subfive wrote:
jdjdjd wrote:We're talking about WORLD CLASS distance runners. Not Hershey track kids.
Where is the evidence that shows that "world class" distance runners, usually can not sprint under 12 sec for 100M?
Haven't you been reading all the nonsense I've been posting?
jdjdjd wrote:
college_5k wrote:I run d3 and have PRs of 15:13 and 31:22.
As a HS sr I ran 4:28/9:41. I also ran 11.72 electric time.
I got like 3rd in the 4th heat.
Cool, but I think Sprintgeezer is saying that world class distance runners will have a hard time breaking 12. Your distance times are pretty far away from being world class for women.
actually those times aren't that far off from being world class at all.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
If it were me measuring distance runners doing 100's, first of all there is no way I would do it from zero velocity. Totally irrelevant to distance racing. So, I would do it at speed.
I would probably simulate race conditions somewhat. I would have them run 100m or 200m at what they consider fast race speed; have them run by an automatic start with maybe 120m or 130m to go, and tell them not to start "sprinting" until there is only 100m left.
I would then set up one end timer at the finish, and another maybe another 20m-30m down the track.
I would take as a measurement the time for the first 120-130m, which would include 20-30m of their fast race speed--which should be consistent, so it would be the same in all of the measurements and wouldn't matter. Those first 20-30m would be used to ensure that acceleration from the very first instant the sprint is started is captured.
What I would actually do would be to time segments over 400m. I would have them accelerate to fast race speed for, say, 20m before crossing the start line, and run varying profiles around 400m, and set up timers at various locations of interest. I think that the possible profiles of the last 400 of these races is of much more interest than, say, a flying 100 capability.
But again, I know nothing about this sort of distance training.
cool info. thanks for your insight.
Optimus wrote:
tv showtime wrote:saying mo can only run 12.9 is like trying to get a time on bolt's 800m warmup jog and calling it his 800m time.
Except Farah ran his in a race. He ran a 12.98 100 (from blocks). There is no chance in hell any 5k/10k guys in the world could run under 12 in the hundred.
Have you ever seen Mo Farah run? You seriously think 12.9 is an accurante refelction of his 100 speed? My little 12yo kid could beat that (out of blocks) and he's a middle distance runner.
That is smoking! I hate him! Been running all my life and never could break 12...even on a freakin bullet bike. Dang may the force always be with him..dang!!!!
tv showtime wrote:
saying mo can only run 12.9 is like trying to get a time on bolt's 800m warmup jog and calling it his 800m time.
This is the best comment on this.
Under 12 is not that fast - what standard of runner are you guys talking about?
So in a nutshell, those saying that Levins couldn't break 12 with a standing start are calling him a liar. He doesn't strike me as a prevaricator, and even if the timing was a little off, it's not likely to have been off by a full half-second.
deanouk wrote:I suspect Farah was not at his best in the Autumn running in cold weather after having competed in various other sporting events the same day
no
the 100m was 1st event of the programme
he was fully rested when he ran it
This is someone capable of 3:33 for 1500 (and probably 1:47 for 800), both times quite a bit quicker than Cam Levins has run for those distances
try more like 3'31 at his peak
he was a 3'33 guy when he hadn't even gone near 13'00
The only other time he runs 100m is in 1978, arguably his best season, certainly his fastest over 800m with 1:44.09. That year he ran 11.5 for 100 (fastest he ever ran in competition), 22.9 for 200 and a 47.4 relay leg for 400m. His best open 400 that year was 48.4
idiot
he ran 11.5 then a 4'08.1 (1500) then 22.9 then 47.4r all on same day
he was nowhere near fresh/rested for the 200 or relay so 22.9/47.4r are meaningless & no way represent his true 200 or 400 ability at the time
So despite being at his 800 best in 1978, aged 22, he is no faster over 200 or 400 than he had been as a 19 year old in 1975, when his 800 pb was a couple of seconds slower and his 1500 was much slower (3:43)
see above
he was worth at least sub-22 off 11.5 given doubling ratio & that he woud expect to have tighter ratio than a sprinter because of his far better endurance
& no wind readings for either this 22.9 or his 21.7pb apart from being sub-2m/s as legal runs
he was likely in pb shape for all distances from 100 - 2 miles in '78
E.g. Ovett ran 11.8 at 14 and 23.0 at 16. When at 800 peak in 78 at 22, his times were only marginally faster; 11.5/22.9
more likely question of pacing himself as he had 4 events to run that day in '78
2) That if a 48.0/1:44.0 Ovett in 78 can run 11.5 and 22.9 (albeit on the same day)
& a 1500 & a relay to finish
it is maybe close to impossible to extrapolate to 100m for 800 guys, maybe even 1500 guys, but i think you can do it for 5k/10k guys who are endurance monsters & for whom 100/200/400/800...10k is extrapolable as the "speed decay" factor is trivial, as they don't have any speed worth talking about ( you can't do it for 800 guys as guys like rudy with likely 44-high speed woud need to have 1'39-low ability if it was comparable to the 5k/10k guys speed-decay ) !
for a 13'27+ guy ( like i reckon cam is ) a prelim line of fit is
52.2 / 1'50 ->
3'35.8
7'32.6
13'00.1
27'10.1
& most relevantly
24.70
( the 100m extrapolation won't work )
the predictor only says it works for races possible to run at even pace ( a 100 can't as it's 60m of acceleration + 40m of slowing ), but a 200 can be more closely run to even pace ( how mj ran 19.32 off 10.12/9.20 )
the main factor in the 200 is the bend which costs ~ 0.3s
the 24.7 above, represents a "straight" 200, therefore we add 0.3s
that gives an open 200 of
25.0
now, we have to back-track to a 100
usually it's 1/2'ing ratio but for endurance guys, the 100 woud probably be 0.2 - 0.3s slower than the 1/2 value ->
12.7 - 12.8
i woud expect most 13/27+ guys to have this 100
more interestingly, mo went 12.98 off-season on a cold day
i reckon his peak was not london
( my belief is that he had an injury-afflicted winter
see his indoor whupppings from eliud & bernie in '12, but recovered somewhat + got lucky in coupla drivelous races in summer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTaMdJVFdhw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq9UssmWRHQ
)
at his peak, probably when he went 12'53 with 53 was a prelim
51.1 / 1'47.7 ->
3'31.3
7'23.2
12'44.1
26'36.8
&
24.17
using previous
0.5*( 200 time + 0.3 ) + 0.2 to 0.3 ->
12.44 - 12.54
obviously it's implicit this is just spending the season running just 100m off his 5/10k training with NO specific 100 training ( block-work/short sprints/etc )
an "asymptote" time
Not that I am buying into anything you are saying, but your 200m times don't include acceleration.
Although less of a contribution than in the 100m, it is nonetheless very significant, and would easily add a second to your estimations. As it would to any 100m estimations you have made.
With that second added, your 200m times sound reasonable, but your 100m times seem over-estimated by around half a second.
For distance runners who have a speed governor and a limited speed envelope, your projections might actually work OK for the 400m.
Karma Police wrote:
Optimus wrote:Except Farah ran his in a race. He ran a 12.98 100 (from blocks). There is no chance in hell any 5k/10k guys in the world could run under 12 in the hundred.
Have you ever seen Mo Farah run? You seriously think 12.9 is an accurante refelction of his 100 speed? My little 12yo kid could beat that (out of blocks) and he's a middle distance runner.
Yes, I have seen Mo Farah run. I do think 12.9 is an accurate reflection of his 100 speed because THAT'S WHAT HE RACED A 100 IN.
Congrats your 12 year old kid can beat Farah in a hundred, but your kid isn't a world class distance runner.
Optimus--
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
subfive wrote:
@eurodonkey,
Do you believe Mo Farah can only sprint a 12.9 100m?
No. He ran it on Superstars, on a miserable cold day in December, probably with no real intent, after a couple of months break from training. Heck, he might have been ten pounds overweight - hard to tell on Mo ;-) I am certain he could go a bit faster in summer when he's fit.
How fast, I don't know. But I suspect there would not be much difference between his time in a 100m race and his last 100 in a high-pressure tactical race, because I don't think he would know how to turn it on in such a short space of time - unless he spent a bit of time training for 100m.
Oh, and after all of the bravura you have shown in playing your model like a fine instrument, you have ended up with...
...exactly what I have already said.
Which only means that I will have to change what I'm saying. How mortifying, to have expressed conclusions that are somehow associated with your own (tardy) conclusions.
"learn to surmise"
ROTFLMAO
Ok Yoda/Kermit
C3PO--Zooom!!!!
eurodonkey wrote:
subfive wrote:@eurodonkey,
Do you believe Mo Farah can only sprint a 12.9 100m?
No. He ran it on Superstars, on a miserable cold day in December, probably with no real intent, after a couple of months break from training. Heck, he might have been ten pounds overweight - hard to tell on Mo ;-) I am certain he could go a bit faster in summer when he's fit.
How fast, I don't know. But I suspect there would not be much difference between his time in a 100m race and his last 100 in a high-pressure tactical race, because I don't think he would know how to turn it on in such a short space of time - unless he spent a bit of time training for 100m.
This notion that... distance runners who are "world class" are generally incapable of sprinting a sub 12 FAT 100m... is difficult to accept.
The mean time for H.S. sprinters in a large county is 13.1. 11.7 gets you in the top 11%. Sub 12 is not particularly fast. So, it's just hard to believe that a guy who can run 1:48 for 800m can only manage a 12.9.
The problem is finding serious 100m efforts by world class distance runners. I, like many distance runners have never really tried very hard to sprint a serious 100m. I think it's the same for many WC distance runners.
I suspect that most WC distance runners can dip under 12 sec?
subfive wrote:This notion that... distance runners who are "world class" are generally incapable of sprinting a sub 12 FAT 100m... is difficult to accept
idiot
that's reality
offer any 13'00 who ran 11.9 same year
The mean time for H.S. sprinters in a large county is 13.1. 11.7 gets you in the top 11%. Sub 12 is not particularly fast. So, it's just hard to believe that a guy who can run 1:48 for 800m can only manage a 12.9
where is 13'00 ??
I suspect that most WC distance runners can dip under 12 sec?
no
"This notion that... distance runners who are "world class" are generally incapable of sprinting a sub 12 FAT 100m... is difficult to accept."
The question you must ask yourself is precisely WHY it is difficult for you to accept--that is, what is the precise source of your difficulty?
ventolin^3 wrote:
offer any 13'00 who ran 11.9 same year.
where is 13'00 ??
I'm going to have make the old, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", move ...okay. How many WC distance guys can you offer as evidence who tried to sprint sub 12?
Farah's 800m pr is 1:48,x...and he is a sub 13 5k guy.