Are blocks mandatory in the 100m? Would Farah have been better off using a standing start?
Dennis Reynolds wrote:
I think the biggest thing all of you guys bashing the Geezer are missing is the start out of blocks. For a distance dude out of blocks you can likely add at least a second to what they could run with a flying start. Of course top end speed of Mo Farah is better than 13 seconds/100m and Sprintgeezer will readily admit that but that is not really what this race was. It was a REAL 100m. Bolt is more around a 9.00 guy by top speed BUT THAT IS NOT THE 100m RACE! YOU GOTTA ACCOUNT FOR THE BLOCKS!
I take it your pr for 800m is nowhere near 1.48. I would suggest he can sprint 'adequately', you moron.
It's embarrassing that the best distance runner in the world ran a time slower than many, many mediocre high school girls. He was surely told by Salazar, a control freak, not to risk tearing his hammy. But he surely could not have done much better and this is illustrative of just how different sprinting speed is from closing speed in a long distance race. Great distance runners do not have the power to sprint even adequately. And great sprinters cannot do anything beyond 800m.
No, you are the plonker. He wouldn't go under 12.8 just like Sprintgeezer said in his thread a few weeks ago.
Spit teaser - you just can't face the possibility that mo might actually be quite fast.
He's run 1.48 and 3.33. Whilst his endurance is first class, there's no way he could run these times without 400m ability of AT WORST 51s. You simply cannot run this fast without innate 100m speed of at least 12s.
Just think about this show -
1. It was wet and cold
2. He prob didn't thoroughly warm up - would have looked a dick
3. We don't know his current health / fitness
I see this as more of a 'training time'. In the right conditions, in peak shape he is sub 12 no doubt at all.
1.48 is 13.5 x 8..... BACK TO F***IN' BACK.
You are such a plonker.
It's not blah blah blah. How many of those runners can run a 51 second 400m? If you can't do that, then you won't be a top runner.
How many times do we read posts or hear runners say that they lack the speed to be a top runner blah blah blah?
You have no point. Some 100m sprinter does the 400m for the first time and never again and you are using that as your point? Did you run your lifetime mile PR the first time you ran a mile?
long time ago wrote:
There was a guy at my highschool when I was a freshman, who was very fast, ran 9.6 in the 100 yards on dirt. Fast at that time.
He never ran the 440 and didn't even like the 220 but the coach got him to run it one time.
Everyone said that was the worst they'd ever seen anyone die on a 440 ever!
He ran 55 seconds and never did it again.
The point - so much for speed - vs speed endurance.