I can't imagine anyone arguing that given a flying start any of the top guys couldn't, at a BARE minimum, break 12 in the 100m, and for most it would likely be .5s-1s faster under flying start criteria as most guys range from 46s-52s 400m guys.
Thus, the real question becomes, how badly does the typical distance runner suffer when put under the blocks + FAT of the 100m as the actual event?
Not much if they know how to use them. I had watched enough people use blocks so when I did 11.4 it wasn't that hard, in fact it was my 2nd 100 of the day, 11.9 was my first from the blocks 10 minutes earlier.
Give any decent sub 15/9:30/4:20 distance runner an hour with the blocks and they'll be running under 12 sec that day. The thing with the sprints is that getting faster even .1 is very hard after this first day.
Speed racer wrote:
I am a 14:40 college, 15:20 High school distance athlete so obviously I have some slow twitch/endurance abilities.
I ran 11.4 from the blocks in 11th grade.
Another high school team mate, who also ran 16 flat for 5k and did tons of distance running, ran 23.2 for 200.
I tend to agree with you OP, but there is a small segment of distance runners that are actually quite fast, with little or no training for sprints. I had no training and I ran 11.4, no weights, no block technique, no explosive training.
It all has to do with effort. Most people just don't know how to go 100% and never will. Sprinting effectively you have to know how to go 100%. Most people, 95% is their 100. Then they fall down and cry about how hard it was.
Avg person with 50/50 population split slow twitch/fast twitch going 100% with only basic mile training should be able to run under 12 seconds.
With lifting and sprint training virtually everyone except for the most slowest of LSD distance runners should be able to go 11 (for men) and 13 for women. Its not hard.
Dude just because you can sprint doesn't mean everyone can. Your arbitrary stat about the average dude getting under 12s off mile training while going 100% is so much rubbish. None of the distance runners in the group I train with would break 13 and only a couple of the MD guys would break 12.5.
This is the typical if I can do it, so can everyone else argument. Get your head out of your ass.
Dude just because you can sprint doesn't mean everyone can. Your arbitrary stat about the average dude getting under 12s off mile training while going 100% is so much rubbish. None of the distance runners in the group I train with would break 13 and only a couple of the MD guys would break 12.5.
This is the typical if I can do it, so can everyone else argument. Get your head out of your ass.
------
any arbitrary stat about distance runners not being able to run sub 12 is just as plausable as them being able to run sub 12. I dont think anyone has actual data.
I have heard that Galen is actaully faster than Mo farah, just he isnt as strong at the end of the race, thats why you see farah kick more.
True mid distance guys close races in 51 flat. You cant run that unless you can comfterably run 12.5's. If you can run 12.5 you can sprint 11.5.
On my college team we ran 100's all of us mid distance guys, and with a running start hand time, we were all well under 12.0.
running 11 seconds isnt that suprising when training as competativly as these world class athletes are.
Im sure most elite distance runners (5k-10k) are quicker than you think. Almost any distance runner that can run under 50 for the 400m should be able to run sub 12 in the open 100. Im never trained as a sprinter but have run 11.3, 22.5 and under 50, 155, 415, 1500, 2530 for 400-8k. Most of the elite guys can close the last 100 in 12 secs and thats at the end of a race.
Here's a video of Rupp doing some faster stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fws3wgj7les
While he's clearly no Usain Bolt, the guy has wheels. He runs 75m in 8.4 which is 11.2 second pace for 100m.
Juha Vätäinen, the European 5000/10000m champ was the Finnish junior champ in the 100m in 10,8.
I'm guessing the OP meant a legitimate 11s 100m. That's legitimate as in 11.00s FAT, legal wind, out of blocks. Not 11.Xs rolling start, with Isaac at your back,hand-timed by your grandma.
All you idiots posting times like 11.3s need to STFU. You're over half a second away from running a legitimate sub 11s, you ain't even close.
So Rupp can run what 1:46 for the 800m means he's low 11s for 100m?riiiiiiigggghhhhhtttt. You're beyond delusional.The only time I've seen a (middle) distance guy with the balls to put his moneywhere his mouth is on how quick he could do 100 and it ended in epic failure for him and his coach. This was a 1:48.0/3:51 8/15 guy with massive kick, and they were convinced he could do sub-11s as he'd "gone close in training". 11.71s in an actual FAT race was the best he could do. Easiest $200 I ever earned.
I-dont-knowww wrote:
They are now training like all around athletes and racing like it. Galen ran 1:49 in college as a 3:57 miler. He now is an equilivant to a 3:51-3:52 miler. You think he still is a 1:49 guy? I cant speak for the Bolt comparsion, bt Galen has shown strength in the 1500 for it to be considered feasable of him running low 11's in a hand time 100.
A dog has personality wrote:
22 for the 200, absolutely. I'm a 33 year old 2:24 marathoner with a 14:52 above-30 5K road PR and I can roll a 23-sec 200 in road flats with a standing start. Granted I was a soccer player in my youth and had good sprinting speed but there's no way an elite marathoner wouldn't smoke my ass on any distance.
Calling BS on this one.
Where?
What was the actual time?
Who timed?
How was the timing done?
I'm guessing answers are
Down at the local park. I stepped out 200m
23.99s
I timed myself
Pressing start on my Seiko when I started running.
If you really think you can run 23s for 200m, Find your local college track team and challenge one of the FEMALE sprinters to a race. 20 bucks says you get your ass handed to you.
t94bell wrote:
Mo Farah and Benard Lagat should definitely be able to rip a sub 11.
Statements like this make me despair for the future of humanity. I sincerely hope you're unable to breed and so pass your clearly retarded genes on another generation.
Distance guys are completely full of shxt when it comes to overestimating sprinting ability, as if distance guys had any.
As a simple demonstration of the shxt constantly parroted in this regard, suggestions that Vaatainen went 10.8 are complete B.S.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4203011&page=3
THAT WAS A DATE, NOT A TIME.
I have already crushed ridiculous distance notions of sprinting on other threads, like the one linked above, the Rupp 10.9 thread, and others.
End of my commentary.
Presumably no one is implying 11 FAT from block, as one would in the actual 100m sprint.
There is obviously a big difference between that and a distance runner covering 100m in 11.xx.
Given the flying start there are definitely tons of distance guys that go sub 12s and a few of the faster 800/1500 guys could challenge sub 11 with a FLYING start.
Again, since people always seem to ignore it, I'll ask how much will blocks + FAT slow down the time vs a flying start?
Who cares if they can run a 11 100. Can they beat a Xfitter?
Timed wrote:
Even the best of the best of long distance runners and marathoners would be lucky to crack 13 seconds with a 2.0 m/s tailwind in a 100m sprint. They just do not have the physiology for it which is mainly due to a high percentage of slow-twitch muscle fibers, which makes them so good at distance running in the first place.
Here's the most idiotic comment from the op. I don't care if distance runners can break 11.0. You think distance runners would be lucky to break 13.0? Are you an idiot? Really? I've seen many races closed in 52, which is four 13 second hundred meters in a row. I guarantee in nearly every race someone closes in under 13.0. And you don't think that they could do that or faster fresh from a standing start? Really? Idiot.
No, you can't.
terdgdsfgdsf wrote:
I'm a 32:30 10k guy and I ran 12.8 out of blocks. I don't think bekele could run 11.00 but he'd definitely be under 12.
Sorry--wrong quote.The ftard who says he can roll 23s 200m is the moron to whom I was addressing "No, you can't."
Er... wrote:
No, you can't.
terdgdsfgdsf wrote:I'm a 32:30 10k guy and I ran 12.8 out of blocks. I don't think bekele could run 11.00 but he'd definitely be under 12.
I think there's a few problems here:
1. Distance runners don't really get the concept that 1s is a big gap in sprinting terms.
2. Distance runners don't really get that a 100m with a flying start is completely different to a proper you know 100m race.
3. Distance runners are generally retarded
Ok so... wrote:
I think there's a few problems here:
1. Distance runners don't really get the concept that 1s is a big gap in sprinting terms.
2. Distance runners don't really get that a 100m with a flying start is completely different to a proper you know 100m race.
3. Distance runners are generally retarded
I think what people get unclear about if what the topics are. This topic is called "Do people here really think the best elite distance runners can sprint 11 flat for 100m?"
If they are given such things as a flying start, then yes some (obviously not even close to all) can, and one could argue that is sprinting 100m in 11 seconds.
If the question is can distance runners go 11s in a true 100m race FAT from blocks then the answer is no way, except for perhaps the occasional 400/800 guy like a David Rudisha.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
As a simple demonstration of the shxt constantly parroted in this regard, suggestions that Vaatainen went 10.8 are complete B.S.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4203011&page=3THAT WAS A DATE, NOT A TIME.
Even the listed 200m time of 22.1s for Vaatainen is likely sh1te. Either heavily wind-assisted or poor timekeeping. Probably both.
His 2-8 P.Bs from wiki are:
200m : 22.1s
400m : 48.9s
800m : 1:48.4
All set in 1967.
For a guy with his endurance there's no way you would "only" run a 48.9 quarter, if you were a legitimate 22.1 200m runner with a 1.48 800m.
48.9/1.48 makes sense. 22.1/48.9/1.48 doesn't.