Cam Levins - 11.5 100m standing start

subfive--

I didn't respond about the female sprinters because the general rule that sprinters exhibit more hypertrophy than distance runners is proven, and is beyond debate.

Females can have lower BMI's than men of the same height based on 2 things alone: 1) less bone mass, and 2) greater % body fat. To compare men with women is apples and oranges, which is why gender matters. Take a look at the top women sprinters, and they all have vastly more hypertrophy than their female distance counterparts. Yes, there are some exceptions, but they do not prove a rule.

Good distance runners could, without a doubt, develop better FAT 100m times without exhibiting significant hypertrophy, just by training neurology, form, and a bit more strength using what they already have--but the point is, they don't.

And I guess THAT is the point: they don't. EVEN IF a rail-thin guy like an elite distance runner had the potential to go sub-12, they never would, while they are seriously training distance. Again, there could be a couple of exceptions, of course.

I'll just keep posting more drivel on here.

uhhh what wrote:

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.

Ovett, Brown, Wheating, Scott, Ryun, Liquori(best at 5000), boit, lunn, mcmullen, elliot....

those are all 1500 specialists judging by PR.

tv showtime--

Even though this thread wasn't about middle distance runner, post the data for them. Time, date, location, timing used, athlete, distance, and source for the information.

For all but your precious Lewandowski, that is. lol

Again, middle-distance guys will be significantly faster over FAT 100m than will true distance guys, especially if the 100m time was laid down at a different time in their career than their mid-d greatness, as has already been shown to be the case with at least one of the mid-d greats.

let me guess - those who break 12 are now automatically not 'true distance guys'.

you're hilarious.

all the required details have been posted for at least half a dozen dudes on another thread. you're never gonna be convinced of reality.

jsjsj wrote:

No outkicks them because he has better endurance, not speed. The 10k is an endurance race not a sprint race. That's why he always beats Rupp who I believe Salazar has even said is a faster sprinter than Farah.

No, 12:50s is not a fast race when you're capable of running in the low 12:40s. You should be able to run within a few seconds of your top 400m ability. And that's exactly what a 53-54 is for Farah. 10 slow laps doesnt take nothing out of your legs, but it doesn't take more than a few seconds.

So running within 10 seconds of your PR over 5km is an "easy" race? How do you figure that? That means running within a second of your top 5km speed per lap. Running 0.7 slower than your top speed per 400 does not make it a "slow" lap. Do you have any clue at all?

The 10km is an endurance race, but when you have 5 guys together with 400 to go, it becomes a sprint race.

Mo lost the World Champs 5km because he went too hard from 500 to 200 to go, and Jeilan out kicked him. That was done partly on speed enduance and partly on speed, and also of course on race judgement.

Mo gets fit enough to run the last lap of an endurance race within 3-4 seconds of his 400 limit. I haven't argued with that. But even then, that makes his 400 limit at least 50, and that means 4 x 12.5.

10 laps within a second of your top speed for that distance certainly does take something out of your legs. Look up lactic threshold and what it means. Once you're running above it (and Mo is when running 5-10km, even slow ones), it's taking something out of your legs.

[quote]Sprintgeezer wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

I didn't respond about the female sprinters because the general rule that sprinters exhibit more hypertrophy than distance runners is proven, and is beyond debate.

subfive reply:

I'm not debating that point. You have used the "power to weight" argument to support your argument. My counter is; female sprinters have less power then male runners of any type (generally) and yet many of them can with their relatively slight bodies blow the doors off some male sprinters above the 98 percentile.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

To compare men with women is apples and oranges, which is why gender matters.

subfive reply:

I expected the old apples & oranges objection. But it is not a valid counter.

We are talking about "human" runner's size and power to weight. Females are not as strong as males of comparable size. And there are "relatively" small females with relatively low power to weight who can sprint well below 12 sec.

There are many males with slight builds (less apparent hypertrophy) and can easily sprint below 12 sec. There are many WCDR (world class distance runner) who "look" as slight as females and I think it is a mistake to assume that nearly all can't sprint a sub 12 100m...even after 100+ mpw training. However, the experiments are lacking to prove this.

And what is a "true distance" runner??! If you can run a sub 13:30 (an arbitrary cutoff) 5k you are a "true distance" runner. I don't care if you've run a 1:45 800m or have sub 12 100m speed.

Sprintgeezer wrote: And I guess THAT is the point: they don't. EVEN IF a rail-thin guy like an elite distance runner had the potential to go sub-12, they never would, while they are seriously training distance.

subfive reply:

Okay then, so now you are just saying that WCDRs don't normally "try" to go sub-12. That's most likely correct. But based on what we can see in the world, there is not enough evidence to argue that most WCDRs can not sprint a sub 12 100m. It might be the case, but you don't have the data to support that argument?

Karma Police wrote:

Mo gets fit enough to run the last lap of an endurance race within 3-4 seconds of his 400 limit. I haven't argued with that. But even then, that makes his 400 limit at least 50, and that means 4 x 12.5.

Jeremy Warner runs a 43.45 for 400m. His 200m is only 20.19. That's 10.10 for each 100m and we know that the average 100m time during a 200m is faster than the sprinter's true 100m time. Wariner's 400m is 10.86 per 100m. So don't you think it's likely that Mo Farah can't run faster than 12? He may or may not, but it's definitely likely that he can't when you look at Wariner's situation (the difference between his 100m time and his 100m time during his 400m).

And you are failing to see the difference between a flying 100m and a standing start 100m.

Perhaps SprintGeezer can weigh in on what I was trying to say about Wariner

jsjsj wrote:

Jeremy Warner runs a 43.45 for 400m. His 200m is only 20.19. That's 10.10 for each 100m and we know that the average 100m time during a 200m is faster than the sprinter's true 100m time. Wariner's 400m is 10.86 per 100m. So don't you think it's likely that Mo Farah can't run faster than 12? He may or may not, but it's definitely likely that he can't when you look at Wariner's situation (the difference between his 100m time and his 100m time during his 400m).

Wariner can (or could have) probably sprint a 10.4 100m? (43.45/4=10.86 x .96 = 10.4)

Farah can probably run at least 49 400, which would equate to 11.6 - 11.8 100m open speed. If 50, then 11.8 to 12.

The .96 factor is high, some runners can cut their 400/4 time by .90. 0.96 appears to be the high end, but it could be higher.

I would love to see sprintgeezer respond to Karma. In his absence, I guess I will have to. I think its been pretty well established that Galen Rupp is a sub 50 second 400 meter runner. So is Bernard Lagat even at this point in his career, when he is a 5000 meter, or distance runner. Now the idea that any runner can run at top end for 350 meters, assuming a 50 meter acceleration phase, is ridiculous. So if we assume Rupp accelerates through the first 100 meters in 13 seconds, he then has to run the next three in 12.3 seconds just to make 49.9. I think we can accurately state then that if allowed to run the entire race at his top end, Rupp would be around 11.9-12.0. However we elite sprinters are still accelerating 50 meters into their 100, and assuming Rupp cannot accelerate as fast as them I think its safe to say he accelerates for 70 meters and then hits top end. That means the only part of his 100 at 11.9 speed, is the last 30%. Assuming a 70 meter acceleration phase, I think realistically Rupp, Lagat, Jeilan, Mo, could all go about 12.4-12.9. Standing start FAT. Any faster and you assume either to great acceleration or to high top end speed

clarification23: "all the required details have been posted for at least half a dozen dudes on another thread"

Post a link to it.

Put up or shut up.

subfive--

Good comments.

"female sprinters have less power then male runners of any type (generally) and yet many of them can with their relatively slight bodies blow the doors off some male sprinters above the 98 percentile."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I assume you're comparing female sprinters with male sprinters, because female sprinters certainly have way more power than male distance runners, or even male middle distance runners.

98 percentile what? 98 percentile of female elite sprinters? Sorry, I can't make out what you're saying.

My point was that women, for the same body volume, have smaller bones and more body fat than men, assuming they train the same, and are natural; that is why they have a lower BMI, because for the same body volume, their body weight is less. That is why you cannot compare female sprinter BMI to male sprinter BMI, because the females will make it look like lower-BMI males are capable of the same relative level of performance as are the naturally-lower-BMI females, when they are generally not so capable.

Hence the apples-to-oranges objection.

"Females are not as strong as males of comparable size. And there are "relatively" small females with relatively low power to weight who can sprint well below 12 sec."

Well, let's talk body mass. I personally have seen elite women sprinters doing very impressive weights that involve sprinting muscles. When their relatively low body weight is taken into account, they are vastly stronger than many men, including for instance, middle-distance men, in lower-body/core movements.

However, that says nothing about your second point, which is somewhat correct. 12.0 is NOT a fast sprint time, and there are plenty of women who can run sub-12 FAT from the blocks...but when you say "relatively" lower power-to-weight ratios, relative to whom? The elites? Their power-to-weight is certainly quite high, that is what sprinting/acceleration is all about. It is certainly vastly higher than that of male distance runners.

Agreed that there are many males with slight builds who sprint below 12. Absolutely. Again, especially for men, 12 is nothing special. Most of those under-12 slight-build guys are young, BTW, before their bones have fully grown, and before their neurology begins to change. But you're doing the same thing here--you "think" it is a mistake to "assume" that nearly all can't sprint a sub-12 100m.

I'm saying that it isn't a mistake, and that the single data point supports this view--which is one more data point than your view has.

Again, I would remind you that Mo could have run 10m faster and he STILL WOULDN'T HAVE BROKEN 12. Do you realize how huge that is?

And again, I'm not saying that absolutely no trained distance runner could break 12. I'm saying that I would have to see it, and analyze it, to believe it.

What is a true distance runner? Someone who is good at distance but is not primarily a middle-distance runner. Take Rupp, for instance. Most people I know consider 800m to be middle-distance, and even the 1500/mile. (Personally I put the 1500/mile squarely into distance endurance, but whatever.) So let's say Rupp can go 3:50 for a mile. That's great, for sure, but I wouldn't say that makes him primarily a middle-distance runner. Although he is great at mid-d, he is a true distance runner--although cases like his are the most difficult, and especially when guys are juiced it is much more difficult to make such distinctions.

Taking your figures, name me one single sub-13:30 5k runner who has demonstrated a FAT sub-12 at the same time in his career as he was serious in the 5k.

"so now you are just saying that WCDRs don't normally "try" to go sub-12."

No, I'm saying that while distance is being trained seriously, no such athlete will go under 12, even if they otherwise had the capability when not seriously training distance. Again using your figure, show me anybody who has demonstrated FAT sub-12 capability while doing 100-mile weeks.

I don't know why this topic has such legs. It would be like me coming on here and using all of your arguments in reverse, that because some guy like Solinsky with a relatively higher BMI can lay down a killer 10k time, that all elite sprinters could go sub-30, or sub-34, or whatever. I would never make such a claim, because on a balance of probabilities standard, whatever evidence I could muster would not be sufficient, especially in view of available results.

What is amazing, however, is the range we're now seeing. I'm thinking in particular of guys like Jeilan, and in particular Eaton. Coe may have been another, but just think about Eaton.

I don't think there has ever been anybody like him. He's even better than Daley Thompson, and his 1500m absolutely crushes that of any of the other great decathletes who were good over the 100m--O'Brien, Clay, Thompson, Huffins, Nool, Hardee. Amazing.

Guys like him, and whatever he is doing, are breaking the mold. When we have seen this kind of range in the past, it may have been reason for suspicion, and for good reason: training is specific. The better you get at one thing, the worse you get at another thing that has different requirements. Sprinting and distance running have very different requirements. Nobody's claiming that Eaton's 1500m time is anywhere near elite, but it's unbelievably great for a 10.2 sprinter.

Is there the distance equivalent of Eaton? I have already stated my belief that a guy like Jeilan could exhibit great range, especially down to 200m. Is there an elite distance runner who could go under 12? Possibly, but I need better proof than anybody has offered before I would believe it.

No, I'm not going to respond to Karma. All he's posted is the same old unconvincing stuff: if my kid can do it, so can Mo. To go sub-50 requires speed! blah, blah, blah, blah

Put up, or shut up.

Yes, Mo has shown a 53 400m. Could he go 51 or 50 or maybe even 49 if fresh? Maybe. I personally believe he can, but others do not so believe, IIRC--guys like Ventolin, for instance.

Does that mean he can go sub-12? Absolutely not. Can you go 53 without being able to go sub-12? Absolutely. I have seen it. I know sprinters who go just under 12, who go 53 and lower outdoors.

And Mo went 12.98 and likely slower due to timing inaccuracy, while getting out very well, moving well, trying hard, and leaning at the line. Could he go faster? Probably. Could he go more than 10m faster? No.

Are elite sprinters still accelerating 50m into their 100? Yes, only just, for the very best. Does that mean that distance guys would still be accelerating out to 70m? I'm not sure. They might stop accelerating around 50m, even though they are accelerating more slowly, simply because their top speed is so much slower. OTOH, you might be correct, I don't know.

I agree with your ultimate conclusion of 12.4-12.9 in general, but I do believe that some of them could go below 12.4 My own personal range for them, in general, and for Mo in particular, was 12.5-13

By conventional wisdom, Wariner is a sprinter. A long sprinter, in particular.

Actually, he is a 400m guy, which I put squarely in the lower end of the middle-distance range. I might even go so far as to say he is a 400/800 guy, because who knows what his 800 capability would have been.

Yes, the 400 requires some leg speed, but only some. No doubt that Wariner has that leg speed. 20.19, when not training specifically for the 200, is smoking.

Wariner is something like the third fastest 400 guy in history, close to the WR. His 20.19 demonstrates that he has substantial acceleration, which of course anybody near the 400 WR would have to have.

You cannot compare Farah and Wariner based on their 400 times. Even though Wariner is slight for a sprinter, Mo makes him look huge. Even though you cut Wariner's 200 in half, I think that's probably not representative of his 100m capability, because he is clearly a superior SE guy at a good top speed, given his 400m performance. You end up with 10.10, but I would be shocked if he could do that. I would have given him around 10.30 at his peak. Can someone go 20.19 off only 10.30? Yes.

Consider a guy with a similar profile at 200m to Wariner, Atlee Mahorn. 10.18 (+1.1), 20.17 (+0.4), 45.62 Wariner at 20.19 (+1.2), 43.45

Mahorn was faster than Wariner over 200, but not that much faster, and he actually trained 200's. 20.20 basic, to Wariner's 20.26

However, Mahorn was a shorter sprinter, worse over the 400m, and likely better over the 100m, which would put Wariner at right around 10.30 Same as you can't work backwards, you can't work forwards--you cannot say that Mahorn, because he had a faster 200 time than Wariner, would have been better than Wariner at 400m, or even as good. The fact is that he was 2 seconds slower.

So Wariner is about .5 slower in his 400 100m time than in his open 100 time.

So, using your methodology, let's say Mo goes 52 in the 400, which divided by 4 is 13 per 100m. If the same applied to Mo as to Wariner, that would put him at 12.5 Fair enough.

But you can't apply the same methodology, because Wariner is relatively stronger at the acceleration end, and Mo relatively stronger at the SE end. So that puts Mo somewhere between 12.5 and 13, just like I said before. If you want to say he can go not 52 but 50, that would put him at 12-12.5--but 2 things: 1) that still doesn't put him under 12, and 2) you have to ask yourself where that speed gain would come from, and whether any of it would come from the initial 100m such that it would apply equally to an open 100m.

Also, these assumptions for his 400 time--so he closed in something like 53, with a running start, and people believe that he could go 50 open, from the blocks?

Ventolin, where are you?

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

This.

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.

He can't run 50 for 400, but he can run 52.6 at the end of a race because of his superior speed endurance, which is a combination of genetics and training. Rupp would run well under 50. Not as fast as someone like Steve Ovett who ran

11.8, 22.8 and 47.5 But Rupp would be under 49. Farah would not break 51 in a 400

Sprinteezer wrote:I think its been pretty well established that Galen Rupp is a sub 50 second 400 meter runner. So is Bernard Lagat even at this point in his career, when he is a 5000 meter, or distance runner

no rupp can't go sub-50 nor bernie at this point

Hicham said 49-50 seconds for 400m and 1:45 for 800m. I then asked his coach the same questions-he said he has run 48 for 400m and 1:44 high for 800m in training

if hicham is saying ~ 49/50, then it's impossible for rupp to be as quick, as with comparable over-distance endurance ( rupp is also likely at worst a 12'50 guy ), then it woud mean rupp shoud be running

3'25/3'26/3'27

Sprintgeezer wrote:Yes, the 400 requires some leg speed, but only some. No doubt that Wariner has that leg speed. 20.19, when not training specifically for the 200, is smoking

that 20.19 is hogwash ( +1.2 ) - not a true reflection of his ability ( albeit garry hill, esteemed editor of T&F news said he was pretty much cruising it )

in american champs, following month '06 he went 20.28 into a 1.3 in his heat

garry hill, was watching the meet & said he was in close to 20-flat shape that meet off that run ( he is not a guy given to much hyperbole - if he said jw was in 20-flat shape, you take it to the bank )

jw coudn't reproduce in the final & came 5th in "only" 20.24 ( 0.3 )

use ~ 20.00/20.05 & maybe about 10.10/10.15 for his 100