I ran 11.3 in grade 9 (never to sprint competitively again thereafter) then 47 minutes for a 10k years later at 26 (first ever long distance race). If I had continued and was sub 11 I can tell you it would have been very difficult for me to do a 2:30:00 marathon, though not impossible.
khr20 wrote:
I ran 11.3 in grade 9 (never to sprint competitively again thereafter) then 47 minutes for a 10k years later at 26 (first ever long distance race). If I had continued and was sub 11 I can tell you it would have been very difficult for me to do a 2:30:00 marathon, though not impossible.
Its a long, long way from 47 minutes to 2:30.
Wrong.
Myself, I could do 10.7 FAT all day long. At that time, I would have given myself 3:40-3:30 at absolute best...and I had some decent HS 2-mile times. Went under 19:00 recently, at age 53, I guess maybe over time I would be a good candidate—but never near the same time. Even at that, 2:30 is really fast, I doubt if I could have done it with a lifetime of training.
Impossible at the same time. Think about the SP analogy, for the same IAAF score. Sub-2:30 marathoners would be lucky to get half that distance.
Impossible.
khr20 wrote:
I ran 11.3 in grade 9 (never to sprint competitively again thereafter) then 47 minutes for a 10k years later at 26 (first ever long distance race). If I had continued and was sub 11 I can tell you it would have been very difficult for me to do a 2:30:00 marathon, though not impossible.
In other words you are 0-for-2 and not really close to either.
Wuy wrote:
Is it possible, does it exist ?
Maybe a 800 meter runner who decides to run the marathon?
Unless you mean a former sub 11 second 100 meter runner who took up distance running in his older days. Maybe that is more likely.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
epicTCK wrote:
Gotta think Lagat could have gone sub 11 on a flying start....
It is has to be out of the blocks for the OP's question to make sense.
What if someone runs a 2:29:59, with the last 100m being a 10.99? The marathon finishes on a track too, so it’s definitely a legit 100m. Still a flying start, but that’d be super impressive!!!
Just to read the whole thread. LOL at anyone that thinks Bolt could run under 2:30... and using his 2:07 800m as proof?!? He can run a 45 second 400 and ONLY 2:07 800m, the downward trend would continue as he goes up in distance.
But if Bolt was coached by JS......???? Just saying.
As a guy who ventured under 11 seconds FAT in high-school once this was done with a ton of weight lifting and literal effort to keep mileage off my legs in order to preserve pop for the jumps. I was able to piece together a solid 400 and 800 but anything more than that was an absolute no-go.
I have a lifetime goal of trying to crack 2:30 which I would consider a serious stretch goal so I guess I would fall into this category were I able to pull it off.
For my genetically mediocre self it would be basically impossible to do anything close to both simultaneously. I agree with others that a gifted 1500 specialist might have a shot. I have to think a 3:30 guy could probably go 1:44/
11 and could probably gut out a sub 2:30 marathon at the same time. To use an American household name I would guess that Alan Webb in his prime could do this. In fact, I would be blown away if he couldn't.
I was at college with a 47s 400 guy who ran 10.8, albeit he ran very few 100m races.
He had 10 years or so out (career) then moved to road running. He has run a 2’28 now in his mid 30s.
I doubt he’s a common story, but I also doubt that I went to college with the only freak athlete that could ever manage this.
akfakdjfadjfkj wrote:
Coevett wrote:
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.
Alan Webb, bwahahahaha!!! Sub-11!!!! Lolololololol
And Dolt wouldn’t break 4 hours in the marathon. Neither would any world-class sprinter.
LMAO. Clickbait.
akfakdjfadjfkj wrote:
Coevett wrote:
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.
You're sounding like an idiot.
He ran one second faster on cinders than his pb because he was 19 years old and his pb and his 'regular 22.7s' were run at 15. And how do you know they weren't run on cinders too?
Fernando Mamede competed in the 4 x 400m relay in Munich for Portugal and broke the 10K WR 9 years later.
All the way back in the 30's Rudolf Harbig ran a 10.7 100m within months of breaking the 1000m world record.
The WR for the marathon back then was only 2:26, but still, I guess he was the kind of talent who could do it today, at least.
Funnily enough, Harbig ran a 21.7 200m early in the same season he broke the 1000m WR and then ran a 10.7 100m.
This doesn’t really seem that outlandish nor is your attitude appropriate or necessary. I have literally never met any 47.xx 400 relay guys that couldn’t also run under 11 in the 100 FAT. My sample size, admittedly, is limited to probably 10-15 but this proposition certainly doesn’t seem laughable. Especially with a small amount of specialized training.
So please... what would you expect a 47.xx relay guy in HS to be able to pull off?
Sir Bastion Newbold wrote:
https://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=2424akfakdjfadjfkj wrote:
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.
How many times are you idiots (or the same idiot) going to keep posting the same stupid sh!t? They are quoting a misprinted time from his autobiography. Ovett never ran 21.7 he was a 22.8 200m runner.
The attitude is for those dense enough to be believers. Clickbait.
47-flat 400m is a good indicator of sub-11 FAT, although even at that, not foolproof.
It says NOTHING about 2:30 or better.
Not possible. Clickbait.
This thread has become a search for a freakish middle distance runner, but I believe the OPs question is whether a 100 specialist who ran 11:00 in HS could run 2:30 after switching to distance running and training for 10 years or so.
That I believe might be possible. Maybe I could even have done it had I stopped sprinting at 17 or 18.
But probably not.?. Ok definitely not. 2:30 is no joke
Has nobody mentioned Peter Snell yet?
In the lead up to Tokyo he was doing 22 mile long runs in 2 hours 20 minutes.
Didn't he run sub 11 on the Superstars TV show at near 40 with a gammy leg?