| Sprintgeezer |
| ||
|
Yes, they are elite runners. What you seem unable to grasp is that acceleration is a major contributor to 100m from the blocks--acceleration from ZERO velocity. Distance runners have relatively none--and why should they? Or, in other words, WHY do you think that a sustained, low-power aerobic activity correlates to meaningful acceleration? Or even to meaningful top speed, which is also dependent on power? Alternatively, you could agree that they have less-than-mediocre acceleration, but that they are able to maintain their top speed very well--however, that argument would fail because their top speed is abysmal by sprinting standards--more than 20% worse than the best elites, more than 10% worse than mediocre sprinters. And I can guarantee you that their acceleration is MUCH worse than 20% worse than that of the best elites. Take 10.00 as an elite time, add something more than 20%, and you have 12.5, which they would be lucky to run. Finally, it's not just about power development--there is serious form that goes into running a good 100m. No distance runner is capable of achieving that form, which means that they will be relatively even worse than you think. That puts them between 12.5-13.0; probably closer to 12.5 for certain athletes. But again: WHO CARES, unless they are running against other similarly-situated athletes? |
| LM |
| ||
Allegedly people like Farah, Rupp, etc have low 50 second 400m ability. If the best they can run is 12.5 or so, this doesn't seem very indicative of being able to run a roughly 50 second 400m. Is this just a difference in how these times are measured (i.e. 400m means flying start, while the 12.5 is from the blocks) or if not what is causing the discrepancy? |
| Coach Carnegie |
| ||
|
Are you joking
Some did... Hand times: 10.5/100 meters, 21.3/200 meters, 47.0/400 meters, 59.3/500 meters, 14:30/5k, 30:13/10k, Half Marathon/1:09:20. We can run sub 11 and faster. |
| kanny |
| ||
|
The more important question: when Bekele says 11.00 seconds for the 100m, does he mean flying or from standing/blocks? http://berlin.iaaf.org/news/kind=114/newsid=53240.html |
| Sprintgeezer |
| ||
|
First of all, you have said that low 50-sec. ability is alleged. I will assume arguendo that it is proven, even if they were to start from blocks and not a flying start, as you seemed to suggest. For a runner with excellent speed maintenance but only mediocre acceleration, a 12.5 from the blocks is not inconsistent with a 50-sec. 400m--that first 100m may be the slowest one they will run all 400m. MJ's splits in his 43.18 were 11.10, 10.12, 10.44, and 11.52--but he had great acceleration in the first 100m compared to a Rupp or a Farah, even though he had good speed maintenance. Assuming that it was a 400 and that the first 100 would not be run all-out, let's say that the first 100 is then done in 13.0, leaving 37 for the next 300m, which is 12.3 average for each of the last 3 100m segments. Doesn't seem like a problem to me for guys with amazing speed maintenance, and who can run a flying 11.0 In fact, in such a scenario, I would suggest that they could actually possibly go under 50 seconds, by running a 13 first 100, followed by 3 12.0 averages for a 49-second 400. |
| Sprintgeezer |
| ||
|
Carnegie-- First of all, I said FAT. I don't accept 100m hand times. Second, you never said if these were achieved at anywhere near the same point in history. It would be more plausible if the 100m was done when, say, 18, and then the half at 33, after 15 yrs of solid distance training, with the appropriate long-term base. If you allege anywhere near the same point in time, I don't believe you. Third, I do believe that a record of that kind could be compiled by someone like Coe, IF he received some specific block and acceleration training, and IF that 100m time was around 11.0. Fourth, I do not believe that you are someone like Coe, nor do I believe that either Rupp or Farah are runners like Coe. |
| silentbutdeadly |
| ||
|
Sub-50 is pretty much the standard for sub-4:00 milers who are MD guys, and even though Galen and Mo are 5/10K guys, they are well under 4:00, so 49-ish seems appropriate, along with a 1:48 capability. |
| WADer |
| ||
Why do so many slow endurance runners post bs? |
| actually |
| ||
He's making stuff up. He has never run sub 12 even for a flying 100. |
| ventolin^3 |
| ||
|
agreed 11.00 wouda been possible for a hand-time short, downhill track with a following tsunami kennster has arguably greatest endurance of any track guy in history ( hard to argue with 5k/10k wrs ) marita koch holds women's 400wr at 47.60 & she had a 10.83pb, albeit not same year, but she was good for 11-flat in her 47.60 she was a sprinter & no sprinter can have kennster's endurance if kennster went 11.00, then he wouda been good for at least 46 off koch extrapolating : elite 800 guys with 46 speed can look towards 1'42 kennster with far better endurance with 46 speed woud be looking at ~ 1'38/1'39 !!! his best 100 is more likely 12.0 - 12.5, & i favor latter end of range |
| clueless about running |
| ||
Again, as this has been repeated to you a number of times by others but apparently you still don't comprehend, what they do from blocks DOES NOT MATTER. |
| Ballsack McGee |
| ||
Why does everyone say Wariner needs to move up to the 800 to be a legend? He just needs to become a 10k guy and he will surely run 41.x in the quarter! |
| Sprintgeezer |
| ||
|
Hey clueless-- It has been ME who has been saying that, BTW: "But again: WHO CARES, unless they are running against other similarly-situated athletes?" along with numerous other such posts. Get your facts straight. |
| *DESW |
| ||
|
You are the only clueless poster on letrun.com You slow a** f- ing geezer. |
| New Urban Legend |
| ||
|
Didn't Suleiman Nyambui run 10.4 at a low-key all-comers meet back in the 70s? |
| Sprintgeezer |
| ||
|
I have just seen Rupp's physique and how he started the 1500m at indoor nationals. I have revised my prediction from near 12.5-13.0 to 13.0-13.4 Rupp would be LUCKY to do a 13.00 from blocks. Not only that, I even now have difficulty believing that he can do a real flying 10.9 I'll have to read that stupid article for more details, I guess. Yes, I know that he was gassed from the race the day before, and the altitude, but that is no excuse for what I just saw. What I just saw was a 14.00 guy, at best. Fresh and at lower altitude, he is a 13.00 guy on his best day, with luck. |
| Sprintgeezer |
| ||
|
I just read the article. There is no measurement protocol described. I'll tell you what it is: an optimistic coach, hand timing, from a crappy vantage point. Same old. My prediction is that Rupp will get eaten alive in any real race. If it is slow and tactical, he will get outkicked EASILY. If he tries to make it fast, everybody else will draft and outkick him anyway. He can always finish third in a good 10,000m The only male US distance/mid distance runners who seem to me to have "IT", are Lagat and Manzano. And the only one with the combination of "IT" and top ability is Lagat. |
| clueless about running |
| ||
-- clueless poster |
| R U Cereal? |
| ||
Agreed on (1) above. On (2), however, it seems like you are overlooking Centro. He just medaled at Worlds. Doesn't seem like there is any arguing with that. I'd bet on Centro over Manzano any day (yes, I know he just lost one - he won't win them all, just most of them and especially on the world stage) and also over Lagat at 1500. |
| Sprintgeezer |
| ||
|
Clueless-- Of course, you conveniently truncate my comment before the point at which I discuss his "flying 100m", and use only my block-based preamble in your useless comment. |