This! LeBron is sub-52s for sure.
This! LeBron is sub-52s for sure.
LeBron would likely be able to break 50... Our high school basketball team would go out to the track and the top guys would run between 51-53 and no one was slower than like 1.04 and that's a bunch of suburban high schoolers... Anyone who thinks LeBron wouldn't break 60 is really drastically underestimating
1. How easy it is to break 60
2. How athletic LeBron James is
It's that simple.
With any training he easily could dip under 60. He probably could do it with just basketball conditioning, but he is huge for a 400 meter runner, not that a 59.9 runner is really a 400 meter runner.
chuckie d wrote:
Basketball was my best sport in high school, yet I couldn't even run much under 60.. yet I ran 22.8 consistently in the 200 (and ran 11.5 in the 100 the two times I ran it). I didn't train for the 400 at all, and neither does LeBron, so I'd say he would be right around 60.
I don't believe you. At my son's high school they had several basketball players, including my son, and soccer players who ran 53 seconds with literally no training other than their sport. My son was a jumper and his coach didn't let him run more than 40m at a time and he ran 52 seconds off of his basketball fitness. It was a big school. One meet they fielded three 4x4 teams and the slowest was in the 3:30s.
LeBron is 31 years old and 270 lbs, but I'd be shocked if he couldn't still run under 60 seconds.
Fifty Years Ago wrote:
Bonus for young people: Chamberlain and Russell's incredible athleticism is why Shaq was never considered on their level by people who saw all three play. Shaq was very good. They were great and would have schooled him. Those guys were relentless. Shaq would have needed oxygen after about 5 minutes with those guys.
young person here, but I know my history. Russell wasn't any taller than 6-9 and weighed maybe 250? He was a great player in his era, but not big or strong enough to guard Shaq who was listed at 7-1 and ~320 lbs but was really closer to 7-3 375 lbs.
Also, my sister ran sub-60 in high school. No way she was faster than LeBron is now. He goes at least 54
doesn't add up wrote:
chuckie d wrote:Basketball was my best sport in high school, yet I couldn't even run much under 60.. yet I ran 22.8 consistently in the 200 (and ran 11.5 in the 100 the two times I ran it). I didn't train for the 400 at all, and neither does LeBron, so I'd say he would be right around 60.
I don't believe you. At my son's high school they had several basketball players, including my son, and soccer players who ran 53 seconds with literally no training other than their sport. My son was a jumper and his coach didn't let him run more than 40m at a time and he ran 52 seconds off of his basketball fitness. It was a big school. One meet they fielded three 4x4 teams and the slowest was in the 3:30s.
LeBron is 31 years old and 270 lbs, but I'd be shocked if he couldn't still run under 60 seconds.
Can I be the first to congratulate you on arguing with someone who posted 7 YEARS AGO?
I thought that was funny too, the seven yo argument.
I saw an eighth grade kid run 54 this year. He was a good athlete, but not LEBRON JAMES. This is the most asinine argument I've ever heard. These are some of the greatest athletes in the world and they all talk about how incredibly fast and explosive James is.
Some runners will never admit that superior athletes are involved in other sports, oh well.
I think nearly everyone agrees that sub-60 would be no problem at all. So, sub 53 or sub 50 is a better question.
Lebron is pretty big, but very explosive. Would hauling that big body around wear him out down the stretch?
It's funny that we're talking football and basketball players and track. Remember when multi sport athletes were the norm and it was very common for FB and BB players to run track in the spring.
ripvanracer wrote:
Lebron James wrote:You niggas be crazy. Haha.
I don't think this is really Lebron posting.
He could go sub 60 in 2009 and still go sub 60 in 2016.
My guess is that Lebron could run about a 48 in the 400m, but did Wilt and Russell really go sub 50 or is it just an exaggeration?
The thing is, back in the day, the NORM was for players to play most of the game. Starters rarely came out unless they got in foul trouble. Wilt averaged 45.8 minutes per game over his career. One season he averaged more than 48 because of overtime games. Russell averaged 42 minutes. Lebron only averages 39 a game and his average will be lower by the time he retires.
Basically, to be a starter back then, you had to be in better shape just because of the minutes you would play.
100m: 10.5
200m: 20.9
400m: 49.5
400m after 3 months training: 46.9
ripvanracer wrote:
Lebron James wrote:You niggas be crazy. Haha.
I don't think this is really Lebron posting.
Le Queen wouldn't last 1 minute against Mayweather,
much less run sub-60 in the 400m.
Montesquieu wrote:
Yes--he ran sub 50 for the 440 and high jumped over 6'9" for University of San Francisco. About James, anyone who doesn't recognize that he can easily run sub 60 is either on drugs or has no comprehension whatsoever of human athletics.
thats impressive wrote:I've never heard Russell ran track. Can anyone else verify this?
Bill Russell probably ran sub 50 in freshman PE class at McClymonds High in Oakland in 1949.
not exactly wrote:
bernie williams, former CF for the yanks was a 47.x quarter miler early in high school but was one of the best ball players in puerto rico at the time. guess which sport he gave up?
Bernie is also an excellent guitar player. May have missed his true calling.
MovieCoBUFFs wrote:
https://memegenerator.net/Lebron-James-Crying100m: 10.5
200m: 20.9
400m: 49.5
400m after 3 months training: 46.9
No way James can crack 11 with his size. If he did it wouldn't be 10.5 (even hand timed). He would have to get to the build he had before he took PED's . And that's for another thread kids....
Bonkers wrote:
Fifty Years Ago wrote:Bonus for young people: Chamberlain and Russell's incredible athleticism is why Shaq was never considered on their level by people who saw all three play. Shaq was very good. They were great and would have schooled him. Those guys were relentless. Shaq would have needed oxygen after about 5 minutes with those guys.
young person here, but I know my history. Russell wasn't any taller than 6-9 and weighed maybe 250? He was a great player in his era, but not big or strong enough to guard Shaq who was listed at 7-1 and ~320 lbs but was really closer to 7-3 375 lbs.
Also, my sister ran sub-60 in high school. No way she was faster than LeBron is now. He goes at least 54
Wilt was the strongest NBA player in history. Shaq carried a lot of weight and over 20% body fat with much poorer endurance than either Russell or Chamberlain. If Shaq was on either the Celtics or the old Philadelphia Warriors teams of the 60's he would not have been a starter. Hard to believe but true.
You're only remembering old Shaq
Orlando Magic Shaq was a svelte, athletic beast.
Anyone who thinks that LeBron couldn't break 60 seconds in the 400 either did not go to school with black people or doesn't remember how unathletic they are and why they became distance runners (not all distance runners were unathletic (and probably not many that end up ultimately elite) but a lot of them sure aren't). I am always amazed when I see the threads about people who can run 4:2X in the mile but couldn't break 60. I don't really understand that. Or people who seem to think that the ability to break 60 has anything to do with how many miles you are running a week.
The rest of us consider it that.
chuckie d wrote:
And I don't consider being a "p*ssy" being physically unable to finish a 400 because your legs cramp up and go into spasms after the race. Not everyone is built to run the 400 right out of the womb .. in fact, almost no one is.
Old thread, but oh well.
Lebron would likely be better at the 2 than the 4, but would probably do well in both.
I would love to see him try the javelin. Might be a fit for discus as well, and possibly decathlon.