8905 dude wrote:
Let me put things in perspective:
I was a sprinter in high school. The fastest female sprinter from the school was a 12.6ish 100m runner. This was the fastest girl from a D1 school with well over 22000 students. This same girl also happened to win league finals in the 100 in a strong league as well.
.
Comparing a star, well-trained sprinter to 22000 people that aren't even trying to be sprinters? Yeah, that sounds like perspective.
I hope you realize how funny you are when you troll and counter troll but offer nothing as to why anyone is wrong. Your genetic ceiling for trolling is apparently slightly lower than your mom's basement.
SMJO wrote:
I hope you realize how funny you are when you troll and counter troll but offer nothing as to why anyone is wrong. Your genetic ceiling for trolling is apparently slightly lower than your mom's basement.
Your trolling is really going downhill lately. What happened?
regressing to your level.
SMJO wrote:
regressing to your level.
I don't think you know what 'regressing' means
coach d wrote:
I'm a sprinter myself, which makes me a statistical outlier. But for people who are endurance-trained, 13.5 would be roughly equivalent to 2:15 800 and 4:55-5:00. 12.5 would be more like 2:00 and sub-4:40. Anyone who has been on or coached a high school team will know that 4:40 is about the point where athletes who are not seriously talented run out of their genetic ability and can't get faster no matter what they do. We are talking about a few percent in each case, but the faster case is a much smaller piece of even a track team.
You mean 12.5 for a distance runner is as uncommon as 4:40 for a distance runner? Or 12.5 in general is equally uncommon? I didn't think 12.5 was that good. Few distance runners can do it but I always figured I could after a couple months of sprint training.
ksosl wrote:
SMJO wrote:regressing to your level.
I don't think you know what 'regressing' means
You need to ask your mom for a Dictionary.
As a decent master's MD guy (55,2:05,4:20), I ran a lot of 100 repeats as I was sharpening, and with a rolling start, I ran 134.0 a few times, but never faster. Maybe out of blocks with competition I could have gone sub-13, but it would have been hard. I never had a sprint coach, but did plenty of speed development and did my homework (and coached a few 22.x,51.x guys for the local High School one season).
So I'm going with under 5% of college-age males.
8905 dude wrote:
The fastest female sprinter from the school was a 12.6ish 100m runner.
I would assume she was faster than most of the distance team, maybe sans some of the 800m studs.
That's because the distance team is mostly slow twitch guys who don't train for the sprints.
SMJO wrote:
No. The number would likely be about 2% higher than the number who have actually already done it or can at least move their legs that quickly for any length of time.
I would say 8% of the human race could do it. Males and Females included.
Watch a whole schoolyard full of kids running around and you can see that many have very good running style and OK speed but very few are actually fast.
I think 8% is to high. Perhaps between 10 & 15%? But 12.6 is faster than many think. Even Farah managed only 12.9 FAT. Although, I believe he can sprint faster.
Subfive wrote:
I think 8% is to high. Perhaps between 10 & 15%? But 12.6 is faster than many think. Even Farah managed only 12.9 FAT. Although, I believe he can sprint faster.
I always thought 8 was a lower number than 10 or 15.
Subfive wrote:
SMJO wrote:No. The number would likely be about 2% higher than the number who have actually already done it or can at least move their legs that quickly for any length of time.
I would say 8% of the human race could do it. Males and Females included.
Watch a whole schoolyard full of kids running around and you can see that many have very good running style and OK speed but very few are actually fast.
I think 8% is to high. Perhaps between 10 & 15%? But 12.6 is faster than many think. Even Farah managed only 12.9 FAT. Although, I believe he can sprint faster.
Correction...after more thought, 8% of males between 15-39 is probably a better estimate...
an 800 guy wrote:
As a decent master's MD guy (55,2:05,4:20), I ran a lot of 100 repeats as I was sharpening, and with a rolling start, I ran 134.0 a few times, but never faster.
I'm assuming you meant 13.40 and not 134.0.
But that still doesn't make sense. You're telling me you could run a 13.8 four times without rest (average pace of your 400), but could only manage a 13.4 for one flying 100? That doesn't sound right. Heck, I've never gone under 56 in a 400, and I can easily run the 100 in sub 13 from a standing start and sub 12 from a running start.
Sounds normal to me. His splits would probably be something like 13.7, 13.0, 13.4, 14.9.loop wrote:
an 800 guy wrote:As a decent master's MD guy (55,2:05,4:20), I ran a lot of 100 repeats as I was sharpening, and with a rolling start, I ran 134.0 a few times, but never faster.
I'm assuming you meant 13.40 and not 134.0.
But that still doesn't make sense. You're telling me you could run a 13.8 four times without rest (average pace of your 400), but could only manage a 13.4 for one flying 100? That doesn't sound right.
Hardloper wrote:
Sounds normal to me. His splits would probably be something like 13.7, 13.0, 13.4, 14.9.
How would he be able to run that 13.0 split for the second 100 if he can't even do a single flying 100 in under 13.4?
Subfive wrote:
I think 8% is to high. Perhaps between 10 & 15%? But 12.6 is faster than many think. Even Farah managed only 12.9 FAT. Although, I believe he can sprint faster.
I have no doubt that Farah can run sub-11.5 without even training for the event.
Sorry about the typo: it was 13.0.My fastest 200 was 25.9x (FAT). If you can "easily" run sub-13, then either you are a pure sprinter or should "easily" go sub-56. I am a long-time distance guy (2:38 marathon as a youngster), but the 800 is consistently my best event, and my 400 pretty solid against most other masters.
loop wrote:
an 800 guy wrote:As a decent master's MD guy (55,2:05,4:20), I ran a lot of 100 repeats as I was sharpening, and with a rolling start, I ran 134.0 a few times, but never faster.
I'm assuming you meant 13.40 and not 134.0.
But that still doesn't make sense. You're telling me you could run a 13.8 four times without rest (average pace of your 400), but could only manage a 13.4 for one flying 100? That doesn't sound right. Heck, I've never gone under 56 in a 400, and I can easily run the 100 in sub 13 from a standing start and sub 12 from a running start.
Subfive wrote:
Even Farah managed only 12.9 FAT. Although, I believe he can sprint faster.
What do you mean "even"? Farah is a distance runner who is not training for the 100m.
Because I can't read.loop wrote:
Hardloper wrote:Sounds normal to me. His splits would probably be something like 13.7, 13.0, 13.4, 14.9.
How would he be able to run that 13.0 split for the second 100 if he can't even do a single flying 100 in under 13.4?
Those of us with actual knowledge of athletics have no doubt you are wrong.Return to Index2 wrote:
Subfive wrote:I think 8% is to high. Perhaps between 10 & 15%? But 12.6 is faster than many think. Even Farah managed only 12.9 FAT. Although, I believe he can sprint faster.
I have no doubt that Farah can run sub-11.5 without even training for the event.