Wejo, quit putting sprint results on the main page. We just don't care.

distance runner by default wrote:

To paraphrase a coach from my past, everyone would run the 100 if they were good at it, but if you aren't good at it, run the 400, and if you suck at that, run the 800, etc...

Okay, this is interesting.

So everyone wants to be the fastest human. All runners - distance and sprinters alike - want to be the fastest. The difference is that the 100 meters is the shortest outdoor event, and therefore the purest in terms of speed. All other "fastest" runners in the world have qualifiers on their title, noting that they are the "fastest" *in their event* as opposed to the fastest moving human using existing measurable instruments.

Did I get that right?

sublime wrote:

...Did I get that right?

Pretty much. I mean if you could beat everyone at the 100, wouldn't you make that your event?

J.R., I also love your posts, they crack me up. If you are really as riled up as you seem, you should channel that energy into your running. For the record, I'm not a fat-ass sprinter and never have been but I like watching fast races of any distance. I suspect you suffer from a disease a lot of distance runners get thinking that the longer the race, the more worthy of attention it is. This seems to particularly afflict road marathoners. I think part of the attraction is that you can be out on a race course for 2, 3, 4 hours and have people cheering for you the whole time. So what? Doesn't mean it's any more of less worthy of attention than the 5K, the mile, or yes, the 100. Different folks have different tastes.

Spoken like a true insecure, desparately-trying-to-be-cool, dateless distance runner.

Hate to toot my own horn, but I'm a pretty good distance runner. I've ran a 4:22 mile. I've ran a 9:08 two mile. I've ran a lot. But you know what? Even in peak condition, I would get my ass handed too me if I stepped out on the track with any world-class sprinter. I would get my ass handed to me by a decent high school sprinter. Sprinters, if they are worth two shakes, work a hell of a lot harder then you think. Believe it or not, lifting is hard. Training is hard. And racing, even if it is ten seconds, is difficult. And honestly, if you were a true track fan you would appreciate the time it has taken for a sprinter to be able to perform the way you do. I guess most of you have never forgotten in high school where the sprinters use to pick on you huh?

Sigh... wrote:

Hate to toot my own horn, but I'm a pretty good distance runner. I've ran a 4:22 mile. I've ran a 9:08 two mile. I've ran a lot. But you know what? Even in peak condition, I would get my ass handed too me if I stepped out on the track with any world-class sprinter. I would get my ass handed to me by a decent high school sprinter.

What the hell is your point? You would get your ass handed to you by world class distance runners too.

Woops, sorry about the vagueness there, it's been a long, long day. I was specifically addressing the claims that distance runners can beat sprinters at any race there is. To clarify what the hell my point is, as you so beautifully worded it, I'm a decent distance runner, and I get beat by sprinters. So therefore, calling them no talent hacks is out of line.

It's Let's Run. Not Let's Sprint.

Bye Bye Bolt.

f distance runners.....until you all can beat kenya and ethiopia, shutup....dont hate on sprinters because that's what America is good at and always has someone in contention.....this would be like kickers rising up in the NFL saying no one cares about quarterbacks cmon look at us look at us

ggdffd wrote:

in the real world there penis envy, and in the running world there's speed envy.

skinny white boys are just jealous because the black guys get the media attention.

that about sums it up.

dumb post. why do you assume anyone is jealous of these doped up speed freaks? do you think everyone is jealous of everyone who is successful at whatever they do?

Um, because their success is being begrudged on this thread.

Pretty easy f#cking answer, you f#cktard.

You're an idiot. Sprinters are real runners too, and most of them work just as hard (or harder) than those running the longer distances, just in a different way.

People like you are the reason that no one has respect for the sport (or more accurately, anything over about 200 meters). The fact is, the majority of athletes that are truly athletic are either sprinting, hurdling or throwing something.. not boring everyone and shying everyone away from the sport as they run for miles.

Runners are runners.

By definition: Runners are runners.

Sprinters are too lazy to run, which is why they are sprinters.

Distance runners are too lazy to weightlift.

Two can play the untrue stupid argument game.

But seriously, there's a reason why sprinters don't run long distances close to the season.. it's because it doesn't help them.

Sprinting helps longer runners with their kick, but sprinters have absolutely no reason to run for miles unless it is for general conditioning.

Anyway, JR, when you do a 8x300 workout and hit all under 40 (3 minute rest) I'll be impressed. That's what I get to do today. It's a lot harder than it sounds.

I really don't get this whole "they're only running for 10 seconds, so are therefore inferior" mentality. Does that make the women from my office who drags herself around a 10K in over an hour a superior athlete to Paula Radcliffe who does it half the time?

turdwater wrote:

I really don't get this whole "they're only running for 10 seconds, so are therefore inferior" mentality. Does that make the women from my office who drags herself around a 10K in over an hour a superior athlete to Paula Radcliffe who does it half the time?

Hey turdwater, they're only "running" a measly 100 meters. You could almost jump that far. How about you try to jump 10,000 meter! Huh? What? Hmmmmmm? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Most athletes compete at the shortest distance their natural ability will allow