Who is faster over 300m, Rupp or Solinsky? Proof?

No chance Rupp could run 12.3-.4.

That 200=2*100 formula doesn't work for anyone that isn't a pure 100-200 guy.

Spearman 9.95/19.75

Michael Johnson 19.32/10.05

Lawshawn Merritt - 19.98 (I think he ran 19.8, but Wikipedia only has 19.98)/10.56

Tons of other examples. There's no way Rupp's 100 would fit the formula that not even 200/400 guys could fit.

Rupp in top 5k/10k shape could run a 12.9 AT BEST.

haha! well, the guy was making a "bigger is better" argument, so thought i'd provide a clear example where it doesn't hold:)

kartelite wrote:

bad as naomi russell wrote:

Warnier (150lb?) looks like a stick figure compared to Solinsky (165?), but i'll take him in the 100m-400m any day.

Way to go out on a limb there, chief.[/quote]

Vent--

In my fantasy race profiles I had MF doing a 24.5 or 25.0 first 200, and GR doing a 25.5 first 200.

Let's say for sake of argument that either of them is capable of somewhere between 24.5 and 25.5, do you not think that they could run a sub-50 off that?

I realize that your 24.5 estimate for GR is for an all-out 200. Keeping that in mind and assuming that it has any merit, would make my profile with a 25.5 first 200 of a 400 somewhat plausible, no? It would of course mean a sub-24.5 second 200m.

If anybody can negative-split a 400m, I would think it would be one of these guys, due to the combination of their decent top-end speed and good SE at that speed, plus their crappy start and acceleration.

If I had to pick a 200m FAT time from the blocks for these guys, I would have some difficulty, much more than picking their 100m time. I would have to guess maybe 26.0, or 25.5 being optimistic, maybe even 25.0

I believe that conflicts with my first 200m prediction for MF's 400m, which is now looking a bit optimistic, as is a 48.5 prediction. OK, I will revise it upwards to be 49.5, same as GR.

Talking out my a$$, of course.

Fluffy wrote:No chance Rupp could run 12.3-.4.

That 200=2*100 formula doesn't work for anyone that isn't a pure 100-200 guy.

Spearman 9.95/19.75

Michael Johnson 19.32/10.05

Lawshawn Merritt - 19.98 (I think he ran 19.8, but Wikipedia only has 19.98)/10.56

Tons of other examples. There's no way Rupp's 100 would fit the formula that not even 200/400 guys could fit.

Rupp in top 5k/10k shape could run a 12.9 AT BEST.

you are not quoting the 100s they ran at peak 200 shape & they also ran very few 100s compared to 100 ( lashawn just about none )

wally ran a coupla elite 100s in his 19.65 seasons & went 9.96 & it's no stretch he couda gone ~ 9.90 if he'd spent the season running 100s ( off 200 training )

lashawn shouda been good for 10.1/10.2 if he'd done similar

as for mj, i have no doubt he couda gone 9.80 in his 19.32 shape - we have blake who even though won 100 gold in '11 was considered a better 200 guy at season's end with 19.26 that year & without bolt last year wouda been a big winner of the 200

what was his 100 last year ?

9.69 with a 19.44

that woud easily give a 19.32 guy an ~ 9.8 - just that mj gave up serious 100s after '94 because of risk of injury - if he couda run a season of guaranteed injury-free 100s in his 1-off 19.32 shape, he wouda expected 9.8

it is not possible to run ~ 19.3 without fantastic intrinsic 100 speed no matter how good your endurance

easy answer wrote:

Ummm...given that Rupp has run 47.xx for the 400m, I'm going to go with Rupp.

LOL.

How does Rupp compare to Steve Ovett who ran 11.8 22.8 and 47.5?

I agree MJ could have run around a 9.8, but your formula would suggest a 9.66, which I disagree with.

Can you provide any examples of 200/400 guys (or just 400 only) that have a 100 pr that's approximately half their 200?

I know Vent believes Johnson could have gone 9.8, but I disagree, as I already posted on another thread.

Take a look at Johnson's metrics in his 19.32 sprint--which was BY FAR the best 200m he ever sprinted, BY FAR. It was totally anomalous, actually:

http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/splits/mj200.html

He hits max velocity somewhere between 60 and 70m--say around 70, at a velocity of 11.581 m/s

His velocity profile for the first 100m is, if I'm not mistaken, a pretty classic one for a 100m for a guy with a not-terribly-great start (which describes him perfectly).

He would have run the open 100m in maybe 9.9x, IMHO maybe low-mid 9.9x

What was truly remarkable about his 19.32 was his SE in the second half. I think he negative-split, and STILL has the fastest 2nd 100m ever (I think)--but it was not due to holding back too much in the first 100m. You can see that from his velocity profile, and the top speed reached.

Hey Eldrick, why no more posting on T&FN?

easy answer wrote:

Ummm...given that Rupp has run 47.xx for the 400m, I'm going to go with Rupp.

8/10

so ??

i'm saying if he'd run a 100 that day instead of 200, that form wouda been a 9.80

no

hitting peak speed at 60m is the profile of 99% of elite sprinters

his difference is that compared to others, he doesn't slow much very much from there, compared to others in a 100m whose splits slow by ~ 0.01s/10m from 60m to 100, a 10.00 guy hitting 60m in expected

~ 0.85s split for 50 - 60m & following on with 0.86, then 0.87 then 0.88 & 0.89

mj's speed profile of not slowing between 60 - 100m means he didn't aim for any peak speed at 60, but tried to hold a sub-max speed for as long as possible

it is against laws of physiology to be able to run a flat-out 200m from the gun

this is same profile as flo-jo with 10.49wr/21.34wr

she also slowed virtually nothing from 60 to 100m in her 200m & she got a wr record off it

if she got the wr, which still stands, it is no surprise mj was capable of 9.80 that day - a time which means nothing nowdays, but wouda been wr then

no

it is same speed decay profile as for flo jo

it wouda been

9.80

no

he held back

learn to analyse splits properly

the fact he didn't slow between 60 - 100m, which is impossible if you run a flat-out 100m, means he ran sub-maximally that part of the race

Fluffy wrote:I agree MJ could have run around a 9.8, but your formula would suggest a 9.66, which I disagree with

that formula is for an = strong 100/200 guy which MJ was not

he obviously was a better 200 guy than 100 one, but the deficit shouda been similar to other "stronger 200 than 100 guys" like

- spearmon who probably was ~ 9.90 in his 19.65 year ( ran 9.96pb year after his 19.65 but hardly ran any elite 100s in his career upto around then & that 9.96 was an end of season run - end of september )

i was the only guy who said his ~ 10.1/10.2pb at time of his 19.65 was ludicrous & he shoud be close to 9.90, but idiots were saying that

"he's a slow starter & 10.1/10.2pb is expected 100 ability even if he's run 19.65" !! )

- blake who was 9.82 & 19.26 ( but obviously his WC win looked better than that ( 0.17s RT into a 1.4 ) - 9.85 basic & 9.81 with expected RT of 0.13s & they were all pretty stunned after bolt's DQ

blake's 100/200 profile in '11 is very similar to MJ's expected in '96

ventolin^3 wrote:

Fluffy wrote:I agree MJ could have run around a 9.8, but your formula would suggest a 9.66, which I disagree with

that formula is for an = strong 100/200 guy which MJ was not

Exactly!!! That's why we're having this conversation! Look at my original post. You said Rupp could run a 12.4-12.5 100 because you think he can run a 24.45 200, 200 = 2*100 (your formula). I disagreed with you and showed why that formula doesn't work for anyone that's not a 100/200 guy.

You said Rupp could run an open 100 of ~12.3/12.4

Rupp isn't a 100/200 guy, so your prediction based off your formula doesn't work.

Do you now understand why Rupp couldn't run that fast?

eh ???

i said i expected "stronger 200 than 100 guys" to be around 0.2s slower than expected 100m time

it doesn't get any worse with middle-distance guys

3'50i guys with suggested mid-24 speed dont have 13.0

it'll be around low/mid-12 with just a season of running exclusively 100s ( an ~ dozen ) off just their distance training with no specific sprint training at all

learn to read & comprehend

If anybody's interested, here is one of the old "MJ 9.80" threads:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4541198&page=0

yeah

some peabrains there woudn't have comprehended his drop from 20.60 to 19.78 in successive years

their peabrain wouda exploded when they saw 19.26 off a mid-0.2rt !!!

thank god for not too many moron/peabrains here...

ventolin^3 wrote:

eh ???

i said i expected "stronger 200 than 100 guys" to be around 0.2s slower than expected 100m time

it doesn't get any worse with middle-distance guys

3'50i guys with suggested mid-24 speed dont have 13.0

it'll be around low/mid-12 with just a season of running exclusively 100s ( an ~ dozen ) off just their distance training with no specific sprint training at all

learn to read & comprehend

Yes, it does. If you think Rupp can run a 12.3-.4 100 (from blocks) you're insane and I've already showed you why. Now I see why you got banned from the Track & Field News Forums for trolling.

There is absolutely no evidence of what you're saying. There has never been a 5k/10k specialist that has shown sub 12.5 100 speed.

I know i'm debating a brick wall so I'm done with you (this time).

It's okay to admit you're wrong ;)

moron

you offer nothing

Ran a 5k in 14.25 ( was a 13.50 runner), my last 200m was 26 sec low. My PR on 200m fresh out of the block is 26.2

I would say that as long as you keep some energy and feel a bit fresh at the end of a race, you can basically equal your 200m or 400m PR.

To do that we just need to be 5 or 6 sec per mile slower than current level.

Why ? because the difference in term of energy spending is tremendous, we are basically fresh ! we could continue 5 more km, and that is exactly what allow us to go all out on the last lap.