Amel Tuka, who won Silver at World Championship on 800m this summer.
He is a sub 11 seconds. I saw he ran 10.93 in 2018.
I'm pretty sure with 1 year training he could be a 2:30 Marathon, while still being sub 11 on the right day.
Amel Tuka, who won Silver at World Championship on 800m this summer.
He is a sub 11 seconds. I saw he ran 10.93 in 2018.
I'm pretty sure with 1 year training he could be a 2:30 Marathon, while still being sub 11 on the right day.
akfakdjfadjfkj wrote: Ovett didn't run 21.7. He ran 22.8 a few times, so 22.7 is more realistic. He was definitely NOT a sub 11 100m guy. Sub 2.30 marathon, yes, he could have done that.
He ran 21.7 in 1975, it is listed here.
https://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=2424Agree that nevertheless he was probably never in sub 11 shape. And certainly not at the same time he was in sub 2:30 marathon shape
a young Steve Ovett & others wrote:
akfakdjfadjfkj wrote:
Don't be ridiculous. Yifter did not have sub 11 100m potential.
I was discussing Bolt. You know it would have been more likely to train Yifter to sub-11 100m than to train Bolt to be a sub-2:30 Marathon man.
Still ridiculous.
at which point in time wrote:
akfakdjfadjfkj wrote: Ovett didn't run 21.7. He ran 22.8 a few times, so 22.7 is more realistic. He was definitely NOT a sub 11 100m guy. Sub 2.30 marathon, yes, he could have done that.
He ran 21.7 in 1975, it is listed here.
https://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=2424Agree that nevertheless he was probably never in sub 11 shape. And certainly not at the same time he was in sub 2:30 marathon shape
He never ran 21.7 for 200m. Use a bit of common sense. It's a misprint. He regularly clocked 22.8 -23 so he coulda run 22.7 but not 21freakin7
If this was at all possible it would come from an athlete like an Ovett and never from a guy like Bolt or Gatlin.
There are many reasons why for this.
I ran 11.2 for 100 in high school and a 10K later on in about 31 flat.
Sub 11 may have been possible, but not likely. Maybe another year of sprint training could have gotten me there as I went from 11.7 to 11.2 in one year. The next couple tenths are tough.
I never ran a marathon. Maybe I could have run under 2:30, but that seemed daunting.
I surely wasn't worth the effort since I could run 1500 in 3:42 and a 2:30 marathon isn't as good.
Since I didn't have world class talent at any level, that are surely many candidates that could do it.
But who would do it?
No world class middle distance runner is going to train a year for either event to run mediocre.
And you can't hit either time without some dedicated training.
akfakdjfadjfkj wrote:
He never ran 21.7 for 200m. Use a bit of common sense. It's a misprint. He regularly clocked 22.8 -23 so he coulda run 22.7 but not 21freakin7
Is the following a misprint as well?
https://www.hampshirerunner.com/category/greats/I spoke in no hypothetical. Impossible. Opposing requirements.
Think about sub-2:30 and 16.05m SP. Not happening.
akfakdjfadjfkj wrote:
He never ran 21.7 for 200m. Use a bit of common sense. It's a misprint. He regularly clocked 22.8 -23 so he coulda run 22.7 but not 21freakin7
What are you talking about?
He was regularly running 23 seconds when he was 15. After that he only occasionally ran a 200m and usually he was running other events the same day.
I don't know what order he ran his four events that day when he was still a teen and ran 21.7 on cinders, but I think it's possible he could have gone sub 11 for the 100m in the right circumstances. He certainly had that potential.
He'd won the English National Junior XCountry championships just 6 months before his 21.7 (6 miles in 32.xx).
If he'd so chosen, he could probably have ranked that year in the top ten juniors in the UK at every event from the 100m to the marathon.. AND the long jump and high jump.
otter wrote:
If this was at all possible it would come from an athlete like an Ovett and never from a guy like Bolt or Gatlin.
There are many reasons why for this.
Or a guy like Boyd. Someone should just ask him what his 100 m PR is. It's funny, I point out a fast Jamaican 400/800 guy who after returning to running in his late 30s, runs the masters mile through marathon, has progressed his marathon steadily to 2:30:24 with no hint of a slowing of that progression - everyone completely ignores it.
This guy could have been close wrote:
otter wrote:
If this was at all possible it would come from an athlete like an Ovett and never from a guy like Bolt or Gatlin.
There are many reasons why for this.
Or a guy like Boyd. Someone should just ask him what his 100 m PR is. It's funny, I point out a fast Jamaican 400/800 guy who after returning to running in his late 30s, runs the masters mile through marathon, has progressed his marathon steadily to 2:30:24 with no hint of a slowing of that progression - everyone completely ignores it.
The OP needs to clarify whether he is referring to a middle distance runner or a 100M specialist.
at which point in time wrote:
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
How close do the two races have to be considered "at the same time"? If you are talking about within a week of each other, it is certainly highly unlikely. If someone trains for sprint, runs a 10.99, and then immediately starts marathon training, is it considered "different points in time"?
In my opinion: a long time, and even then it would be psychologically difficult.
I think some of the other posters have the right idea that the shortest gap is likely to be for a truly great middle distance runner. But it is questionable whether anybody has ever been in shape to have done it. Ovett for example ran a half marathon in 1:05.38 in 1977 so could certainly have managed a sub 2:30 marathon around that time, and could do a 21.7 200m as a teenager, but it seems very unlikely that he was ever in shape to do both at the same time. Coe possibly had the speed for a sub 11 but definitely never had the endurance for a sub 2:30 marathon. One can conjecture that it might have been possible if they had done such and such differently, but that it is different from actually having been able to have done it.
Nonsense! Coach Canova has stated on these boards how he went in a car on a training run with Coe when he covered 30km in 1hr 40mins. I think it was 1986; the same year he was running 21.7 in training for 200m.
I reckon he could run 2:30 now.....Lewandoski wouldn't be too far away in peak shape too
Tuka that is
Sub-11 FAT is way faster than people here understand. Neither Lewandowski nor Tuka is anywhere near sub-11, I would put them at maybe 11.4-11.5 at their absolute best...maybe.
And sub-2:30 for either of them??
These threads are such clickbait, they come up regularly. The best was when people were claiming that Lewandowski was something like 10.5, when it was actually a different guy, Lewandowicz.
Competing requirements, power vs endurance. 11-flat FAT and 2:30 are no joke.
Coevett wrote:
akfakdjfadjfkj wrote:
He never ran 21.7 for 200m. Use a bit of common sense. It's a misprint. He regularly clocked 22.8 -23 so he coulda run 22.7 but not 21freakin7
What are you talking about?
He was regularly running 23 seconds when he was 15. After that he only occasionally ran a 200m and usually he was running other events the same day.
I don't know what order he ran his four events that day when he was still a teen and ran 21.7 on cinders, but I think it's possible he could have gone sub 11 for the 100m in the right circumstances. He certainly had that potential.
He'd won the English National Junior XCountry championships just 6 months before his 21.7 (6 miles in 32.xx).
If he'd so chosen, he could probably have ranked that year in the top ten juniors in the UK at every event from the 100m to the marathon.. AND the long jump and high jump.
He didn't run 21.7 How could he suddenly run more than one second quicker than his PB on cinders? Look through the huge list of races he did in his autobiography. And then apply a bit of common sense.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Sub-11 FAT is way faster than people here understand. Neither Lewandowski nor Tuka is anywhere near sub-11, I would put them at maybe 11.4-11.5 at their absolute best...maybe.
And sub-2:30 for either of them??
These threads are such clickbait, they come up regularly. The best was when people were claiming that Lewandowski was something like 10.5, when it was actually a different guy, Lewandowicz.
Competing requirements, power vs endurance. 11-flat FAT and 2:30 are no joke.
Dave Legrys was a cyclist who was a track sprinter, or at least he competed in the 1000m sprint event back in the day. The even was usually a go slow with a sprint at the end. He ran 2.36 for the marathon allegedly. If that is true, it is certainly a very impressive achivement.
Yes that would be very impressive if true, much less so if it was done far apart in time.
No way anybody is running 2:36 with track sprint quads, though. The guy I knew had 32” thighs!!!! I think Eric Heiden had thighs like that. Of course your guy may have been smaller.
IF true.
Eric Heiden wasn't a sprinter though was he?
I don't think Dave Legrys was a true sprinter either, and I never did believe it even though he competed for GB in the Olympics. But he may have had sub 11 potential in the 100m.
To run sub 11 FAT timed and sub 2.30 on a legit course would require some reduction in muscle mass I assume. That is, if such a thing is possible?
At the same time, very unlikely.
With a good few years in between, certainly. I'm sure there are a few ex sprinters who turn to endurance in later life that would have a shot.