Do people here really think the best elite distance runners can sprint 11 flat for 100m?

The 10.78 was at 2011 NCAA outdoor championships. I highly doubt a false start would be missed there. He did have a tailwind of 1.6 which is close to max allowable. But...that doesn't mean you can take it away from him unless you also want to take away Bolt's Olympic Record 9.63 because he had a tailwind of 1.5. Wind legal is wind legal.

I also see a 10.88 on his resume with tailwind 0.1, so the 10.78 isn't too far from his other times.

The 12.4 was done with 35 mph tailwinds. I was pretty slow so maybe that was mistimed. 26.4 was actually the fastest 200 I ever ran in practice and I had 14:00 5k teammates that could regularly run 25's. I've coached college kids who were 3:54-4:00 1500 runners that could do that too and they all could run 52-53 400's in relays. But they couldn't run 4:40 pace for 10k ever. And they did mileage too. They were more to the median of fast twitch/slow twitch were your elite guys are going to be dominant on one side versus the other.

Plenty of distance runners are timed in this matter when you are working on speed. A five meter rolling start and you or your coach hits the watch. If I had to start a sprint race from a dead start I would lose a second in the first 5 meters to any of these 50/50 types.

Bekele and Gebresaillasee are noted for their speed in running 25.0 last 200's or 53.0 400's at the end of 27:00 plus 10,000 races. Alberto Cova was known for his sprinting speed in the 1980's and finsihed 28:00 10k's in 13.0 the last 100. But he was about 130 pounds and had the upper body of an elite distance runner. No way could ever run an 11.0 out of the blocks Aoutomatic timing. 11.5 perhaps.

Its all about genetic muscle type and physiology. Sprinter who break 10.0 out of the blocks run 8.9 on relay anchors. Maybe a Carl Lewis who was on EPO and trained a few weeks to run a fast 400 could go 21.0 easy and finish in a sub 44 but his only 400 he raced he ran 47 point high.

Maybe Bekele could train for one year for the 100 and run a 11.0 but what incentive would that be? I still don't think he could do it. He could go into the weightroom and wouldn't gain much no matter how hard he worked (unless taking steroids) His muscle wouldn't respond to that workload like your typical athlete. That's why he's a distance runner.

I quit running and focused on lifting for a few years and took creatine and supplements, gained about 25 pounds and still only went from 140 to 170 in my bench press. An solid time for the 100 for high school is 11.0. A solid time for the mile is 4:30. No world class sprinter can ever hope to run a 4:30 mile and no world class 5-10k runner could ever run a 11.0 honest 100.

Lol - I didn't account for 35 mph tail winds. As far as Bekele/weightroom, there is no requirement that a person be big to run sub-11. One can be fast without being big. I've seen skinny guys who were 5'9; 140 lbs. run 10.8 and 10.9 in HS. These were the guys who were also leading the city with 48/1:52 times in the 400/800. Bekele would likely run a little better in the 800 than this, about the same in the 400 and slighly slower (like 11.2 or so) in the 100m.

It takes elite sprinters nearly 2 seconds to hit the 10 meter mark in a 100m. It takes a tremendous amount of power to overcome inertia quickly and get the body moving forward the first few steps from a dead stop. All of these hand times in practices with rolling starts can't be compared to a FAT time from blocks with a gun, a hand timed 11 flat with a rolling start is probably closer to 12-13 seconds FAT from blocks.

Having said that distance runners have the advantage of not having nearly as much mass to get moving as a larger sprinter does, and the muscle requirement to accelerate a 130 lbs is much less that a 180+ lbs sprinter so it wouldn't surprise me if the faster middle distance runners could run around 11 from a dead start, but the only way to know for sure would be to see some automatic times with legal winds.

Actually skinny guys will start a little better IF they are quick, less mass to overcome inertia. Where skinny guys get absolutely demolished is in the drive phase. Muscle wins here every time always and forever.

More muscle also allows for higher speed control at max V. The cost to muscle can also be seen in the end of a 100 or the final 50 of a 200, fatigue sets in faster and is more apparent in loss of V.

Lets have a hypothetical race of the top 8 sprinters Minus Gay, Gatlin, Blake, and Bolt, and the top 8 elite middle distance runners in terms of speed.

I suspect that the best of the elite middle distance runners given a week of technique work, would probably beat 50% of 100m guys to the first step, and maybe the second step. Then would come the drive phase and the race would be over.

All of the 100m guys would be ahead of the middle distance runners at 15-20m. The distance runners would be reaching max V at 35m, while the sprinters would be reaching max v at 45-50m.

The sprinters would then come off max V around 60-70m and enter maintenance phase, with some blowing up. But they would all be 10 meters ahead of the distance guys. The distance guys of course would maintain their max V better because its slower but they're so far behind it doesn't matter.

avg finish for sprinters: 10.1

avg finish for distance: 11.1

The 200m would see a similar pattern, except the top distance guys would only be 1.5 seconds back on avg as their speed maintenance would be slightly more important. At 350m the top distance guys and the 100m specialists are equal. Speed is what it is, there is a cost to it, and there is a benefit.

Not criticizing any of your analysis, but you set up your hypo using "speedy middle distance" runners, then later refer to them as simply "distance" runners.

You should keep your terms consistent, because trained athletes in those 2 groups are probably entirely distinct, and their 100m performance will be substantially different.

My grandma can run the 100 faster then any elite distance runner.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I have drifted from 10.5 to 11.5 in my "career", such as it has been, and I know what it takes to occupy every point in that range.

11.5? Serious? .. any guy running 11.5 for 100m shouldn't be using the word "career" when referring to it.

wtfunny wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I have drifted from 10.5 to 11.5 in my "career", such as it has been, and I know what it takes to occupy every point in that range.

11.5? Serious? .. any guy running 11.5 for 100m shouldn't be using the word "career" when referring to it.

Boy, some of you guys have descended to new lows.

Some 1500m guys mid to low 11sec fat out of blocks, some 800m guys will be sub 11 fat out of blocks and 5k plus will be mid to high 11sec and some even 12+.

I don't think 800m is mid d at all but just for kicks check out Marvin lewandowskis 100m pb fat on usages bios. High 10.6.

Marcin* Marvin would be cooler though

boss wrote:

Some 1500m guys mid to low 11sec fat out of blocks, some 800m guys will be sub 11 fat out of blocks and 5k plus will be mid to high 11sec and some even 12+.

I don't think 800m is mid d at all but just for kicks check out Marvin lewandowskis 100m pb fat on usages bios. High 10.6.

You are right. 800 meters is a long sprint. I never could understand why so many US 400 45.0 guys don't move up.

There is no runner in the world that can run sub 4:30 for every mile in the 10,000 can ever run 11.0 for the 100. No way. Legally at least. Like no sub 11.0 sprinter could ever train enough to even break 31:00 for a 10k. That's the greatness of track and field. It covers the whole gamut of athletic talents. When its honest. Throwers, high jumpers, sprinters, mid-distance, and distance runners have a shot to find am opportunity in this sport.

Lewandowski has been dealt with on the other threads, read them and you will learn.

I wouldn't characterize 800m as a long sprint, especially given the energy systems involved, as described in other threads, especially for women.

It is a short, very fast run IMHO. In fact, I don't even like characterizing the 400 as a sprint, but I know most people characterize it as a long sprint.

************************************************

Here's something for everybody to consider, since it seems we're all essentially agreed that mid-d runners are different from, and quicker in a sprint than, distance runners:

How fast could Makhloufi do a block-start FAT 100m, right now?

How fast could he get if he practiced 100's and block starts?

you are so ill informed it baffles me. the best distance runners in the world have the ability to run a 52 second 400m after 24 laps. imagine what a fresh one could do

You know what I meant bro.

Jeez this and your last post are just full of butthurt.

Their perfectly reasonable estimates. My goodness 98% of all runners make race predictions using other race times. Just because we don't have access to in-depth statistics doesn't mean you can't put an estimate on them.

We know Rupp can do a 52 last lap. We've seen this.

Haile has similar twitch fibers and he has remarked that he couldn't pull a sub 49 in the open no matter what. Great! Now we can say Rupp can do a 50 in the open on average. 49.5 at the very highest, 50.5 at the slowest.

That's a guaranteed 12.5 four times in a row. Now, we know that a max sprint can be sustained for about 300M, so Rupp will have to slow down from a max speed to do this.

Using DEDUCED estimates we can say that Rupp can do 11.75 at the slowest, 11.0 at the VERY fastest. My goodness, this is a running forum, not a research lab. You would have to be a middle-school drop out to not place estimates and conduct some logic from them.

In regards to my comment about Farah and Lagat doing sub 11, I do believe they could, but it would be close. Are we talking about block starts or rolling starts? Depends depends depends. If I recall... Bekele did sub-11 for the last stretch in his 10K WR.

TD;DR - Distance runners are speedy, and need to be for a reason.

Hypoxic Delirium wrote:

t94bell wrote:

Rupp.

52 for the last 400.

50 for the open.

12.5 4 times in a row.

11.5 once. 11.75 would be the slowest, 11 would be the quickest.

Random numbers.

Placed together.

No logical link between them.

This is a running forum, not a research lab. Those are estimates. Any runner with the most basic knowledge of elite times can make a reasonable deduction that these times are indeed possible. Are they 100% accurate? Most likely not, but definitely in the realm of possibility. Sharpen your critical thinking skills.