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.
Hold on now, 11.5 is real fast. It's easy (for me) to believe that Farah can not do a 11.5, but it 's hard to for me to believe that he can not sprint faster than 12.9 FAT!
I know an 80 minute half marathon runner with zero speed and can't break 60 in the 400 that can run 12.5 for a 100. I think everybody can do it if they run a few times a week.
sbeefyk1 wrote:
I know an 80 minute half marathon runner with zero speed and can't break 60 in the 400 that can run 12.5 for a 100. I think everybody can do it if they run a few times a week.
When we're analyzing exciting propersitions, it would be best if we avoided hyperbole!
The 80 min 1/2M runner had some speed!!! 60, 61 etc shows "some" speed. To say zero is preposterous. Everybody can not run 60 sec for 400. Less than half of males in there prime can run 12.6 for 100m.
sbeefyk1 wrote:
I know an 80 minute half marathon runner with zero speed and can't break 60 in the 400 that can run 12.5 for a 100. I think everybody can do it if they run a few times a week.
If it's not a real race it doesn't count. Distance runners are notorious for being way too generous with the watch on sprints.
subfive wrote:
The 80 min 1/2M runner had some speed!!! 60, 61 etc shows "some" speed. To say zero is preposterous. Everybody can not run 60 sec for 400. Less than half of males in there prime can run 12.6 for 100m.
Even if he were "only" 60-61 with great endurance he wouldn't be running 12.5 from a standing start.
With all the mindwarping and trolling going on this thread I was more than a bit relieved by this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjwye6P0Kpc&noredirect=1
These guys don't have much sprint training, but they are select athletes of some sort. I'll take my "crap" times and not worry that some "fat kid" could challenge me to a 100 and wipe me all over the track.
an 800 guy wrote:
With all the mindwarping and trolling going on this thread I was more than a bit relieved by this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjwye6P0Kpc&noredirect=1These guys don't have much sprint training, but they are select athletes of some sort. I'll take my "crap" times and not worry that some "fat kid" could challenge me to a 100 and wipe me all over the track.
Even an "explosive" guy like Grabarz (HJ) runs 11.7. Distance runners don't have a chance. The Brownlees were both 14.x.
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.
This girl was a lot faster than your average male. And she could smoke most of the guys on the teack team. I would assume she was faster than most of the distance team, maybe sans some of the 800m studs.
12.6 is a faster than it sounds.
12.6 from standing start is very different.
Hardloper wrote:
subfive wrote:The 80 min 1/2M runner had some speed!!! 60, 61 etc shows "some" speed. To say zero is preposterous. Everybody can not run 60 sec for 400. Less than half of males in there prime can run 12.6 for 100m.
Even if he were "only" 60-61 with great endurance he wouldn't be running 12.5 from a standing start.
But it's a bit annoying when people who are runners, exaggerate about performances in the world of running.
I'm not saying that a distance runner must sprint 12.5 to be considered fast!
If you can run 10k at 5:00 pace for 6 mi (18.75 100 m pace) and accelerate to 13 sec for the last 100m, that's a big kick. And it is a fast finish.
I'll throw this out there...
I think using a standing start is ridiculous. When Rudisha runs his 100's during the course of the 800m he is not starting from nothing. I would venture a guess that a significant obstacle to the "average" (whatever that is) athlete, and especially the distance runner is the strength required to get up to speed. They maye have the speed, but it might take them 30-40m to reach it which means they have to average faster than 12.6 for the final 60-70m in order to make that mark. If you changed the parameters to a 30m fly start, I think the % would increase significantly.
Just a thought
VAcoach wrote:
If you changed the parameters to a 30m fly start, I think the % would increase significantly.
If you changed it to a sub-26 200, the percentage would drop to zero. Anyone who can do a flying 100 in 12.6 should be able to go sub-26.
If I had 8 people I don't think I could get any of them to sub-26. A sprint coach might get one, but only one.
Hardloper wrote:
Even an "explosive" guy like Grabarz (HJ) runs 11.7. Distance runners don't have a chance. The Brownlees were both 14.x.
Bad example. High jumping has nothing to do with 100m sprinting. The explosivity does not cross over to sprinting ability.
Obviously it does somewhat as he crushed the endurance runners.ksksi wrote:
Hardloper wrote:Even an "explosive" guy like Grabarz (HJ) runs 11.7. Distance runners don't have a chance. The Brownlees were both 14.x.
Bad example. High jumping has nothing to do with 100m sprinting. The explosivity does not cross over to sprinting ability.
an 800 guy wrote:
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.
Haven't gone sub 56 despite multiple attempts in pretty good conditions. In my most recent attempt, I ran a 56.36. 10-15 minutes later, I wasn't fully recovered yet but still managed to get a 12.59 (FAT) 100.
There's nothing particularly unusual about those times. A 56.36 400 is 30.5% off the world record, and a 12.59 second 100 is 31.4% off the WR. Not much difference, but I think it shows that I'm not a pure sprinter.
LM wrote:
As far as being fat goes...I hope you are joking. It's still extra dead weight you have to carry around. Now, unless your morbidly obese fat probably isn't stopping a 10.5 guy from running 12.5, but for people that need every little bit they can get it's significant.
I'm not joking and here's why: the body doesn't just put on fat or muscle independently when you gain weight... It's almost always a mix of both. So you might find some of these fatties with "dead weight" actually sprint faster than some twigs without the power to get up to speed. Worst case scenario for a sprinter is the skinny fat type. Say someone with an office job, a very bad diet and just genetically low amounts of muscle. Or a morbidly obese person sure, but that isn't what I mean.
Hardloper wrote:
Obviously it does somewhat as he crushed the endurance runners.
No. There is nothing obvious like that. It could be that he's just had more 100m training than the distance runners. Don't jump to conclusions.
Genetics.
Really? So developing strong fast-twitch muscles in the hamstrings and quads have NOTHING to do with it? It was obviously the "100m training" he did in high school?ksksi wrote:
Hardloper wrote:Obviously it does somewhat as he crushed the endurance runners.
No. There is nothing obvious like that. It could be that he's just had more 100m training than the distance runners. Don't jump to conclusions.
You are arguing with a guy who ran sub 4 and sub 28 despite being born without any genetic material to speak of.
We are actually probably pretty similar: the IAAF tables gives a 25.98 200 as the equivalent for 12.68 (I've never competed at 100m)and your 400 is only 0.4 off mine. What are your 800/1500 times?
loop wrote:
There's nothing particularly unusual about those times. A 56.36 400 is 30.5% off the world record, and a 12.59 second 100 is 31.4% off the WR. Not much difference, but I think it shows that I'm not a pure sprinter.