Sprintgeezer wrote:
What amazes me is how hard distance runners work to maintain their delusions.
I have gone and tried distance, and reported my times on here. I forget what they were, something like usually around 19:30 for a treadmill 5k, after having trained for quite a while. I remember going around 18:30 once after I got sick and lost a bit of weight. It was so long ago, I will look it up.
Not great, right? By sprinter standards, it is AMAZING. So is a distance runner going 13 seconds FAT from blocks.
But if you guys really are serious about this issue, then go to a local meet and run the 100. If not, then just STFU, because you're just blowing hot air.
Come on man. Yes, your obviously right.
But at the same time it should be pretty obvious why these ideas of speed bounce around. Good distance guys can run around or a bit under 50 for 400m, especially the faster ones. They have the physical peak velocity to run 12 seconds for 100m.
Given the general rule it's easy to see how someone would extrapolate this down to an 11.xx 100m using the general rule for 100/200 times versus 400 time.
Obviously though, most distance guys don't get or realize how huge of an impact acceleration and getting up to speed make. Farah can run 12s 100m pace...but can only run a 100m race in 13s, and as you said that's for one of the faster longer distance guys of all time. It's easy to imagine that being a 1.5 or even 2s differential in more endurance oriented cases.
It's not like distance runners are creating these fantasies to hype up the athletes, they just don't realize that start makes a huge difference and you can't blanket apply sprint estimates to distance runners.