flvmmox wrote:
agreed. and even still i think your 1:53 / 48 guy is much more likely to hit a sub-11 100m than elite 800m runners who are 1:42/47 (nick symmonds type)
there is a lot of overestimation in this thread of what a sub-elite 400m runner can do in a 100m, and super super super overestimation of what an elite 800m runner can do in a 100m.
if an elite 800m runners are capable of running a sub-11 100m, i guarantee they would be elite at 400m as well. this is nobody right now.
I actually went and looked it up. I had it wrong, the 800 guy actually went sun 1:51 by the end of the year and ran an 48.5 and 22.0x in some early April meets. He never tried the 100, but after he went 22.06 earlier in the year, he ran a 22.2x a little later. All kinds of factors in that. But one might say that as he watched up to his 1:50, he lost the pop in the sprints bit-by-bit. Maybe. I wasn't in his group, so I can't say what his deal was.
The 400 guy I mentioned actually ran a 48.05 open. He ran a few 21.8s and 21.7s, but he couldn't break 11.1 in his two 100m attempts. Truth be told, he was beating me in the 200, but I was lightyears ahead of him over 100. The two races can really be night and day sometimes depending on skillsets. And, I was in a sprint group that kind of did the "feed the cats" type thing. We did nearly NOTHING relating to overdistancing. That was my freshman year of college and I actually felt a bit fat by the end of the year as one of my roommates moms made EXCELLENT cookies (plus I'm kinda a fatty, anyway...and MY mom also makes excellent cookies)...despite all that, I made a big PR over 100 meters by the end if the year.
Anyway. My story is likely anecdotal, but I think it's a part of the equation and emphasizes your point: a lot of over estimation by people here.
To state the obvious: sub 11 sprinting and half marathon training just don't mix.