What do you think Armstrong could turn a 10k in? With his high cadence cycling technique he could be a good 10k runner. I gonna go with 30:15. I would say faster but his muscles are recruited more for the biking motion. given a year he could break 29:30.
When Lance was an 18yr old triathlete he was running the 10k at the end of triathlons in 32's.
In a month (not a year) he could break 29:30. He spends a decent portion of his off-season running trails. I think he'd be nastier at 5k....he could probably throw down a 14:10 or faster.
-kk
I'm thinking he would be better at the 1/2 marathon or marathon distance, given the length of time these guys typically ride.
OK that is enough! I cannot explain how sick I of of all these, "what if x raced y" and "how fast do you think" threads. If someone trains and runs 32's for 10k they can run 32's for 10k. If a person could run under 30 minutes off of no running at all, don't you think they would start running? Lets see The World Record in the Bench Press is 750 pounds, so if he can do that hes gotta be powerful, so I bet he could run right around 10.00 in the 100 and wiht training, 8 flat. No one knows except Lance how fast he can run a 10k. My $ says he has no shot in hell at running under 30 or even 15 for 5k for that matter. But guess what? Thats nothing but a total guess. I could easily br 4 minutes off in either direction. Don't you see how stupid this is? It's even worse than the Micheal Johnson 800 thing a few months back. Heres a good one...My grandma can walk across the room (25 feet) in about 55 seconds with her walker, how fast do you think she could swim a mile? I'm guessing along the lines of 3 hours. What do the rest of you think?
Hummm...Intersting scenario MUXC2K3, but can she use the walker during the swim? Are we talking salt-water or fresh water? And how is her bladder? Does she ever watch "The Price is Right"?
MUXC2K3, if you are not going to provide thorough details about your grandmother, then please do not ask unrealistic hypothetical questions.
I have no idea what he could run, but dont think it would be amazingly fast, he is so specialized in his sport and efficient for the biking motion. My aunt and uncle met him and said that his vertical leap is very minimal, somthing like 8 inches.
What is not understood by most is that his is a vision that is currently unmatched by all but a handful of athletes that have come before him. Were he to wake up one day and his passion was to run an incredible 5k, 10k, marathon, ultra, (or what i'd like to see him do) Olympic triathlon, he would within about a years to two years time.
5k sub 13:30
10k sub 28:00
marathon sub 2:10
ultra ? fastest enough to beat ann trason (sp?)
olympic tri sub 1:40:00 (18:00/51:00/30:00)
MUXC2K3-
don't look at the posts then. people are talking about a world-class athlete moving from one endurance sport to another. sure, it's worthless, but most of the stuff on the boards are. your analogy was awful, by the way. It doesn't make any sense.
you can see the title of the thread. if you aren't interested, don't click on it. it might be hard at first. but with some practice, i'm sure you can be skipping threads left and right within just weeks.
Finally, I would be surpised if Lance couldn't break 30 after about a month of running. His body is as efficient as they come, and he's strong as hell. He would just need to get the specific muscles warmed up a little.
i think that mark allen once tried to run a marathon(without the swim and bike before it) and ran it just about as fast as did at the end of ironman. i dont think he could run any faster than about 31 or high 30 minutes.
I never heard what kind of cyclist McMullen turned out to be?
Actually, Mark ran around 2:20 several times in the marathon. He qualified twice for the Olympic marathon trials. I think it was 84 and 88.
You are thinking of Scott TINLEY tri-geek, not Allen. The previous poster was CORRECT Allen ran only marginally faster
It is worth noting that tri course are notoriously short especially those which aren't ironman distance, thus his 32 minutes might have been for 9.4 k as oppossed to 10. My guess is that his quad strength would hinder his ability to run quickly and he would probably run around 31:30.
He ran 29:59 for 10K
Mark ran 29:59 at least once I've read.
I've trained on and off with Tinley since '83. ST had some quality run times, but never qualified for OTs. I trained with Allen a few times. I'm sure that Allen qualified for the '88 OT marathon and he took a shot at '92, although I'm not sure if he did again. I've lost a few brain cells to old age and a few to alcohol since then.
As a former pretty decent runner, who has converted to cycling but still runs the occasional road race, the development of the legs aren't a big hurdle to running fast. It takes less than a month of moderate running to get the legs "operational" for a decent running performance.
And as for his best distance, cycling is more a matter of relatively brief, incredibly intense efforts, rather than 4 hours of steady hard effort each day. Based on this, and my running/cycling experiences, I think he could kick ass at 5k.
-kk
Acoording to his bio, Allen ran:
14:37, 29:59, 2:40:04 (at the end of Ironman)
i dont believe that armstrong could run fater than high 30.
that wasnt clear in my post
my money says lance could break 30 after a month of running.
the dude has the engine, running in his background, and is anything but a mental midget. its always a toss up trying to figure out what cyclists could run and what runners could ride fast. cycling is all about power to weight ratio while running is completely different. sub 30 in a month for armstrong for sure considering he has running in his background. the 115-120 pound climbing specialists in the tour are probably the best potential runners outta the bunch. built like white kenyans! here is a thought. if 500,000 pimped out road bikes were unloaded in kenya, would all the euro cyclists be blown away (like in running)???? sure it would take a while, but who knows?