Cam Levins - 11.5 100m standing start

Karma Police wrote:

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.

No, he has superior speed endurance, you underestimate this and overestimate his speed.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

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

Source Track&Field News, 71.75-174lbs=23.8 BMI. Wariner=20.9

Why did you not respond to my point about the female sprinters?

Sanya Ross (20.4); A. Felix (20.3). They and others have sub 11 speed. They are small compared to the top male sprinters and yet they have sub 11 speed. Of course they don't have elite distance capability. But you continue to point to power:weight as a limiting factor for sub 12 males. And I don't see right off why gender should matter in your argument?

@Sprintgeezer:

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.[/quote]

So, you have "guessed"......you have "indirect evidence" and you have Mo with the 12.98. That's useful since I do believe you are something of an expert on running. But I've got guesses too...based on what I have observed.

I'm reluctant to accept that WC distance guys as a rule can't sprint a sub 12 100m...in part because I know many of them can close in 52 (5K and a low 13 5k guy is a true distance guy...right?).

I might be in error, but if you close in 52, then you probably have sub 52 open 400 speed. Lets say it's 51...51/4=12.75 minus 1 sec =11.75. I know crude...not proven but it seems so reasonable?

Hey, I'm trying to accept your argument...it's just hard to do.

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere.

Subfive, the only argument I'm making concerns what the original premise should be. Mo went 13, I have seen a bunch of guys who couldn't go sub-12.1 That is evidence sufficient to establish the premise.

Yes, the rest is a guess. The guess was made before Mo went 13, based on my college memories and other experience--and when Mo went 13, that was one single validation of the guess, but it was a good one: he was in shape, he went hard and leaned, he got out of the blocks well, and the timing wasn't too far off.

BUT this is now a better discussion. Let's say the burden is on you to disprove the conclusion, and that you use a 52-second last lap of a 5,000m as your evidence. I will accept arguendo that someone can do, or has done, a 52-second last lap. Mo's was 53 or something like that.

You use 51 and divide by 4, and then subtract a second. If you subtract a second, presumably because a 100 is run faster than a 400, why don't you add any time for acceleration--or is that 1 second you take off, net, such that it INCLUDES an acceleration factor?

If that is the case, show your math, and justify your assumptions of how much time you take off, and how much you add, to reach 11.75, for serious distance runners. It is, as you said, crude and unproven--but I don't accept, in the face of evidence to the contrary and in the absence of actual supporting evidence, that it is reasonable.

I know guys right now who go 53-52 in the open 400, and who go only just sub-12: 11.85-12.00 FAT 100m from the blocks. One guy in particular I'm thinking of trains sprints, mostly 200's and 400's. He practices starts and accelerations all the time, unlike Mo or any other serious distance athlete. His day job is that of a weight training coach.

I think what this boils down to is that you believe they SHOULD be able to go sub-12, not that they CAN in fact go sub-12.

Also, in closing, I would state once again that I don't know any of this for sure. I would love to see distance elites put up great 100m times! That would mean that I could lose weight, get a way better 5k time, and still be a respectable sprinter. I wouldn't have to do those boring weights.

subfive wrote:

@Sprintgeezer:

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.

So, you have "guessed"......you have "indirect evidence" and you have Mo with the 12.98. That's useful since I do believe you are something of an expert on running. But I've got guesses too...based on what I have observed.

I'm reluctant to accept that WC distance guys as a rule can't sprint a sub 12 100m...in part because I know many of them can close in 52 (5K and a low 13 5k guy is a true distance guy...right?).

I might be in error, but if you close in 52, then you probably have sub 52 open 400 speed. Lets say it's 51...51/4=12.75 minus 1 sec =11.75. I know crude...not proven but it seems so reasonable?

Hey, I'm trying to accept your argument...it's just hard to do.[/quote]

I think SprintGeezer has no problem that Mo Farah could run a 100m in low 12 or even under 12. He probably has enough top speed to do it. But what I think SprintGeezer is trying to say is that Farah would need more than 100m to get up to that speed. The 100m takes a lot of power and Farah is not a very powerful runner. You are underestimating how long it takes to accelerate up to that speed for distance runners.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Something you've obviously tried, since you're such an expert on the matter.

Yes, I tried to make sense with you.

Surely it is a lot more simple than most people are making out. I don't think sprintgeezer is saying that Farah and other elite distance runners couldn't cover a 100m with a rolling start or within a 200m in 11 low to 11.5. What he is trying to say is that this corresponds to something like 12 low to 12.5 from a stationary or blocks start. That seems very reasonable to me.

All these splits for kids at school, training with college students, etc are just rough hand times probably with blowing of a whistle and no way of determining false starts, wind assistance, etc. Thus a 12.9 for a young teen at a school meet could be anything from 13.2 to about 13.5 with FAT in place.

There are probably very few (if any) elite (sub 13:20) 5k guys who could break 12.0 in a 100m from a stationary start with legal wind assistance using FAT. That would still make them as fast as good club/county standard female sprinters. There may well be the odd anomaly.

For sub 3:35 1500 guys that average 100 speed might get down to 11.6 to 12.0 from stationary start, and for sub 1:45 800 men that would probably get down to 11 flat to 11.5. Anything faster than that will make them as fast as the best female sprinters in the world, who have trained for such events for years.

You guys are idiots to try talking with sprintgeezer about this. There was already a thread with info on lots of mid-d runners who had crushed 12s in 100m recorded in official races. He just ignores that and pretends it is hard to do.

a partial list of people who have broken 12 in official meets

Russell Brown, Ovett, Wheating, Cruz, Coe, Lewandowski, Steve Scott, Jim Ryun, Marty Liquori, mike boit, jason lunn, paul mcmullen, peter elliot

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I think what this boils down to is that you believe they SHOULD be able to go sub-12, not that they CAN in fact go sub-12.

Also, in closing, I would state once again that I don't know any of this for sure. I would love to see distance elites put up great 100m times! That would mean that I could lose weight, get a way better 5k time, and still be a respectable sprinter. I wouldn't have to do those boring weights.

Perhaps, that's it, it's that, "I believe they SHOULD be able to go sub-12".... Okay....

It would be great to run the experiment. Do we have the data

?

What about the females sub 11 sprinters with the low BMIs???!

tv showtime wrote:

You guys are idiots to try talking with sprintgeezer about this. There was already a thread with info on lots of mid-d runners who had crushed 12s in 100m recorded in official races. He just ignores that and pretends it is hard to do.

a partial list of people who have broken 12 in official meets

Russell Brown, Ovett, Wheating, Cruz, Coe, Lewandowski, Steve Scott, Jim Ryun, Marty Liquori, mike boit, jason lunn, paul mcmullen, peter elliot

Those are all 800m guys. We're talking about distance runners. Specifically Can Levine and Mo Farah.

The Lewondowski time of 10.6 was proven to be a different person. As for most of the others, they are mainly middle distance guys, and would be expected to break 12.0.

Sprintgeezer was talking about distance guys here, and they would expect to be a bit slower.

[quote]Deanouk wrote:

Surely it is a lot more simple than most people are making out. I don't think sprintgeezer is saying that Farah and other elite distance runners couldn't cover a 100m with a rolling start or within a 200m in 11 low to 11.5. What he is trying to say is that this corresponds to something like 12 low to 12.5 from a stationary or blocks start. That seems very reasonable to me.

quote]

Okay, have we run the experiments? It's a hypothesis. It's not at all clear?

OMFG

FOR THE LAST TIME, REALLY THE LAST TIME, "SEB COE COULDN'T BREAK 12 SECONDS FROM THE BLOCKS" WAS A JOKE.

(But, you know, he couldn't.)

And the fact that you keep including Lewandowski shows that you are sloppy and ill-informed.

The reasoning is that my kid runs the same time over 100 that Farah allegedly runs. It's the best yardstick.

If state level 16-17yo 5km runners can run faster than that for 100, you don't think the best in the world would be significantly quicker still? You really think it's solely an endurance thing? Mo has the sams speed, he's just fitter?

I've seen Mo close in 52s, so he'd have to be able to run 50 or under fresh. How do you do that with 12.9 100 speed?

As I said, if you really think Mo Farah's limit over 100 is 12.9, then you have no idea about competitive running.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

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...

So you think 12.98 is the fastest Mo can run for 100?

I've run in the 11.2s, and I wasn't that fast. The top 5km runners in the world have to have speed.

@Sprintgeezer

Why did you not respond to my point about the female sprinters?

Sanya Ross, BMI= 20.4; A. Felix =20.3. They and others have sub 11 speed. They are small compared to the top male sprinters and yet they have sub 11 speed. Of course they don't have elite distance capability. But you continue to point to power:weight as a limiting factor for sub 12 males. And it's not obvious to me why gender should matter in your argument?

Jono no one can maintain their top speed for 400.

And by these calculations Mo would have to run FASTER than his top speed to run a 50 for 400.

It makes no sense.

Karma Police wrote:

Jono no one can maintain their top speed for 400.

And by these calculations Mo would have to run FASTER than his top speed to run a 50 for 400.

It makes no sense.

No has not closed in 52 in a fast race. It's not that hard to run close to your top 400m pace in a slow race. Also, you are failing to see the difference between a 100m from standing still and a flying 100m such as in the second half of a 200m dash.

Lastly, there's no reason to expect that Mo should be a better sprinter than state level 5k runners. Mo is NOT a powerful runner. Have you ever seen him run? I would not be surprised if most state level mid distance guys are better sprinters than him. Do you really think that Farah has a better 100m dash time than that Arroyo kid in Florida?

Explain to me how Mo outkicks every 5km runner in the world if he has the same or slower speed than a state level 16yo 5km runner.

"fast race"? You mean a world record effort? I'm struggling to remember a race that Mo's won (say Diamond League) where he HASN'T closed in at least 53-54. He closes at that speed when running 12.50s. I'd say that's a fast race. And the last 300 before the last 400 are wound up too, to make sure he's in front. I'd have to check, but it wouldn't surprise me if he's closed in 1.54 or so when running in the 12.50s. And you can't tell me running 10 laps beforehand at 62s takes nothing at all out of your legs, and that this would be as fast as Mo can run over 800. That's what you're saying for his 400.

A standing 100 will usually be around 1 second slower than a flying one. I'm well aware of that. I'd back Mo to go sub-11 for a flying 100. Do the math.