Cam Levins - 11.5 100m standing start

you clearly weren't following jw in early '06

the carson 20.19 was according to hill who watched it an early season opener losing to wally in 20.06

( & hill knows more about elite sprinters in his little toe compared to you in your whole body - he watched tommie smith run in '60s, borzov in munich, quarrie/steve williams mid-'70s, etc )

he was targeting the US champs & after the indy prelim of 20.28, a 1st round cruise, he was expected to be a real threat in the final to wally & xavier - he ran that 20.28 in 3rd gear

in the end, they ran blistering 19.90/19.98 which blew apart jw's own race & he faded to 20.24

if you had any clue about his 200 career after, you'd have realised he prematurely ended it there, believing the pure 200 guys were too fast for him & only ran the occasional 200 after, but not seriously focusing on it again after '06

if he'd run some 200s in europe in '06 after trials, he wouda very likely got close to 20-flat

None of what you say is in any way compelling.

It is all suggestion and assumption, and is not in any way proven.

He had before 2006, and has had subsequent to 2006, many good years competing at 200m.

I don't believe for one second that he was in "3rd gear".

I also don't care much what Hill said.

If he was serious about the 200 (which he obviously WAS in '06), and he just had a bad race due to some bad decisions he made, and knew that he could have gone around 20.00 and finished maybe second or better, WHY would he have "ended" his 200m career at that time?

Why would he believe the "pure 200 guys were too fast for him" if they would only have been .02 and .12 faster?

2 possible answers:

1) he made a very bad miscalculation, or

2) he was correct, and was in fact NOT a 20.00 guy.

Based on his entire 200m career, I would say that (2) is the preferable choice, and that both you and Hill are incorrect.

Know this: I personally believe that he could have gone around 19.90! But the difference between you and me is that I acknowledge when my positions are weak and have little support other than hope and bias, whereas you do not.

I remember his race very well, in particular I was blown away at how good his first few steps were. All he needed was, I think, a tiny bit better race distribution to get to around 20, and a tiny bit more strength to get to 19.90

But the point is that he never did it, and he had plenty of opportunities.

I'm glad that we can agree, though, that he was really great. Also that there is no way that Levins goes 11.5 FAT 100m from a standing start.

This thread has gone to the dogs.

you offer nothing

you haven't a clue about his situation back in '06

it was intensively followed on message boards, especially when it was acknowledged as a non-globals year, it was time to try other events

his 200 races in '06 were greatly watched/analysed

no

'07/'08'09 were all global champs years

'06 was only year he was willing to risk a free run at the 200 as no 400 to defend

he decided to give it up seriously after indy

in '07 he ran the 200s at trials simply because he had a bye to osaka for 400 but USTAF required even defending champs to run at least 1 race in trials of any description

he was back to solely concentrating on 400 by '07

you never saw the race or heard an account of it so you offer nothing

that was hill's 1st hand opinion

do you seriously think he gave his flat-out best in the 1st round of the event ???

i'm 100 times more interested in his opinion than yours

learn

he was being paid mega bucks for 400s on the euro circuit & not for 200s - promoters don't pay big bucks for a guy with only a 20.19pb even if he is greatest 400 runner in the world

if he'd got the 20-flat in indy, they mighta been willing to pay some serious bucks for him to run 200s, but the indy final failure cost him

again clueless

you clearly weren't following this

after his easy 20.28 prelim, plenty of posters were bigging up his final chances & saw him as a genuine threat to wally/xavier

he wasn't to know that these guys were not just barely below 20 talents, but woud go 19.65 & 19.63 that year !

those were legendary 200 times by season's end

again you have no clue

he went out too hard on the curve & faded badly in the stretch according to 1st hand observers

he misjudged the pace, which is no shock as he had no experience of running elite level 200s upto then

no

far more knowlegeable guys than you were saying ~ 20-flat prior to final

none said 19.90

bullsh!t

it was only shown on subsciption only minor cable channel in america - not available where you live & there was no stream - i remember because many were looking for one & none found

these were not global champs trials & so low key championships on minor cable

you didn't see or even know about him running the 200 in this meet until i told you about it

no he didn't

the next 3y were all global champs years & no time for messing around with 200

it was going to be '06 or wait until '10 for next serious shot

@Sprintgeezer:

Can't we just call this thing a draw...with you being slightly better?

It's just difficult to accept without the experiments the notion that the great distance runners like (Bekele, Farah, Legat, Longosiwa, Rupp, Iguider, Gebrhiwet, Geb etc to name very few) can't manage a sub 12 100m.

Men are generally about 9 or 10% more capable than women in running. I think it's valid to consider female performances relative to males in this discussion. The top female sprinters no doubt have higher power/weight ratios than the top male distance runners at 100ms. But all the men need to do is be within about 9% of the top 10 female sprinters to be under 12 sec. Again, 12 sec is not all that fast. And I don't think we can assume that none of the male distance guys are sufficiently powerful or about equal in power/weight compared to the top females? Moving a human body at an average speed of 18.8 mph for 100m requires a certain amount of human power and has nothing to do with gender in the calculations. It depends on the power a particular set of muscles can generate relative to body weight. And by the way BMI calculators are not gender specific.

If 126 lbs and less females can sprint sub 11, then I don't think it's a stretch to believe that males with less sprint talent but with the advantage of maleness and being gifted runners capable of running a 50 or less 400 can sprint a mere sub 12 100m? Again, I could mistaken. I would like to know the answer and understand that my desire to be correct has no affect on the truth of the matter.

Below are the averages for the top 10 male/females in 2012:

RACE Avg 100m TIME HT/WT BMI ht/wt ratio

M100men 9.85 6'0.5"/175.9lbs 23.5 0.412

W100women 10.88 5'5.7"/126.5lbs 20.5 0.519

M5000men ?? 5'8.1"/126.0lbs 19.05 0.540

Well, the stride used to accomplish a sub 12 is slightly different, I don't think there are very many distance runners that could accomplish a sub 12 without learning how to drive their legs in the manner that a sprinter does. It would be extremely hard for Bekele to run a sub 12 with his 5k stride.

because anyone who has trained with a world class distance runner knows they can do it - and has seem them do it or things very very similar to it on a regular basis. they may not do it in a race situation (of course they dont)... but once you've seen someone do 10x100 from a dead start in 12 even at the end of 16x400 workout every month for 3 years...you do not wonder if they can break 12. Once you've seen them finish workouts with 3x23s 200s pretty easy... you don't worry.

Have you ever trained with a good distance runner? you are ignoring the information coming from everyone who HAS. You are even ignoring many people who HAVE run under 12 easily and are distance runners. By your logic no world class 100m man can break 8minutes in the mile - if you could only provide maybe 6 or 7 people with results showing they ran that time in meets. Maybe there was no FAT timing and they only ran 7:45! Maybe there was no wind gauge.

Get over it.

actual track athlete wrote:

Have you ever trained with a good distance runner? you are ignoring the information coming from everyone who HAS. You are even ignoring many people who HAVE run under 12 easily and are distance runners. By your logic no world class 100m man can break 8minutes in the mile - if you could only provide maybe 6 or 7 people with results showing they ran that time in meets. Maybe there was no FAT timing and they only ran 7:45! Maybe there was no wind gauge.

Get over it.

A sub 12 100m is far better than a sub 8 mile.

msmsm wrote:

A sub 12 100m is far better than a sub 8 mile.

Okay then, lets say a 5:00 mile. How many sprinters actually try? Where's the data?

subfive wrote:

If 126 lbs and less females can sprint sub 11, then I don't think it's a stretch to believe that males with less sprint talent but with the advantage of maleness and being gifted runners capable of running a 50 or less 400 can sprint a mere sub 12 100m? Again, I could mistaken. I would like to know the answer and understand that my desire to be correct has no affect on the truth of the matter.

Below are the averages for the top 10 male/females in 2012:

RACE Avg 100m TIME HT/WT BMI ht/wt ratio

M100men 9.85 6'0.5"/175.9lbs 23.5 0.412

W100women 10.88 5'5.7"/126.5lbs 20.5 0.519

M5000men ?? 5'8.1"/126.0lbs 19.05 0.540

I don't think you realize the huge difference in power between a female sprinter and an elite distance runner

Even with similar weight/height a female sprinter is going to be producing more force on the track which results in a huge time difference

subfive wrote:

msmsm wrote:

A sub 12 100m is far better than a sub 8 mile.

Okay then, lets say a 5:00 mile. How many sprinters actually try? Where's the data?

Forget about the mile, let's talk distance, since we're talking about distance runners.

We don't need to use the thon or 1/2, so let's use 10,00 or 5,000. Surely somebody knows the equivalent of each, to a 12.00 FAT 100m.

The short answer is that no sprinters try it, because they would die. Believe me when I tell you that if you took an elite sprinter and told him to run 10,000m as fast as he could, there is a greater than 50% chance that he would end up walking some of it!

Nobody tries it. I wasn't elite, and I have tried it, at 5k treadmill, when at mid-11's for FAT 100m and already old. At the actual time of my treadmill 5k record, I wasn't training any sprints, and it was winter. I probably would have gone only 12.1 myself. I also did a just-sub-5 (around 4:58) mile at that time, after training a whole season of treadmill 5k's and 10k's. Again, I was hardly elite in the 100m at the time, and probably would have gone only 12.1

Have I trained alongside real distance runners? Of course not. Sure, I have seen them running around the track at the same time, sometimes--but actually been on the track with them? Only for some 200 repeats, at which I must say they sucked. But we did get some to do a 100m.

I don't understand why these guys aren't curious about their FAT 100m time. It's not a big investment to make, like running a 5k or 10k would be for a sprinter. Heck, it takes only a couple of seconds! Even I was curious about my 5k time and mile time, and trained a bit for it and did it.

If not elites, how about masters, or has-been's? What do they have to lose?

Take a guy like Pete Magill. 5k and 10k genius. Why doesn't he hop into a 100m at some masters, or other, meet? Is he not curious? Does he believe that he will have a serious risk of injury?

If I ever go to one of these masters things, I will find him and convince him to do a 100m. He's sub-15 in the 5k, right? That's pretty decent, it would be fun to have him in a race. Maybe I can make a deal, if he does the 100 I will do the 5k.

Would 8 or 9% be a huge enough difference?? How much do you figure?

subfive wrote:

msmsm wrote:

A sub 12 100m is far better than a sub 8 mile.

Okay then, lets say a 5:00 mile. How many sprinters actually try? Where's the data?

Ashton Eaton can "barely" run sub 5 and he trains for it. Do you think that Bolt or any pure 100m guy could run sub 5 based on Ashton Eaton's performance?

And what do you have to say regarding Wariners 100m and 400m times? He is evidence that you can run close to your 100m pb for 400m. Based on that, it's very likely that Farah can NOT run sub 12 don't you think?

subfive wrote:

Would 8 or 9% be a huge enough difference?? How much do you figure?

More like 15-20%

Skyart wrote:

subfive wrote:

Would 8 or 9% be a huge enough difference?? How much do you figure?

More like 15-20%

So, based on the 10.88 avg for the top 10 females in 2012, you are suggesting that the worlds best distance RUNNERs would sprint between 13.6 to 12. 8 FAT?!

Hey, that seems very slow for super talented runners. No one is arguing for 10.9 for the distance guys.....just sub 12!

.

@sprintgeezer,

I pressed you on the comparison of females to males in these speculations. You avoided the point for awhile. But when you did comment, you gave a faulty explanation (see above). You mentioned bone mass and body fat!! These have nothing to do with BMI calculations. BMI is a relationship between body mass and height. It says nothing about body composition. This is why it has nothing to do with gender.

Now, if you are mistaken about this...after thinking about it, then perhaps your notion that WC distance runners can't sprint sub 12....because they have been training for distance deminishes their sprint ability to the point that they can't even sprint a sub 12, which is not at all at the elite level, is flawed?!

Among HS sprinters, probably 15% can go faster than 12 sec. And most are not highly trained at all. It's still hard to believe the best distance runners in the world can't match or exceed this. They specialize in "running".

subfive--

I'm not sure why you're pressing the BMI issue.

Let's say you have a trained male distance athlete, and a trained female sprint athlete, who happen to have the same BMI. Better yet, let's say they have not only the same BMI, but the same height and weight.

Within that identical body mass, the female will *generally* exhibit far greater muscular hypertrophy than will the male, especially in the lower body, especially where it counts for sprinting--in the upper legs and butt. This is because of the lower bone mass for the same overall body mass, and also because of the greater % of body fat, which is lower density than muscle. Not only will these things make the female look bigger, but they will actually BE bigger-muscled where it counts.

But apart from that side issue, the main issue that you are missing is that distance athletes do not train in any manner that is conducive to a good FAT 100m time--they do not train for power, they do not train acceleration, they do not train ROM, they do not train knee drive, they do not train pawing the ground, they do not train the same hip position, they do not train the same energy system, and they do not train at the same cycling rate.

In fact, they train things that actively hinder a good 100m FAT time. I'm not saying that they do not have the physiologic potential to go below 12--I'm saying that their training is such that it prevents them from going under 12, because the requirements to go sub-12 would be wasteful for a distance runner. Sure, some inferior distance runners would go sub-12, but make no mistake, they would be inferior, except for maybe a very few, like maybe Jeilan--and even with Jeilan, although he exhibited good form at speed, and on acceleration while at speed, nothing is known about his ability to accelerate from zero velocity.

In order to even get to demonstrate "sprint" ability, these distance athletes have to make it into the right position, which means being at or near the lead with 400m to go. To be in that position at 9,600m or 4,600m, requires the kind of training that will kill sprint ability, and it is the primary kind of training needed to be successful at distance.

If you don't make it into that position at 9,600 or 4,600m, you will never succeed, therefore that is the primary goal. The polish then comes with trying to make that last 400 as good as possible, while not sacrificing the ability to be in position at 9,600 or 4,600m. The last 400m is the secondary goal, and is one that everybody is trying to figure out how to optimize with people who can run a very fast 9,600m or 4,600m.

jono wrote:

Farah would not break 51 in a 400

If you really think that we're too far apart to bother arguing.

subfive wrote:

So, based on the 10.88 avg for the top 10 females in 2012, you are suggesting that the worlds best distance RUNNERs would sprint between 13.6 to 12. 8 FAT?!

Hey, that seems very slow for super talented runners. No one is arguing for 10.9 for the distance guys.....just sub 12!

Yes, that's what I'm implying. Running talent =/= sprint talent, whole different ball game. Maybe at best a low to mid 12 but that's not even likely.