subfive wrote:
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.
So do you also think that Bolt could run a sub 15 minute 5k? He's run a 45 second 400m after all.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
"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?
Well... a sub 12 just does not seem to be a barrier that extremely talented male "runners" can not break!? However, I might be mistaken about that.
If I'm not mistaken, you argue that the physiology of WC distance runners is such that they generally lack the explosive power required to sprint under 12 sec? The very fact that their body is conditioned and naturally inclined to endurance running diminishes their sprinting ability?
Question for you: why 12...what's significant about that level? Why not 12.5, 12.9 13.5 etc? What generally is their sprint speed limit?
And as I've mentioned before, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I've never seriously tried the 100 and I've been running & racing for decades. To this day I don't know how fast I could have run a 100M. How many WC distances guys know their limit at 100M? Maybe you know?
jdjdj wrote:
So do you also think that Bolt could run a sub 15 minute 5k? He's run a 45 second 400m after all.
No, I don't think Bolt can run a sub 15 5k. A sub 15 5k is superior to a sub 12 100m by the way. Bolt's body size will be a handicap at 5k, whereas a WC distance runners size will not be a handicap to the same degree at 100m.
And I must admit...when I see a 5K guy close in 52...it's just difficult to believe most can't run a mere sub 12 100m!?
subfive: "Bolt's body size will be a handicap at 5k, whereas a WC distance runners size will not be a handicap to the same degree at 100m."
I disagree. There are very few elite sprinters who are slight of build, because the best power:weight ratio comes with modest hypertrophy. Even a guy like Collins at 5'8"/145-150 is big compared to elite distance guys, and he's the thinnest sprinter out there.
There is no way out of it: elite distance runners do not have sufficient body size to perform well in the 100m.
subfive: "The very fact that their body is conditioned and naturally inclined to endurance running diminishes their sprinting ability?"
Yes.
Also, if you don't like 12 as a chosen level because you have an integer aversion, we can then pick 12.10
A "general speed limit" is of course hard to pick. I suspect there would be substantial variation. To pick such a general limit you would have to exclude, say, the best 5 or 10 guys from your sample. I would say that if you did that, you might be somewhere around 12.3/12.4
"the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
But it is critically important depending on your starting propositions.
Which was the whole point of the question you haven't yet answered: what is the precise nature of the difficulty you are having?
Answer it directly. Answer why you believe they SHOULD be able to go under 12.
Use as your starting proposition that they are believed incapable of going sub-12 unless they demonstrate otherwise, rather than that they are believed capable of going sub-12 unless they demonstrate otherwise.
Question your initial proposition, especially in view of the evidence we have from Farah, which is the only real evidence going. And think about this: Farah could have been 10m faster than he was, and still not broken 12.
Given the choice between these 2 competing propositions, I see no reason to prefer yours. Can you provide such reasons?
Optimus wrote:
Karma Police wrote: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.
Mo Farah would kill my kid over 100. That's my point. If my kid runs 12.9, then Mo can run 100 a whole heap faster.
subfive wrote:
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.
If Farah runs 1.48 for 800, that's 54-54. That means he has to able to run 50.0 for 400. He's come home in about 53 at the end of a 5km.
50 for 400 = 12.5 x 4. Now assuming he can't keep his top speed for 400 (no one can), then his 100 time has to be under 12.5.
There goes the 12.9 myth.
wariner's listed at 6-0 (or 6'1'). Weight: 155
That's similar to many distance runners. thin doesn't entail slow at sprinting.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Question your initial proposition, especially in view of the evidence we have from Farah, which is the only real evidence going. And think about this: Farah could have been 10m faster than he was, and still not broken 12.
How do you figure that?
At 12.9 they're running about 8 metres per second. 10m would take more than a second, so would drop more than a second off that time.
I think you need to check your calculator.
The notion that elite 5km guys couldn't break 12 for 100 is laughable. How can they run a 50 for 400 fresh without that sort of speed?
100s out of blocks are less relevant because block technique is relevant, but flying 100s are different. I'd be very confident Mo could break 11 for a flying 100.
Karma Police wrote:
Mo Farah would kill my kid over 100. That's my point. If my kid runs 12.9, then Mo can run 100 a whole heap faster.
Can you explain what your kid has to do with Mo Farah? I know a 12 yr old that can run almost 5 flat for a mile. Does that mean that every world class sprinter can run 5:00 or faster?
Sprintgeezer wrote:
There is no way out of it: elite distance runners do not have sufficient body size to perform well in the 100m.
Perhaps you don't mean body size, but rather muscle type (fast/slow twitch)?
The average BMI for the top 10 ranked (2012) male sprinters
is 23.5 (range 20.8 to 26.3). Male 5K: 19.05 (16.8 to 21.3).
and FEMALE sprinters: 20.55 (18.5 to 22.8).
Farah's BMI is 21.3, well within the range of female sprinters. And all the top females are sub 11! So, it's not about body size ...in that way. Additionally, the females have more fat. It's a different muscle composition and or nervous system that makes the difference.
Again, why 12 or 12.3? Is that where serious sprint speed begins?
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Which was the whole point of the question you haven't yet answered: what is the precise nature of the difficulty you are having?
Answer it directly. Answer why you believe they SHOULD be able to go under 12.
Because in my opinion, I don't think sub 12 100m speed is beyond nearly, if not all, extremely talented runners who are distance specialist. If you said they can't go sub 10.5 - that's all to easy to accept, 11.0 - I really doubt they can do that, 11.5 - hey, that's getting really fast, hard to accept, sub 12, ok, that's probably doable...based on "MY" impressions gathered about running over the decades. And sub 12.5, come on, they are WC runners...period, sure they can.
However, I concede that I do not have proof...not enough experiments that I'm aware of. And why would WC distance guys mess around with serious sprinting anyway...do they?
=======================================================
Sprintgeezer wrote:[/Use as your starting proposition that they are believed incapable of going sub-12 unless they demonstrate otherwise, rather than that they are believed capable of going sub-12 unless they demonstrate otherwise.[/quote]
But "I believe" they can run sub 12 (many if not most of them). I admit that I have not seem any sprint a sub 12 FAT...but then there many things that I believe can happen, which I've never seen. I don't have a compelling reason (yet) to believe otherwise.
=======================================================
Sprintgeezer wrote:[/question your initial proposition, especially in view of the evidence we have from Farah, which is the only real evidence going. And think about this: Farah could have been 10m faster than he was, and still not broken 12.[/quote]
Just because Farah did a 12.9, it does not follow that he can not go faster. Consider; I could be capable of making a 100 on a test and make 80 or 70 or 40 etc and as a consequence not reveal my actual capability.
As for the 10 m faster point, that proves nothing.
======================================================
Given the choice between these 2 competing propositions, I see no reason to prefer yours. Can you provide such reasons?[/quote]
I prefer my reasons now, I could change given some proof. I don't think you have offered enough evidence for your position. You might be correct, but the proof is not there.
drff wrote:
Karma Police wrote:Mo Farah would kill my kid over 100. That's my point. If my kid runs 12.9, then Mo can run 100 a whole heap faster.
Can you explain what your kid has to do with Mo Farah? I know a 12 yr old that can run almost 5 flat for a mile. Does that mean that every world class sprinter can run 5:00 or faster?
He runs the same time over 100 that Farah allegedly runs.
Good state level 17yo 3-5km runners would beat my kid over 100. He trains with them, so I know. So if my kid can run 12.9, and those good 16yos would beat him, what do you think Mo Farah would do?
If you really think Mo Farah's limit over 100 is 12.9, then you really have no idea about competitive running.
I don't know why I dignified that with a response.
Karma Police wrote:
He runs the same time over 100 that Farah allegedly runs.
Good state level 17yo 3-5km runners would beat my kid over 100. He trains with them, so I know. So if my kid can run 12.9, and those good 16yos would beat him, what do you think Mo Farah would do?
If you really think Mo Farah's limit over 100 is 12.9, then you really have no idea about competitive running.
I don't know why I dignified that with a response.
I never said that I thought Mo could or could not run under 12.9. I'm just trying to figure out your reasoning because it doesn't make sense. Your inclusion of state level 3-5k runners isn't much better. Farah isn't a state level 3-5k runner. He's a 5k-10k runner. He has spent the majority of his time working on his endurance not sprinting. Are you claiming that endurance training improves 100m speed?
jjjjjjj--You are correct about Wariner, he is between 155-160.
His BMI is very low, and he is an excellent long sprinter.
An even better example is Ndure, who is 6'3" and 160-165, maybe closer to 160.
These guys, like Collins, are the exceptions, not the rule. Also, they have a lifetime of training fast-twitch, and are natural sprinters with the required neurology. Also, both of them would be better over 100m with more muscle.
No trained distance runner with a slight build has the physical equipment to run a decent FAT 100m time.
Karma Police--
You are right, 12.9 IS a myth.
The actual recorded time was 12.98, which is closer to 13 than 12.9
And because of timing inaccuracy, the actual time was even above 13.
As to the rest of your posts, well...
subfive: "It's a different muscle composition and or nervous system that makes the difference."
Yes, in part, which is why people select into different events. However, it is well-known that power-to-weight increases with some hypertrophy. IIRC, fast-twitch are capable of greater hypertrophy than slow-twitch, although I could be wrong about that.
I don't know where you're getting your height/weight info for BMI. Looking up Blake, for instance, puts him at 5'11" and 167.6 lbs
First of all, there is absolutely no way he has been anywhere near 167.6 lbs (Wikipedia has him at 166!) since he started running fast. I don't know how old that weight is, but it's been wrong for a long time. I suspect lots of them are incorrect. Some are slimmer, some are bulkier, but you don't go by weight--you go by observable, visible hypertrophy. You know what you see.
You get the picture.
And no, IMHO 12 or 12.3 is not where "serious sprint speed" begins, it's just where the best distance guys would end up if they actually tried their hardest. How do I know? Because I've seen a great many people try their hand at a FAT 100m--sprinters, non-sprinters, distance runners, kids, masters, trained, untrained, etc., and I know what the times mean.
The times I have guessed for distance guys are based on a lot of indirect evidence seeing what others run, and very little direct evidence--I have Mo's 13, and I have times I remember from college where we got some distance guys to try their hand at 100m, and some of them were VERY fast at distance.
Mid-d guys were OK, but true "distance" guys weren't as good. That's just the way it is, and around 12.5 is the usual cutoff for decent times, with some dipping down to around 12.1-12.3.
Look, all I can say is, try it. It's amazing how much effort is expended by people when the answer is so easy to find in many cases.
subfive: "Just because Farah did a 12.9, it does not follow that he can not go faster."
I agree. It was I who first suggested that he would go between 12.5-13
"As for the 10 m faster point, that proves nothing."
It illustrates how much faster he would have to be to even get near 12.0--and that is, A LOT faster.
I don't want to be a dick, but you're totally evading the question. You have not asked yourself the BASIS for your belief. You keep saying that you don't have any compelling reasons to believe otherwise, but what are your REASONS for believing what you do, especially in light of Mo's 13?
If it comes down to actual evidence that we can both verify, you have none, and I have some.
Again, what are your reasons?
Trying to make sense with a sprinter is like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a dried up piece of cr/p.
