How fast can walkers run?

Daniel Bautista - '76k 20k Gold Medalist - ran a ~2:17 marathon. His time in Montreal was 1:24 - a WR at the time. Perez' WR is 1:17. So if we roughly interpolate (1:17/1:24 * 2:17), that would imply a ~ 2:05.

So they are most assuredly in shape, but not inhabiting our (very finite) realm of the atheltic world.

The alternative question is "How fast can runners race walk?" and the answer is, not very fast.

Robert Korzeniowski's times are arguably intrinsically superior. Another phenomenally talented athlete.

Don't think theses guys are not supremely gifted, tough athletes.

Why is walking even considered an event by people associated with T&F? The point of a footrace is to see how fast someone can cover a distance however they want to. The fastest way for a human to do this is to run, obviously. Why have rules limiting what we can do? Should we bring back the standing broad jump to go along with the long jump? Let's have the hammer throw but also the hammer throw without spinning. Don't forget the standing javelin and the no-spin shot and discus. Race walking is a ridiculous, made-up event.

DDave wrote:

The point of a footrace is to see how fast someone can cover a distance however they want to. The fastest way for a human to do this is to run, obviously. Why have rules limiting what we can do? .

What about those things we like to call "hurdles"?

Jefferson Perez, Ecuador - World Champion walker, 20km/50km

10km road - 29:30

Half marathon - 1:05.00

Mexican race walking team: All the guys on the team for 20km/50km can run the 10km in at least 31:00, and many of them can run as fast as 29:00. If they jumped into a marathon run race, they would have no trouble running sub. 2:25, and some would run as fast as 2:14-2:16. If some of those guys concentrated on running, they could run around 2:10-2:12 for the marathon. They have been tested by doctors in Toluca, and Mexico city and they have the physical tools to accomplish high standards in running. Those guys know that unless they can run 27:30/10,000 and/or 2:09/marathon, they would have little chance to make an impact in running.

All at altitude, Quito, Ecuador, at over 2000m above sea level.

Elite race walkers are in better overall physical shape compared with pure distance runners. Why?

1. Walkers do tons of gym work and weight train with low weights, and sometimes power lifting.

2. Elite walkers tons of flexibility exercises

3. Elite walkers work on developing all round body strength in all areas of the body, and develop phenomenal core strength.

Just check out an elite walker next to a distance runner - and see who is stronger and more athletic? The walker wins, hands down!

Ghost in Korea

Not very fast...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WFkCjQAltc&eurl=http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=3027

that's so...money

I suppose we could go back and forth "Race walking is a real sport" ... "is not!" ... "is too!"

But the people who excel in it have proven their dedication and skill.

Also, people set different challenges for themselves--not always choosing the fastest gait or (for instance) the fastest swim stroke. Breaststroke done easy is a very different thing than breaststroke done by, say, Brendan Hanson. Similarly, a race walker and someone out for a stroll can't even be compared, yet they both are described as walking.

The race walker, though, is aiming for the fastest walking speed possible, not the fastest speed at which s/he can move forward on foot; the breaststroker is aiming for the fastest breaststroke possible, not the fastest swimming speed. And so both have created increasingly efficient refinements to make their form of locomotion as fast as it can get--surprising a fair number of people.

Don't the best athletes just take abilities they have and make the most of them? Not everyone is gifted in the same way. Matt Carpenter is an amazing mountain runner. Could he sprint with Maurice Greene in the 100 meter dash? Could Maurice Greene stay with him on Pike's Peak? Who cares? They have no need to prove themselves in each other's distances. Similarly why should race walkers have to prove they're good runners (although many are, in fact, pretty darn good runners)? Why shouldn't their accomplishments in their own sport speak for themselves?

dpmrunner wrote:

Similarly why should race walkers have to prove they're good runners (although many are, in fact, pretty darn good runners)? Why shouldn't their accomplishments in their own sport speak for themselves?

Because the infants here are emotionally and mentally immature. Typical republicans, they fear, mock and try to destroy anything that is a little different than what they know.

Janice Macaffery (spell) Canadian Olympian in the race walk was a 2:45 marathoner.

Tim Berret, another multiple Can Olympian, was a pretty good x-country runner - sorry no road or track times to report

Interesting question, but really meaningless. Race-walking is a discipline with style-specific rules, but I believe that top race-walkers are indeed great athletes, and many would be capable of pretty good competitive times in running. Having tried competitive walking myself, I can attest that it is a painful and humbling experience for the neophyte. It requires real strength and endurance, and a great deal of training and technique.

However - and this is where I argue against the sport - The style-specific rules are generally violated, frequently almost openly. I formerly judged the walks, but gave it up when my calls were all too often overruled by other officials who either couldn't or wouldn't see and DQ the bent knees and out-of-contact walkers. Look at a walk in slow-motion film, or review some still photos of good walkers in action, and you'll see lots and lots of lifters and creepers. Top competitive walkers film each other, and get together to watch the film, drink beer, and laugh at themselves and what they can get away with.

mjr wrote:

Because the infants here are emotionally and mentally immature. Typical republicans, they fear, mock and try to destroy anything that is a little different than what they know.

Anyone who doesn't like RW are infants who are "emotionally and mentally immature" because they disagree with it. Isn't that what you're doing? I've racewalked, and it's not physically possible to "walk" faster than about 7 minute mile pace. Anything faster is cheating.

grainger wrote:

However - and this is where I argue against the sport - The style-specific rules are generally violated, frequently almost openly. I formerly judged the walks, but gave it up when my calls were all too often overruled by other officials who either couldn't or wouldn't see and DQ the bent knees and out-of-contact walkers. Look at a walk in slow-motion film, or review some still photos of good walkers in action, and you'll see lots and lots of lifters and creepers. Top competitive walkers film each other, and get together to watch the film, drink beer, and laugh at themselves and what they can get away with.

You're full of crap. No one has the ability to overrule your calls. Your statement about pictures and videos asserts your line of BS.

Mohreece wrote:

I've racewalked, and it's not physically possible to "walk" faster than about 7 minute mile pace. Anything faster is cheating.

Maybe for you, as you don't possess the talent, or will to train enough, to do it. You probably think that anyone under 14:00 for 5km running is cheating too.

mjr wrote:

Maybe for you, as you don't possess the talent, or will to train enough, to do it. You probably think that anyone under 14:00 for 5km running is cheating too.

I never mentioned how fast I walked a mile. Seeing as I ran a mile in 4:48, I'd say I could get within 75 seconds of the "walk" record, which would put it around the 6:45-7:00 mark. I never walked faster than that, not because I didn't have the talent, but because I knew I was lifting. Walkers know when they are lifting, and therefore know when they are cheating.

The comparison with any running event is silly, because there are no limits to how fast you can run. There are physical limits to how fast you can walk.

After my first walking race I knew that it was just a matter of who could cheat most carefully. And I couldn't bring myself to cheat at all.

Your juvenile name calling of people who dislike race walking is really, really amusing.

"I never mentioned how fast I walked a mile. Seeing as I ran a mile in 4:48, I'd say I could get within 75 seconds f the "walk" record,

Three points: One there is video evidence of walkers under 7:00 miles walking legally. The point where walking technique breaks down is some were around the 5:30 range.

2nd you were probably working on your own without a coach. You would no more know what your technique was like walking than you would shot putting.

Walking has a high demand in terms of neuromuscular patterning so it takes several weeks to develop the muscle memory.

And unrelated but you are a 4:48 miler - that is respectable but the top female walker in the U.S was a 4:20 1500m runner.