It was already said that Fam had 1500-10k (obviously steeple as well) and marathon at 2:19 clearly within reach (walk in the park, dare I say?). This was well within 3 years.
The decathlete example seems promising at first glance but keep in mind many decathletes don't train specifically for the 1500m, as it is really the 'odd-man-out' of all the 10 events (i.e. you might be better off not training for it, or doing just the bare minimum).
What rounder said about decathletes, +1
Sprint Geezer wrote:
What rounder said about decathletes, +1
Well, suppose you leave aside the dec and just take the 2 events - the 100 and the 1500. Has any one person ever hit the A standard (or equivalent) in both the 100 and the 1500 even over the course of 1 lifetime?
Don't think so, unless perhaps you go back 100 yrs and there were many fewer trained competitors.
I doubt this has ever been attempted since WWII. The guy to think about here is Juantorena, with a 44.26 400m and 1.43.4 for 800m, ran in the space of 2 years.
Again, if we can find OG standards for his era, getting the 'A' might not be out of the question for him from 100m-1500m; much less likely if we hold him to today's standards, but perhaps still possible.
Yuri Borzo ran 22.56 for 200m and yet you say the fastest 800m man ever might only be worth 12.0 from blocks FAT? Are you out of your mind? I personally know a 1:46 guy who ran 21.3 out of blocks FAT in high school.
I am a strength based 1:53 guy and have run 11.55 out of blocks (FAT) for fun just on a bet.
You are really really really wrong about this.
Also - there is absolutely no way that Wariner or Spearman could run 4:30 at any point regardless of training. You show me a single verifiable result for a 43s 400m guy or 19.x 200m guy who has broken 4:30 in the mile ever and I will eat my words.
There are, on the other hand, tons of verifiable examples of 800m specialists running quick in the sprint disciplines. This shouldn't be surprising, 800m runners are all-rounders.
"Get a grip": are you replying to me? I've been saying that these 800m guys are better at the sprints than many are giving credit for. I said I was 'satisfied' with Sprint Geezer coming around to admit that Rudisha is good for 12-flat out of the blocks but personally think he'd do much better. I agree with what you're saying!
Of course there's no way it'd be easy for these 800m runners to get the A in the 100m - don't underestimate how hard-fought every tenth is!
Yes, who are you arguing with?
Certainly not rounder.
Me? I said that I wasn't including 800m runners among "distance runners".
A "strength-based guy" Rudisha is most certainly not. Your strength got you that extra half second in the first 50m of your 11.55
As far as Borzo goes, again I wasn't including 800m runners--but, a 22.56 is no big deal, and doesn't say anything about a 100m out of the blocks. Again, I wasn't including 800m runners among "distance runners".
And that 1:46/21.3 guy is just plain great, that is tremendous range--BUT it is nowhere near the 200m standard, and because he was so good at 800m suggests that he was relatively worse at the 100m than at the 200m, just like Wariner.
And to say that neither Wariner nor Spearmon could break 4:30 with training, on what do you base that? Again, I did a 4:58 with not much training--an old, short, white ex-sprinter guy! All they would have to do would be 7 seconds better than me on each of 4 laps around the track.
I think they could do it with training--although again I admit that I have no idea how hard it is to do.
Sprint Geezer wrote:
Yes, that was awkwardly worded.
To get down to a 10.07 an athlete must be able to run around 10.5 with essentially no sprint training.
While Rudisha has essentially no sprint training, he is nowhere near 10.5
And not only is he nowhere near 10.5, he would be hard-pressed to run a 12.5 from blocks.
Well he went through 100m in 12.5 in his 800 WR, and that was from a standing start! Kipketer went through 100m in 11.9 in his 1:41.83 Rieti run in 96, and Cruz also went through 100m in 11.9 in his 1:41.77 Cologne run in 84.
Coe ran the first 100m in a 4x 400 relay in 11.1 (45.7 for 400) in 81, stumbling at the start and the first couple of steps after.
There's no doubt that these guys would have been able to run 11 flat from blocks if asked to run just 100m.
Although I have already modified my original position from 12.5 to 12.0, and also to 11.0 for Rudisha with sprint training, I cannot accept your suggestion.
I question the accuracy of your first 100m splits, especially Coe's in '81. He did not run an 11.1 first 100m in a 400m while stumbling at the start and the first couple of steps thereafter. Sorry.
The two 11.9's and the 12.5 seem like approximate hand-times to me, notoriously inaccurate. An inaccurate 11.9 is a 12.1 or 12.2
And again, in any case, I don't disagree that they could have run those times. I have already opined that there is a bunch of 800m runners to the group of guys who could run an 11-sec 100m with training, and a handful who could go marginally faster. Again, I specifically excluded them from "distance runners".
But there is NO WAY they could even APPROACH 10.20, let alone 10.07
The 800m runners are amazing, however.
Sprint Geezer wrote:
Although I have already modified my original position from 12.5 to 12.0, and also to 11.0 for Rudisha with sprint training, I cannot accept your suggestion.
I question the accuracy of your first 100m splits, especially Coe's in '81. He did not run an 11.1 first 100m in a 400m while stumbling at the start and the first couple of steps thereafter. Sorry.
The two 11.9's and the 12.5 seem like approximate hand-times to me, notoriously inaccurate. An inaccurate 11.9 is a 12.1 or 12.2
And again, in any case, I don't disagree that they could have run those times. I have already opined that there is a bunch of 800m runners to the group of guys who could run an 11-sec 100m with training, and a handful who could go marginally faster. Again, I specifically excluded them from "distance runners".
But there is NO WAY they could even APPROACH 10.20, let alone 10.07
The 800m runners are amazing, however.
Sprint Geezer -- you seem to feel pretty strongly that a middle distance runner would not be able to run a 10.07. I am starting to come around to your point of view; originally, I would have said there was about a 25% chance Rudisha could do it -- now I would say it's about 10%. Still, I don't see why you are so sure. You aren't really backing up your opinions, just stating them over and over again. You obviously know a lot more about sprinting than I do, and probably most of the other posters here. But still, I can't take your opinion as fact without any explanation.
So I am asking: why is it so unrealistic for a middle-distance runner to ever run a close-to-elite sprint time. I think we all have some intuitive sense of this -- most people think Rudisha could not get the times, whereas someone like Michael Phelps could get every swimming quali-time in one day if he wanted to. But I want to know why this would not be possible. Is it the aerobic/anaerobic thing? If so, wouldn't you expect the WR holder in an event that is 30%+ anaerobic to be elite at this as well? Is it a form thing? If so, why couldn't you train that? Is it a strength/power thing? If so, then why is he so quick already, and also, wouldn't weights/supplements lead to dramatic improvements here?
I am willing to be convinced, but I need to hear WHY a middle-distance runner could never be a 10-second sprinter, not just hear a bunch of anecdotes by both sides.
Sprint Geezer wrote:
And to say that neither Wariner nor Spearmon could break 4:30 with training, on what do you base that? Again, I did a 4:58 with not much training--an old, short, white ex-sprinter guy! All they would have to do would be 7 seconds better than me on each of 4 laps around the track.
I think they could do it with training--although again I admit that I have no idea how hard it is to do.
The only great sprinter I can think of who I know of having a mile PR is Obea Moore, who went 45.14, 1:49, 4:28. He was a 400/800 guy, and if you notice he had a better 400 PR than Spearmon (45.22).
Maybe you should have moved up to the 800.
So sprint geezer, you're saying that borzo can 'maybe' run 12.0 for the 100? Despite running 22.56 for 200?
Also - what you don't understand is that the very fact that you are a slow sprinter is one of the reasons you are more likely to run a sub 5 mile.
The size, strength, and fast-twitch nature required to be a world class sprinter - all count against these guys running well in a long race.
An analogy would be to say: well Bekele clearly has the speed and power to run 10,000m at a fast fast pace (~15.4/100m). All he has to do is concentrate that power into a 40 yard dash and he could be a great running back in the NFL. The fact that bekele has the makeup to run 100x100 @<15.4 w/0s rest is exactly why he would not make a good sprinter.
Likewise - the stuff that lets wallace spearman can run 19.6 or whatnot for 200m is exactly why he can't run a fast mile.
I have no personal knowledge of athletes who have run <20 <45...but that said I have known several guys who have run 20.x and 46.x. None of these guys could even approach 5minutes for the mile, I know because they did several 1600 time trials throughout the year.
Oh - Sprint Geezer is right about one thing though.
There is absolutely no way Rudisha would run the B standard for the 100. I'd say 10% chance he could hit the B in the 200. Those times are fast.
On current form he would not hit the 1500 standard, and I'd be shocked if he could break 15:30 in the 5k.
With a lot of training - I bet he could hit the 1500 mark. The 5k+? Never.
I am pretty sure could Rudisha could run a 15:30 5000 and it would feel like a jog.
Great post. What about some of the women like Dibaba? If she can run the last 200m of a 5000 in 28 sec ...
He already did: the 1st 200 of his 45.5 400 last year was 21 point something.
There are only a handfull of 43 sec 1/4 milers and <20 second furlong runners to choose from. Wariner could probly run sub 4:30 mile as he ran 2:25.xx kilo a couple years ago.
If someone could run just, say, 10.07, 3:39, and 2:19:00, need they bother proving they could do all the other distances? I say no.
get a grip sir please wrote:
Also - there is absolutely no way that Wariner or Spearman could run 4:30 at any point regardless of training. You show me a single verifiable result for a 43s 400m guy or 19.x 200m guy who has broken 4:30 in the mile ever and I will eat my words.
Of course there wouldn't be a verifiable result for this, as why would an elite world class sprinter put in the training that would be hard work to run a time that wouldn't be that competitive on the high school level?
I agree that Spearman couldn't do it, but not so sure about Wariner. This is a far different question than whether Wariner could achieve an A standard in the 1500. He'd be far more likely to be able to break 4:30 in the mile than run the 1:43 800 that so many people on letsrun seem to think he's capable of running.
Dorando wrote:
If someone could run just, say, 10.07, 3:39, and 2:19:00, need they bother proving they could do all the other distances? I say no.
You could probably even simplify it more than that and say 10.07 and 28:15. I guess though if there would ever be someone who could run 28:15 and not 2:19:00, it would be the 28:15 guy that had 10.07 speed. That makes me laugh just typing it.