Tom Cruise peak shape 400m

* Elite sprinters and elite runners tend to have fair to great inseam to height ratio. T C is 5'5" to 5'6" with alligator arms and Barny Rubble legs. * Hollywood work ethic? Alfred Hitchcock and Betty Davis had great Hollywood work ethic: sober, prepared and show up on time. That doesn't get you sub-60 400m. * T C couldn't keep any of his wives happy so no faster than 62.5

Where are your numbers from?!

I strongly believe those equivalents are only relevant if you run a certain mileage or are an aerobic dominant runner. No way a 16:19 and a 4:45 are equal. No way. Guys who can only run 4:45 have a hard time breaking 17:00.

In high school i ran 50.4 (49.8 split). 1:55.7, 4:28, and 16:17. My first 400m of an 800m race was 55-56. I only ran 20-25 miles a week, never more than 4 miles at a time, but once I got to college and ran more mileage I still had to work harder to break 16:00 in a 5k than run a 4:17-4:20 mile.

In college I ended up running 1:51-high and 4:06 and have only broken 15:00 3 times, so my equivalents would be out of whack on your scale.

If this won't change your mind nothing will.

screencrush.com

Watch Every Shot of Tom Cruise Running From His Entire Career

mattsinger

It’s a very long video. He’s done a lot of running.

Link:screencrush.com/every-shot-of-tom-crui...

In mid- 1970's there was a show I liked, Six Million Dollar Man. My father was in his mid-thirties. I would say to my father: No way are you faster than the Six Million Dollar Man! Hollywood has more tricks now than ever. Hollywood today can make any one and everyone look like a fast sprinter.

By this logic, Kirani James's 400m PR of 43.74 is worth 1269 points, which is equivalent to a 3:44.85 mile and a 12:44.12 5K. Kirani James obviously can't run 3:44 or 12:44, so he must not be able to run 43.74 either.

I was a mediocre mid-d guy in my youth. My mile and 5K PRs were similar to the above (the ones worth 588 points, not the ones worth 1269 points!), but my 400m PR was much slower. A lot of non-elderly adult males who played ball sport could run 400m much faster than me. I don't think it's out of the question that Tom Cruise could have run 400m in the low-mid 50's at his peak (i.e., 30-40 years ago, obviously not now.)

I stated that high 50s would be faster than average. I think that average would be over 60 for young males - even if they trained specifically for the 400.

It's pretty much definite that he could not have run that fast! We're talking about a guy who never played a full season of varsity high School sports! He was briefly on the football team and then kicked off for drinking

He then spent most of his high school time in the drama club! There's no way without specific and consistent athletic training that you're going to go sub 60 unless you're just Born exceptionally fast!

There's zero evidence that he was exceptionally fast and his build and kind of quirky kind of coordination doesn't give me confidence that he could have at any time in his life broken 60

There's a big difference between what you're capable of if you actually train hard as an athlete and what people can actually just run

He never trained hard as an athlete and he was never capable of breaking 60! Maybe on a great day in his life he could have ran a 63 or 64

Peak Tom Cruise. 58.2

if he trained for it, 56.2

I was able to run sub 60 when 13yo with 0 running training. Not even doing any other sport consistently. Not even being a sprinter. Sure I had some talent for running, but I wasn't the most talented guy either. I achieved nothing extraordinary in my running career after that.

sub 60 is doable off 0 specific training if you are born with some speed and if you practice some sport. a 25yo Tom Cruise who was really fit for his movies and clearly doing a lot of exercise could easily break 60. It's not like we are talking about an elite performance.

95%+ of MS boys and girls are not running those times. Closer to 99% I would say.

This sounds about right. I think it's very unlikely that he could ever run a 60 second 400. And if he says that his top speed has been 17 mph, my guess is that he would fading fast from that pace by about 80m. But I don't know much about his athletic background, and I don't know that I've ever seen him run hard for more than, at most, about 10 or 12 seconds. Does anyone here have any contrary evidence?

Not sure about the 400, but if he had enough pure hate in his heart, he could go sub 2 in the 800.