David Rudisha is given 4 years to get the US Olympic Trials 'A' Standard for every running event. Could he do it?

Sprint Geezer wrote:

Like some other poster suggested, I'd love to see him and Bolt both train for, and run the 400m, and go head-to-head. They should do it after London.

The 400m record-books would be re-written.

Seriously? I don't think so. When Coe ran 1:41 30 years ago, no one was calling for him to chase the world record at 400m, ditto Joaquim Cruz or Wilson Kipketer. Would be a tall order for Rudisha to sniff that record.

Not in 100 and 200m

You can't put in what god left out

deanouk-

I checked out the video. There is absolutely no way that is an 11-second 100m, sorry. I have seen thousands of runs, and that is not between 10.9 and 11.1--it was not even an 11.3, even though that is closer to the truth.

Your hand-timing is off, the video speed is off, the exact point at which he crosses marks is unable to be judged, the source of your error over the full 400m is likely completely manifested over the first 100m, and so on--not to mention the fact that it was a relay.

And again, what I said was that Rudisha could do a 12-second 100m from the blocks right now, and that with training I could see him doing 11-flat.

I also said that with specific sprint training, some of the distance greats could get down to around 11, or slightly faster, and that WITHOUT sprint training, that is right now, they wouldn't break 12.

I specifically excluded 800 guys from that statement. I believe that the fastest "power-type" 800 guys could probably run 10.7-10.8 from the blocks with sprint training, which is a fast 100m. With training, the very best historically might do 10.5--a smoking time.

But FAR from 10.20, or 10.07. Sprinting is weird--it takes an exponentially greater sprinter to get the ever-diminishing gains when you start reaching, in particular, the 10.20's.

By the time you hit 10.10, there aren't many guys left. Let me put it this way: a 10.07 under still conditions would be a 9.97 (+2.0), which very few people have achieved, and which there is absolutely no way any distance or middle-distance guy could achieve. If they could, they WOULD be a 100m guy.

Everybody with potential to run 10-flat runs the 100m rather than middle distance.

Going the other way, "only" 10.17 speed would be needed under still conditions to run a 10.07 (+2.0) This is still well within that exponential range of 100m performance, and unachievable by anybody other than a dedicated sprinter.

This year, the 28th guy on the 100 list so far is Dexter Lee of Jamaica, with a 10.06 (+2.0). Ahead of him on the list is nothing but huge names.

Take a look at these guys--they are absolutely nothing like distance guys, or even middle distance guys. The 100m is about POWER, which means huge force, and minimal time to both contract and relax. That requires not only specific training, but intrinsic muscle development and neurology. Sorry, but super-fast sprinters (which a 10.20 or 10.07 sprinter surely IS), are born more than they are made.

Like I said, I could run 11 all day long, and got down to 10.49 At that point I was told "Sorry son, you're not fast enough for the pure 100, maybe you should switch to multi's. You know why? Because if I had put in a ton more work, it was believed that I would have gotten down to 10.40 or 10.3 high--which gets you exactly nowhere. And I agree with that assessment.

I have seen guys walk off the street--literally--in meets in the USA (Philly, St. Louis, Ypsilanti, DC) and run 10.9x, 10.8x, 10.7x, and in one case a 10.6x. Guys in basketball shorts, given crappy middle-distance spikes that didn't fit. To even THINK of running 10.0x, you MUST be around 10.5 with very little sprint training, and those guys are out there, but they aren't middle-distance runners.

Or are they? I would be willing to change my mind on this, because certainly there could be someone placed in middle-distance for one reason or another who is really fast, if you could provide me with one real example.

If you can, I will believe only that example, however. But I do not discount the possibility.

For instance, take a look at 800m turnover vs 100m turnover--not even close. Think about the power that is needed, then take a look at middle-distance runners.

Take me vs Nick Symmonds. We are both 5'10. I have 20 lbs on him, I bench 350, I leg press around 900, I full squat 450, etc. The elite sprinters of today could do the weights I do, which they then translate throughout the evolution of the season to speed on the track--but that is where the basic power comes from. If you can combine it with favorable neurology--on which it is in part dependent--you have real talent--if you combine that with the right psychology, you have a winner.

Symmonds can't touch those sorts of numbers while training for 800m--indeed, it would probably be counter-productive, because he would be putting energy into a region that wouldn't ever be used in the 800m race. NO middle-distance runner could put up sprinter numbers while training for middle-distance.

Could they ever, if they trained for it specifically? The answer is a definite maybe--I do not discount the possibility. But if they did, they would end up right where I am at the present moment--very strong, and very slow (as far as sprinters go). Look at the turnover they exhibit--it is nothing, and it can only be "developed" to a slight degree by sprint training. The potential needs to be there already, and that generally means youth combined with natural ability.

Look at Rudisha. His turnover is nothing. His stride is beautiful and huge, and that would certainly benefit him from 60-100m, but he has to GET to 60m first, where his lack of turnover and power would be fatal.

There are plenty of really strong guys who are really slow--and conversely, there are plenty of not-so-strong guys who are really fast! You know, those whip-fast skinny kids you see running sometimes, or on the basketball court. THOSE are the potential sprinters, not the middle-distance types.

Finally, you will point to Bolt, who doesn't have the greatest turnover, but who has huge stride length, and good power delivery on acceleration. Can he serve as an example of what a tall middle-distance guy would be like, who received sprint training? That is, as long as he was anywhere near the field at 50m, he would blow them all away in the second half of the race?

I don't know, it is an interesting proposition. My initial feeling is that he cannot serve as an example, but that might just be bias on my part. He was probably fast but not whip-fast, which is why he was put into the 200m rather than the 100m (if true). The question is, why wasn't he put into the 400 or the 800 instead, and if he had been, would he be competitive against Rudisha or Wariner?

Quite possible, I think it could might have gone either way in his case--he was certainly thin for a long period, and his weights still suck. He is an anomaly (obviously). Are the best 800 runners anomalies too? Maybe, and it would suck for them if they were put in the 800m when they could have succeeded at the (I'm assuming) much more lucrative and glamorous 100m.

I know that if I trained like crazy and was a 10.1x runner, I'd switch to the 200 or 400, given all the sub-10 guys around, a la Michael Johnson.

I know it looks like I'm making a case against my own argument, but I maintain that a 10.07 (or even a 10.20) is about power, turnover, and intrinsic neurology, which is missing in middle-distance runners, no matter how good they might be.

And as far as Wariner or Spearmon or some other 200-type guy running 4:30 for the mile, does the mile not require high aerobic capacity?

It is well known that aerobic capacity can be built by training (like strength through weights); but the turnover and power requirements of the mile are already well within the envelope of any sprinter.

Could that built-up aerobic capacity be translated to speed over the mile? I think so, based on nothing other than that my own mile speed improved with basic aerobic conditioning.

Of course, I'm talking about Wariner or Spearmon WITH aerobic training. I do NOT suggest that they could go out tomorrow and run a 4:30 mile!!!!

Although, based on nothing solid, I would give Wariner at least a 50/50 chance.

You think power, neurology, whatever are intrinsically missing from middle distance runners...but that somehow a sprinter can develop aerobic capacity and become a decent distance runner?

Aerobic capacity isn't an add-on - it is a change. A change that reduces your power.

Also - you still think Rudisha can't run 11.0 for 100m out of blocks??

Let me summarize your views:

Middle distance runners can't sprint. Sprinters CAN run middle distances. Sprinters = inherently magical talent, MD runners = anyone who bothers to try.

What did I miss?

"Middle distance runners can't sprint."

Wrong. They DON'T sprint during the course of a middle distance run. They could sprint, if someone showed them how, for very short bursts.

"Sprinters CAN run middle distances."

Anybody CAN run middle distances. True sprinters couldn't run them well at all. Fast runners who do well in short races would run middle distances better than would true sprinters, and with training, might be able to produce credible times in some cases.

"Sprinters=inherently magical talent"

Wrong. Most normally fit people can be taught how to sprint. Great sprinters, on the other hand (10.07) DO have inherently outstanding qualities, beneficial to sprinting, that the rest of us DO NOT HAVE.

"MD runners=anyone who bothers to try"

WHERE did you get that? All I ever said was that a very small subset of elite sprinters might be successful at middle distance if they trained for them.

I DO believe that aerobic capacity can be built. It's not just me, it's proven. It is the whole point of mileage training. Given an ability to run with favorable mechanics, given good proprioception and an initially favorable body type, a non-distance runner can improve their distance running dramatically through extended and dedicated training.

And finally, an emphatic NO, Rudisha CANNOT at this moment run an 11.00 100m out of blocks, although again, I believe that he certainly could if he trained for it, and that he is one of the very few 800m guys who could probably go below 11 into maybe the 10.7 range.

Of course I could be wrong about that last one, I'd love to see him try. He really is amazing.

It would be fun at the conclusion of the WC's to have some sort of exhibition performances where elites would compete in events completely different from their own--especially the 100m, since everybody can run, and since you could run a lot of races in very little time, and run them all very close to the spectators in the grandstand.

I must say, sprint geezer is definitely one of the least knowledgeable posters that I have seen. Of course you lost my faith in your knowledge when you stated and continued to defend that because you ran a 4:58 mile that world class sprinters could break 4:30. No correlation between the two and that has been pointed out to you by two or three posters, but you continue to bring that up. There is a reason they are world class sprinters and you never were. It sounds like you are pretty average at both sprinting and distance running. Zero correlation between your 4:58 mile and them running sub 4:30, because you are not a world class sprinter. Please just stop posting.

Why are you trying to pick a fight?

I NEVER SAID THAT WORLD CLASS SPRINTERS COULD BREAK 4:30

I suggested that if any of them could do it, it would be Wariner or Spearmon, especially Wariner--WITH TRAINING.

And even at that I noted that I might be totally wrong because I have no idea how hard it is to run a 4:30

And while we're on it, what's so magical about a 4:30 anyway?

How many people around the world can run a 4:30 mile right now, versus how many can run a 10.07 100m? I bet there are lots around even the USA who can run a 4:30 or better. It is not some stratospheric performance level, as is a 10.07

There are exactly 9 American men who have run 10.07 or better this season. There are only 19 who have run 10.20 or better this season. How many 4:30 milers are there? Thousands?

I agree entirely with you that no real sprinter has what it takes to excel at the mile distance, training or not. But is 4:30 excelling? We're not talking 4:00

I have no idea how "good" a 4:30 is, but I would put it right in the same range of excellence as, say, a 10.7 or so, that I think could be achieved in the 100m by the very best middle distance runners.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

I have no idea how "good" a 4:30 is, but I would put it right in the same range of excellence as, say, a 10.7 or so, that I think could be achieved in the 100m by the very best middle distance runners.

No way is 4:30 in the same range as 10.7. 10.7 is better.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

deanouk-

I checked out the video. There is absolutely no way that is an 11-second 100m, sorry. I have seen thousands of runs, and that is not between 10.9 and 11.1--it was not even an 11.3, even though that is closer to the truth.

Your hand-timing is off, the video speed is off, the exact point at which he crosses marks is unable to be judged, the source of your error over the full 400m is likely completely manifested over the first 100m, and so on--not to mention the fact that it was a relay.

No, the video speed is not off, and it's very clear where he crosses the start line, and when he crosses the 100m mark. I know the video speed is correct, because as I said before, the hand timed split from that video is the same as the official split given that day and printed in Athletics Weekly. I really don't think there's anything unusual about a 45 second 400m runner running the first 100m in 11 flat! I mean Marita Koch ran the first 100m in 11.6 in her 47.6 WR from blocks!

There does seem to be a temporary fault with the linked video. It doesn't normally judder like that. Must be a problem with Youtube site at moment.

deanouk, with respect, I can't see how you think it "very clear" when he crosses the start line, or when he crosses the 100m mark. So-called "official splits" in the 1600 relays have never been regarded as very accurate. The largest sources of error for you will be when you start, and when you stop, the timer. The error on the start will be the same for 100 as for 400 (the start is the same for both), and the error from the finish of the 100 will be even greater than that for the 400 because it is not as clear.

Marita Koch--did she really? BTW that is a HAND time, and therefore inaccurate. Plus, even if she did (disputed), she's probably faster over 100m from the blocks than Coe.

Can't somebody produce some accurate first 100m splits of 800m runners running in a 400m race, or a 200m race?

Or better yet, a FAT 200m or 100m time from blocks?

Here we go again: I don't deny that they are fast, even over 100m--but they're not 11-flat 100m guys out of blocks, except for maybe 1 or 2 of them. AGAIN, with training, I think the best could go under 11 to 10.8 or 10.7

Maybe your beloved Coe is one of the few who was a natural 11-second 100m guy from the blocks, but he didn't exhibit that ability in that race on youtube.

Why don't we ask directly, since we know everybody reads letsrun: Hey Coe, did you ever do a 100m FAT from the blocks?

Geezer,

The reason you are getting people upset is that you're super wrong.

Running 10.7 or so in the 100 is not impressive. Tons of people on here will know tons of mid-d runners who have done that.

You think Someone running 22.5 FAT can't break 12? You think someone running 45.5r can't break 12? Do you know how easy it is to break 12? I ran under 12 FAT when I was in MIDDLE SCHOOL and I am not a good sprinter OR good distance runner. I have run 51/1:53/3:57(1500).

I personally know probably two dozen mid-d guys who have run between 10.7 and 11.7 FAT out of blocks. I know one guy who ran 21.3 FAT in HS (1:46.1 post-college).

You are putting a very average performance up on a huge pedestal.

"And again, what I said was that Rudisha could do 12 sec.

100m from the blocks right know." Total bullshit.

An example from Finland gives you an idea of Rudisha's po-

tential 100m time. Esko Parpala(1994) 100m 11,34(0,3),

800m 1.45,99. His records were 47,80, 1.45,24,3.45,18 and 3000m 8.22.

First, I accept that I could be wrong. I always have.

Second, I know that a 10.7 is not impressive. 800m runners are not impressive 100m runners.

Third, I know how easy it is to break 12. Even I can break 12 without trying.

Fourth, I said that Rudisha could do a 12 out of the blocks right now, an 11 with very little training, and below 11 if he really tried. WHAT are you arguing about??????

Look, the whole point of this was whether Rudisha could get the 100m standard or not, which is 10.07 (A) or 10.20 (B).

He could not get even close to either mark, and neither could any other 800m runner. The very fastest 800m runner ever could do maybe a 10.6 from the blocks, IMHO. That is NOWHERE NEAR 10.20 or 10.07

To suggest that he could get it is, as I said in the first place, laughable.

Everybody is talking big, but nobody has posted any real 100m FAT times for 800m runners.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it requires actual proof. I don't even need verification, I will accept your word.

Somebody who was a good 800m runner and who has a 100m FAT, tell us your time!!!!

How on earth does that disprove what I'm saying?

Parpala runs an 11.34 100m, good for him. That says NOTHING about Rudisha's 100m time from the blocks.

Because Parpala ran 11.34 and because he is slower than Rudisha in the 800, by your logic Rudisha would run faster than 11.34 in the 100m? Now THAT is bullcrap.

I, this month, could run 11.34, and maybe, just maybe, 2:00 in the 800 if I was lucky. By your logic, since Rudisha is so much better than me in the 800, he should run MUCH faster than 11.34 in the 100--faster to a greater degree if he was compared to me instead of Parpala. Which makes no sense whatsoever.

You can't compare across runners. Parpala was 4.23 seconds slower than Rudisha in the 800, which makes him an 800 also-ran compared to Rudisha, and Rudisha might not even be finished setting records yet. All that means is that Parpala was a relatively worse 800m runner than Rudisha--and quite possibly a relatively better 100m runner than Rudisha.

Right now--RIGHT NOW, THIS VERY MOMENT--Rudisha could run a 12-flat.

With little training--i.e. LEARNING HOW NOT TO STUMBLE FROM THE BLOCKS--he could do 11-flat.

If he tried as best he could, he might get 10.7x, as might other historical 800m greats. The very best, only a couple, might max out at 10.6x

If you think otherwise, you are in Wonderland, and have never been around fast sprinting.

Sprint Geezer - that finnish guy is more than 2 seconds slower than rudisha at 400.

You are slow - stop mentioning your times.

People are not saying rudisha could run 10.07 or 10.20. They are saying he would have no trouble breaking 11.00.

I have a personal friend who ran 10.91 from blocks in HS. He is a miler (didn't make it out of the first round at USATFs this year).

You may enjoy sprinting - that is great. You have, however, no idea about anything in the sport. Go hang out with ventolin.

Gorge--

If you go back and read the posts, there are many posters who don't "think" he could make the standard, and some who actually expressly state that he could make either the 10.28 or 10.07 standard.

Go back and read the posts. People DID say that Rudisha could run 10.07 or 10.20

Not to mention that he WOULD have trouble breaking 11.00

What is you miler friend's name? Did he train for sprints in HS? What was he running in the mile when he allegedly ran his 10.96 FAT? What is his 100 time now that, presumably, he has been training for and getting better at the mile?

Rudisha is at the top of his 800 game, and therefore NOT at the top of his 100 game, which would (very generously) be around 10.6x or 10.7x With some brief block training he could do 11, and with none he could do 12

It is YOU who have no idea--no idea about sprinting and speed. What, you think it's easy to run 10.58, just because Bolt ran 9.58?

Do you understand that a 10.5 would have put him among the NCAA Div 1 nationals?

Do you have ANY IDEA how many guys around the country sprint, and vie for those spots, and are naturally talented sprinters?

Have you got ANY IDEA how deep the men's 100m is, and how fast a 10.5 is?

Do you have ANY IDEA what the HS 100m times were at nationals, and how deep the field is?

I stand by what I said. Somebody show me an elite middle-distance runner's FAT 100m time, and I will show you a time nowhere near 10.07 or 10.28, and not lower than 10.6x

I know I'm talking out my ass just like all of you, and I would love to be proven wrong. I do believe there has been a fundamental shift in the men's 100m, and that a 10.5 is not as fast as it used to be, at least at the world level. I am willing to entertain the notion that some elite middle distance runner could run 10.5x or faster, in keeping with my belief of a shift in men's track.

But proof is what is needed.

Oh, and a 10.07 or even 10.28 is still totally laughable.

TOTALLY.

You posters who think he could make the standard, who do you think he is, Michael Johnson who runs the 800m?

MJ had 10.09 100m time, a ridiculous WR in the 200m, and a still-standing WR in the 400m.

Are posters who think he could make the standard saying that Rudisha could not only make the 100 standard, but that therefore, by extension, also break the 400m record, and come close to, if not break, the 200m record?

For the record, I posted a long time ago that I believed that he could break the 400m WR if he trained for it, and I was roasted by other posters.

Rudisha would not get close to the 400 WR. Do you know how far 2.3seconds is in the 400?

"It is YOU who have no idea--no idea about sprinting and speed. What, you think it's easy to run 10.58, just because Bolt ran 9.58?"

Where did I say this? I am responding to your direct statements, why don't you respond to my direct statements. Just for fun though. The three preliminary rounds at NCAAs this year had last place finishers with PRs of: 10.33, 10.27, 10.23.

I will not post the guy's name - I don't want to drag him into this.

In HS he trained for the 800-xc. He ran 48s/1:50. He recently ran 800 in 1:45. I will not point out his 1500 time because that would give away who it is.

My guess is that you picked up sprinting for fun at age 40 or so. You have an inflated sense of how hard it is to run 11.00. Women do that all the time. It doesn't take much 'power'. I didn't even run for a top school (though it was D1 - and we did have national qualifiers every year) and I knew all kinds of skinny little bitches who could run 10.7 - I'm talking about sprinters who never touched a weight.

Keep telling yourself it takes magic to break 11 and that david rudisha couldn't do it. Maybe you can convince yourself that there arent tons of random people that walk past you every day that could do it.