definitely be able to make 100 free throws out of 100. I think my above analogy is about as relevant as your analogy of you being able to run a 4:58 mile, so world class sprinters could break 4:30. What does Brett Favre and his football skills have anything to do with shooting free throws, just like how does great sprint speed have anything to do with running a sub 4:30 mile. Furthermore, how does my not being able to shoot free throws very well and your not being able to run a very fast mile come in to play? Still not getting your point. |
| Sprint Geezer |
| ||
|
I hear, and respect, your anecdotal evidence. All it says conclusively, however, is that a respectable 800m guy who didn't train much for the 100 could not break 12. I don't think that you can lump 800 runners in with distance runners, and it was distance runners that I was specifically talking about. Although I guess one could argue that ElG wasn't a "distance" runner, he was certainly not a sprinter. A very fast "runner" might be able to do 11 seconds in the 100m, IF they have a start and acceleration from zero velocity--which they do not. The lack of start and acceleration add another second, now you're at 12 seconds. I don't downplay the excellence and achievements of the distance greats, and I absolutely believe that they can have some unbelievable speed that could produce some amazing times in the 200m, for instance. But the start and acceleration are factors that are just too big in the 100m. I do believe that if given a long period of proper training in the sprints that SOME of the distance greats could run an honest 11 sec 100m--absolutely. Of that I don't think there can be any question. And a handful of guys could run 10.8-10.9, and one or two guys could run 10.7 A while back there was a thread with an interesting post by a poster called "i love peeps", hypothesizing a middle distance guy in the decathlon: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2026189 It came to mind because I was thinking about the apparently inverse relationship in the decathlon between 100m and 1500m times. I don't know if that is actually true though, does anybody know? Anyway, I still find it hard to believe the contention that even elite distance athletes could break 12 sec in the 100m from a standing gun, but I most certainly believe that if they cared to try, a few of them could run around 11 seconds. Any of them coming even close to qualifying is still laughable. Rudisha, or any other 800m runner even coming close to qualifying is also still totally laughable. |
| Sgt. Piper |
| ||
|
This thread is ridiculous. Ashton Easton could made the B standard in way more events than Rudouchebag. |
| jungleroy59 |
| ||
|
I'd say Superman wouuld win, because he fights for Truth, Justice and the American Way |
| Sprint Geezer |
| ||
|
The point is that, IMHO, the qualities that Wariner and Spearmon have MORE OF than I do (youth, height, lightness, running speed) are qualities that are relevant to running a fast mile. You have reduced it to "great sprint speed", but that is clearly not what I was talking about. _____________________ I'm curious if posters believe that Wariner or Spearmon could, after a bunch of training, run a 4:30 mile or not. Maybe I'm underestimating how fast a 4:30 mile actually is, not having run one myself, the same as distance people here are underestimating how fast an 11-second 100m is. |
| kanchana |
| ||
|
Not at the same time but you never know if you train a sprinter for 4 years as a distance guy, get their hemocrit to 60. HIncapie won a mountain stage for Chrissakes, drugs do wonders. |
| Surprise! |
| ||
|
"To get it, you have to be wired for it, and be around 10.5 with essentially no sprint training, which is Rudisha's situation, except that he couldn't touch 12.5 out of the blocks." Huh? |
| Sprint Geezer |
| ||
|
Yes, that was awkwardly worded. To get down to a 10.07 an athlete must be able to run around 10.5 with essentially no sprint training. While Rudisha has essentially no sprint training, he is nowhere near 10.5 And not only is he nowhere near 10.5, he would be hard-pressed to run a 12.5 from blocks. |
| herbertbuttery |
| ||
Yes I call you crazy. To run sub 10.5 you need sprinter talent. Not talent[/quote] Sorry, I was drunk when I wrote that. I still did point out that he probably can't do it, so I guess I'm not crazy. But it is possible to hit a 10.3 for him. As a small distance runner (5'11" 140) in high school, I was primarily a distance guy (52 400, 1:55 800, 2:32 1k, 4:20 1600, 9:20 3200, 15:16 5k). This shows I didn't have much speed, yet I still managed out an 10.96 100 in one of my goof-off meets. I would think that Solinsky with his probably much greater 400/800 speed and his build could probably do much better for the 100.[/quote] Nope I still think were drinking when you worte this. I was a 10.3 guy. Its not that easy. And the A standards are fully auto and lega. Not high school watches that split in the hundredths weith dubious wind guage officials, or a piece of string in the wind. Its tough to shave the inches off a sprint. I could run 11 seconds backwards or in repeatrs with a 20 second recovery. But going from 10.3 to 10.2 is monumental. Like 3:40 to 3:35. There's a reason people end up in the events they do. They're too slow to be competitive in the 100 m. That's the starter event. If you can't run fast, you run long until you find the spot for you. A bit like carrying the oar on your shoulder and walking inland until someone asks you what it is. It's not good enough to gbe a talented athlete - look at Michael Jordan. As long as he has a hole in his a s s he was not going to run 10.5 seconds in the 100 m. |
| Sprint Geezer |
| ||
|
Hey herbertbuttery! Finally somebody else who understands sprints. Like you, I could run 11 all day long. I was a 10.5 guy while not totally dedicated to sprints, and I believe that if I HAD totally dedicated myself, I would have been lucky to get down to high 10.3x--that is, it would have been monumental to shave off 0.10, just like you suggested between 10.3 and 10.2 Psychologically for me, anything lower than 10.3 is sea monsters. |
| Sprint Geezer |
| ||
|
I would guess the same logic applies the other way around... Put Bekele or Geb on 'roids and a weight power program, or Rudisha or Komen Speaking of which, what would you call Rudisha or Komen on 'roids? |
| nail him from behind |
| ||
Have you ever watched an 800 runner sprint? I bet the majority of ~1:52 800 runners can do 12.5 out of the blocks, as long as they have a few weeks to learn how to use blocks so it doesn't slow them down. But that's not even important, because Rudisha runs 1:41.01! He goes out in 49-low for 400, and 24-low for 200. That means he runs runs the FIRST 100 AROUND THE CURVE of his 800 in around 12.5. Congratulations on having one of the craziest posts I've ever read. |
| rounder |
| ||
|
[/quote] Have you ever watched an 800 runner sprint? I bet the majority of ~1:52 800 runners can do 12.5 out of the blocks, as long as they have a few weeks to learn how to use blocks so it doesn't slow them down. But that's not even important, because Rudisha runs 1:41.01! He goes out in 49-low for 400, and 24-low for 200. That means he runs runs the FIRST 100 AROUND THE CURVE of his 800 in around 12.5. Congratulations on having one of the craziest posts I've ever read.[/quote] haha awesome - great point! Math can be fun AND instructive. |
| Sprint Geezer |
| ||
|
It doesn't seem like a great point to me. Is the split for his first 200 really 24-low, and what is your source? And even if it is, that absolutely does not mean that his split for the first 100 is 12.5 "learn how to use blocks so it doesn't slow them down"? That is a complete non-sequitur--it doesn't make sense at all. OK, upon further consideration I'll give Rudisha a 12.5 from the blocks. But seriously, do you have a first 100m split for him? |
| Sprint Geezer |
| ||
|
You know, Rudisha really is quite amazing. And I might even give him 12 seconds from the blocks, given some practice! Which in sprinting is laughable. I would love to see Rudisha train for and own the 400m now that he has the 800m WR, and then once he set the 400m WR, move down to 200m just for kicks. I'm sure that if he trained for it he could run 21.xx Like some other poster suggested, I'd love to see him and Bolt both train for, and run the 400m, and go head-to-head. They should do it after London. The 400m record-books would be re-written. |
| rounder |
| ||
|
Not perfect but grab a stopwatch and do it yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYfNElHP0OY Most definitely low 24 for the first 200 for the rabbit. Crazy to see the 100 splits on this - especially the flying start (so not super relevant to this conversation) second 100. |
| Sprint Geezer |
| ||
|
That run really is amazing. Like I said, I'll even give him a 12-flat from the blocks. Amazing. For me, he's just as amazing as Bolt. |
| rounder |
| ||
Okay, I'm satisfied with that! Yes, this is a transcendent run. Back to the very original question, I wonder if Snell could have done this challenge IF he tried to get the sprint times (which must have been much slower back then) before he started distance training. Is there any way to find out what the OG standards were for 1964? (assuming the system back then was similar to what it is now, which may not be the case). I say this because Snell apparently had great speed as an all-around athlete back in the day. Obviously one of the great mid-distance runners ever, and clearly able to 'hack it' at the longer Lydiard-prescribed training. |
| herbertbuttery |
| ||
|
Rudisha is great because he is great. He's every bit as good as Bolt. Though not yet as revolutionary. He can go out in 49 and come home in 52. No one else can do that. But it has been done before. (almost) I think he can also run a spectacular 400. 45.5 and can probably go into the 44s.. Its in his genes. But he isn't going to run 43, and he's not going to run a 3.22 1500. He is a superstar 800 m runner. Slightly faster right now than Wilson Kipketer was. Who knows who is better? But is you watch the WR WK set, it looked every bit as good as Rudisha's. Two great athletes, unfortunately separated in time, or you'd be looking at sub 1:40. |
| The Inside Scooper |
| ||
|
Lots of interesting theories. I can buy someone hitting the standard for 5000 to marathon or maybe 1500 to marathon over 4 years, but when you start including shorter distances it seems undoable to me. Does anyone have an actual example of a runner who met the A standard (or the era's equivalent) for the 100 through the 1500? It seems to me it would be a decathlete since they train for both ends of those distances, and I can't think of any. |