Do people here really think the best elite distance runners can sprint 11 flat for 100m?

Distance runners aren't going to sprint well from a standing/block start. They lack the power and explosiveness needed to get out fast. Also it is completely useless in their races to go from zero to top speed immediately. This doesn't mean they don't have good top speed. I don't think there are any 1500m+ guys who can run a flat sub 11 sec 100m, while still training for their specific event, but if you took a few of the fastest distance guys and trained them specifically for the 100m then there would be a few, still not that many.

Sprintgeezer has already lost many arguments on this front.

Any world-class guy running 5000m can break 12 out of blocks. There are many many many examples of these guys doing that from blocks as middle-school aged athletes.

I personally ran 11.81 FAT as a fun-time race in college. My SBs that year were 52.0r, 1:57.55, 3:57.54, 15:19.

I actually think if I'd been doing this later in the season instead of in early April I probably could have run closer to 11.5.

Sprintgeezer thinks it takes some kind of explosive power to run 11.0 - it really doesn't. That doesn't take anything away from REAL sprinters, even if it does take something away from fattie wannabees who can't even break 11.0.

Sprintgeezer defeated once again - go talk about gay/gatlin hybrids elsewhere.

runner85 wrote:

Distance runners aren't going to sprint well from a standing/block start. They lack the power and explosiveness needed to get out fast. Also it is completely useless in their races to go from zero to top speed immediately. This doesn't mean they don't have good top speed. I don't think there are any 1500m+ guys who can run a flat sub 11 sec 100m, while still training for their specific event, but if you took a few of the fastest distance guys and trained them specifically for the 100m then there would be a few, still not that many.

I think the true number would be a fair bit lower than you think.

The main point is that all this quoting of flying hand-timed splits is completely fatuous if you want to compare it with what actual sprinters do. The distance community doesn't really have a clue about how big a gap 1s is in sprint terms. If you've already got good running mechanics and are in good shape it's not something you're going to bridge by training.

Unless you go the Pharamlita route.

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.

So Mo Farah can run a 52 in the final 400m to close out a 5K or even a 10k but you think he would be lucky to break 13 seconds for a 100m??? Sorry, you fail!

buckminster badger wrote:

I personally ran 11.81 FAT as a fun-time race in college. My SBs that year were 52.0r, 1:57.55, 3:57.54, 15:19.

So you're saying you weren't any good at either sprint or distance then?

Thanks. But doesn't really add a whole lot to the debate.

You are stupid as hell - my point was that it doesn't take much of an athlete to break 12. Do you need help understanding anything else?

When Bekele broke the WR in the 10,000m, he ran the last 100m in 10.x seconds.

Given that, I figure that the majority of world class 5k and 10k runners would be able to run around 11 seconds for 100m.

ROTFLMAO

What's Farah looking at?

The biggest misconception on this thread is that the best distance runners have extremely high % slowtwitch muscles. This is simply bogus and in reality the best 5k/10k guys are closer to 50/50 or 55/45.

10kmWR wrote:

When Bekele broke the WR in the 10,000m, he ran the last 100m in 10.x seconds.

Given that, I figure that the majority of world class 5k and 10k runners would be able to run around 11 seconds for 100m.

Cmon dude don't undersell my man Kenny. That last 100 was 9.x easy. In fact I'm pretty sure it was 9.57.

Given that I figure Bekele is actually the WR holder of all distances from 100 to 10000

buckminster badger wrote:

You are stupid as hell - my point was that it doesn't take much of an athlete to break 12. Do you need help understanding anything else?

No. But I'm pretty sure you are beyond help.

The question was about elite distance runners. Who generally have the kind of physiology associated with being, you know, an elite distance runner.

Not average all rounders who like going for long runs.

runner85 wrote:

I don't think there are any 1500m+ guys who can run a flat sub 11 sec 100m, while still training for their specific event, but if you took a few of the fastest distance guys and trained them specifically for the 100m then there would be a few, still not that many.

Depending on what you call a "1500m+guy", you might be wrong. Surely guys like Coe, Rudisha, Webb, and Mehdi Baala can run a 10.X for 100m.

link:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4658515&page=0

rferf wrote:

runner85 wrote:

I don't think there are any 1500m+ guys who can run a flat sub 11 sec 100m, while still training for their specific event, but if you took a few of the fastest distance guys and trained them specifically for the 100m then there would be a few, still not that many.

Depending on what you call a "1500m+guy", you might be wrong. Surely guys like Coe, Rudisha, Webb, and Mehdi Baala can run a 10.X for 100m.

Call me crazy, but I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say a "1500m+guy" was a guy who excels at distances of 1500m or more.

I.e. not David Rudisha.

Who by an amazing coincidence happens to be the only guy on your list who could conceivably run a 10.x 100m. What are the odds?

This thread is comedy gold. Thanks OP.

Twenty Seven Year Olds wrote:

rferf wrote:

Depending on what you call a "1500m+guy", you might be wrong. Surely guys like Coe, Rudisha, Webb, and Mehdi Baala can run a 10.X for 100m.

Call me crazy, but I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say a "1500m+guy" was a guy who excels at distances of 1500m or more.

I.e. not David Rudisha.

Who by an amazing coincidence happens to be the only guy on your list who could conceivably run a 10.x 100m. What are the odds?

This thread is comedy gold. Thanks OP.

You don't think that it's "conceivable" that guys who can run 400m in 45-46 seconds can run a 100m in under 11 seconds? Maybe YOU are the comedy gold.

Also, you're not defining "1500m+guy" by saying "excel". What time is considered excelling?

I'm not so convinced everyone is ignorant about how big of a gap 1s is. Just going by % differences it's almost (or over) 10%...

which is like going from about 13:00 5k to 14:15 5k. A.K.A. a fvcking massive gap.

I get the impression most people that are insisting guys can run these great times from blocks either fail to understand how much FAT+gun+blocks affects the game, or read to much into the 400m times. I mean, ordinarily it might be reasonable to expect a guy who can run 48s 400m to be able to run in the vicinity of 11s but in the case of most distance runners these times are often taken from races where the runners have massive flying starts, are essentially hand-times, etc. Not to mention a 400 FAT vs a 100 FAT is a more significant difference for distance runners as the explosiveness/starts becames a smaller overall percentage of the race.

i would argue that speed is what separates the sub-elites from the elite distance runners of the world because of one thing - running economy. example - 27:00 10K pace feels much more comfortable to a guy with 49s 400m speed than a guy with 53s 400m speed. why? the former runner is more powerful and can apply more force per stride than the latter. thus, when they are running at an equal pace, the 49s runner is applying a lower percentage of the "max force" that he can apply per stride than the 53s runner. thus he is doing less work and consuming less oyxgen while running that pace than the slower 400m guy. over the course of 25 laps, it will become obvious who the runner with the better economy is... all of this is assuming they are in similar shape aerobically.

Timed wrote:

Go back and learn basic high school sports science before engaging in this debate.

The fact of the matter is what makes them so talented at long distance races is also what makes them the worst sprinters in the world.

back ot the paper bag math

it takes WR type sprinter 4 seconds to get to 30meters

so lets say your distance guy can do that too

now he has 7 seconds to cover the last 70m or 1.00 sec per 10m. The best sprinters in the world can average about 0.85per for those same 70 m- 0.85 and 1.00- think it's possible? That's distance guy doing a flying 10 flat (givealittletakealittle) 100m.

If the answer is yes start thinking how to get him to 30m as fast as Assafa.