Mo Farah only 12.9 100m time in BBC Superstars Show

overall distance runner are the best athletes

football players in the hallway "get out of the way Bitches"

cheerleader see you in the HJ pit.... like you like

Dennis Reynolds wrote:

I think the biggest thing all of you guys bashing the Geezer are missing is the start out of blocks. For a distance dude out of blocks you can likely add at least a second to what they could run with a flying start. Of course top end speed of Mo Farah is better than 13 seconds/100m and Sprintgeezer will readily admit that but that is not really what this race was. It was a REAL 100m. Bolt is more around a 9.00 guy by top speed BUT THAT IS NOT THE 100m RACE! YOU GOTTA ACCOUNT FOR THE BLOCKS!

Are blocks mandatory in the 100m? Would Farah have been better off using a standing start?

I also noticed that (very roughly eyeballing the video with a metronome, as a drummer) that Mo's stride rate is hanging out at around 240-250spm at ~60m while the boxer was at around 280spm. If I remember correctly, Mo's kicks are usually around 225-230spm.

Per this profile the boxer, Anthony Joshua, ran sub-11 at age 15: http://www.gbboxing.org.uk/boxers/anthony-joshua

Why aren't people about O.J, post knee surgeries, running 9.69 WITHOUT spikes?

It's embarrassing that the best distance runner in the world ran a time slower than many, many mediocre high school girls. He was surely told by Salazar, a control freak, not to risk tearing his hammy. But he surely could not have done much better and this is illustrative of just how different sprinting speed is from closing speed in a long distance race. Great distance runners do not have the power to sprint even adequately. And great sprinters cannot do anything beyond 800m.

Didn't they have a 400 or 800m?

jjjjjjj wrote:

It's embarrassing that the best distance runner in the world ran a time slower than many, many mediocre high school girls. He was surely told by Salazar, a control freak, not to risk tearing his hammy. But he surely could not have done much better and this is illustrative of just how different sprinting speed is from closing speed in a long distance race. Great distance runners do not have the power to sprint even adequately. And great sprinters cannot do anything beyond 800m.

I take it your pr for 800m is nowhere near 1.48. I would suggest he can sprint 'adequately', you moron.

'no way a likely 12-flat/low-12 guy at his peak breaks 50 no matter how great his endurance'

He is right, others are forgetting that all runners slow up a lot once you get past 200m

I'm not convinced that Mo could run 12 flat though after watching that run though. A full second is a long way on such a short race and unless a distance runner becomes totally unfit their 100m time does not change that much

What surprises me and I'm sure a lot of other people is that I always thought you needed more speed than that at the top level

like i've said all year his line of fit at his peak ( london ) woud expect to be

~

51.5 / 1'48.3 ->

3'32.1

4'48.3

7'24.1

12'44.5

26'35.2

or

51.4 / 1'48.2 ->

3'32.1

4'48.4

7'24.4

12'45.5

26'38.5

or

51.4 / 1'48.1 ->

3'31.7

4'47.8

7'23.3

12'43.2

26'32.7

or

51.3 / 1'48.0 ->

3'31.7

4'47.9

7'23.7

12'44.3

26'36.0

all depending on how quick at 1500 it's reckoned he maya been ( did a 3'34 actual during heavy training this year & has a 3'33.9pb from 3y ago when he coudn't even crack 13'00 - 13'09 that year ) & 5k is no problem since geb2 went 12'46 with a 54 finish - mo woud expect to have been there at the death

these guys don't have great 400 speed

they just have fantastic endurance to be almost able to run their 400pb at end of slow races

geb2 though looks special

he does look a bit quicker on basic speed, but blew the 5k race

possible lines :

51.0 / 1'47.5 ->

3'31.0

4'47.0

7'22.5

12'42.8

26'34.3

or

51.0 / 1'47.4 ->

3'30.6

4'46.4

7'21.4

12'40.5

26'28.5

( ignore the 10k as he trains only for 5k & can't expect to run his 10k current potential off just 5k training )

he can make a serious run at komen's 7'20 next year, but the 12'37wr may be slightly tougher

Sprintgeezer wrote:

do you have any better video links?

Kind of interesting that the Brownlee brothers in the lanes on either side of Farah in lanes 3 and 5 are near the back of the race, one of them getting beat by the trap shooter Wilson running in lane 8. Both are probably legitimate sub-30 10k guys but don't show any ability to accelerate here.

The swimmer Jamieson in lane 2 was slow out of the blocks but didn't give up much to Farah after that.

Was suprised with the Brownlee Bros 100m time as well 14+ secs does anyone have the exact time? Even I was faster than that and I always though it was a limiting factor as it hold you up right through the distances as you are running so much closer to your max

I would have thought a sub 30 10km runner would be faster than that, especially when they ran around 2:03 over 800m. If someone is running 28+ for 400m that is a pretty good conversion

Pity the race was not over 200m as that evens out a poor start a bit more

The race just goes to show how much speed endurance these guys, Farah and the Brownlee brothers have and just how little most letsrun poster know about what it takes to be a top endurance athlete.

How many times do we read posts or hear runners say that they lack the speed to be a top runner blah blah blah?

Boubatronic wrote:

Spit teaser - you just can't face the possibility that mo might actually be quite fast.

He's run 1.48 and 3.33. Whilst his endurance is first class, there's no way he could run these times without 400m ability of AT WORST 51s. You simply cannot run this fast without innate 100m speed of at least 12s.

Just think about this show -

1. It was wet and cold

2. He prob didn't thoroughly warm up - would have looked a dick

3. We don't know his current health / fitness

I see this as more of a 'training time'. In the right conditions, in peak shape he is sub 12 no doubt at all.

1.48 is 13.5 x 8..... BACK TO F***IN' BACK.

You are such a plonker.

No, you are the plonker. He wouldn't go under 12.8 just like Sprintgeezer said in his thread a few weeks ago.

aiopsdf[aios wrote:

How many times do we read posts or hear runners say that they lack the speed to be a top runner blah blah blah?

It's not blah blah blah. How many of those runners can run a 51 second 400m? If you can't do that, then you won't be a top runner.

There was a guy at my highschool when I was a freshman, who was very fast, ran 9.6 in the 100 yards on dirt. Fast at that time.

He never ran the 440 and didn't even like the 220 but the coach got him to run it one time.

Everyone said that was the worst they'd ever seen anyone die on a 440 ever!

He ran 55 seconds and never did it again.

The point - so much for speed - vs speed endurance.

Another fellow was always chasing the sprinter on sprints, but never got close.

By the end of the season he ran a 1:52 for 880 yards.

long time ago wrote:

There was a guy at my highschool when I was a freshman, who was very fast, ran 9.6 in the 100 yards on dirt. Fast at that time.

He never ran the 440 and didn't even like the 220 but the coach got him to run it one time.

Everyone said that was the worst they'd ever seen anyone die on a 440 ever!

He ran 55 seconds and never did it again.

The point - so much for speed - vs speed endurance.

You have no point. Some 100m sprinter does the 400m for the first time and never again and you are using that as your point? Did you run your lifetime mile PR the first time you ran a mile?