David Rudisha is given 4 years to get the US Olympic Trials 'A' Standard for every running event. Could he do it?

Oh, and no hurdle races. He would have a chance in the steeplechase, but the other two are ridiculous for someone who has probably never trained hurdles.

He has trained hurdles. Believe it or not, David Rudisha was originally a decathlete. I've no idea how good he was, though. And the 400h isn't ridiculous even for someone ho has never trained hurdles, by the way. It isn't that hard.

My opinion: He would manage the 'A' standards on the 400, 800 (duh) and 1500 easily. He'd have pretty good chance on the 400h, too. The 5000 and 10000 would be much harder. He'd have no chance whatsoever on the 100, 200 or 110h, of course.

Haile has got the times from 1500 up, and he could have probably gotten the standard for 800, if he had tried (he has an indoor 1:49). Whether he could have gotten them all in the space of four years is still not certain. Much more doubtful is the 400m standard, and there is no way he could have reached the 200 / 100m.

For Rudisha, I think he could maybe do 400m - 10000m, and possibly the marathon, but not the 100 / 200m.

It should be said that the 10,000m, and especially the marathon standard, are much weaker than the sprint standards. Hence, even though Rudisha might have a better chance compared to Haile, I don't think he would have an overall greater range. For that, you might want to ask what their chances would be of getting in the top 50 in the world for a year in each event, and I don't think either of them would be able (or would have been, in the case of Haile) to do it in the 100/200m, Rudisha would have a good chance for the 400, but not in the marathon.

Lisa Martin.

--End of Frickin' thread.

Only athlete, female or male, with the range to come close to all standards over that spread.

Look, let's get one thing straight:

There is absolutely no way Rudisha could get the 100m standard. To get it, you have to be wired for it, and be around 10.5 with essentially no sprint training, which is Rudisha's situation, except that he couldn't touch 12.5 out of the blocks.

If he trained forever for the 200m, he might max out somewhere around where Jeremy Wariner maxxes out--maybe. If he trained specifically, forever. Maybe. He wouldn't make the standard. Actually, he would never run under 21.

I can't believe that people would actually seriously entertain the possibility of him running a 10.07!

All that shows is your complete and total ignorance of what it takes to run a 10.07, or a 20.30

Oh, and there is no such thing as universal "athletic talent". Put him in Olympic diving and see how good he is--or, better yet, in Greco-Roman wrestling, or Olympic weightlifting.

Or even better, Rings.

"Athletic talent". Whatever.

Totally laughable.

There could never be anyone who could make this hypothetical qualification within 4 years, if ever.

A better candidate than Rudisha would be a guy with intrinsic running speed, like Wariner or Spearmon, who could get light enough, quickly enough, to develop good aerobic endurance.

Spearmon is a sub-10 lifetime guy, who is already pretty thin, and who is not a pure sprinter.

Finally, there is absolutely no way that any of your historical distance heroes like Geb, Bekele, ElG, Komen, etc. could ever run a 10.07, no matter how much training they had.

Period.

I challenge ANY of you distance guys to find a FAT meet, and try to run a sub-12 second 100m from a standing start. You will not succeed. Neither would any of the greats.

That's just how it is. Not better, not worse, only different. It would be like someone claiming that within 4 years of training, Maurice Greene could run a 2:10 marathon.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree mostly, but just like the distance guys would never make good sprinters, the sprinters wouldn't make good distance guys. Spearmon and Wariner would probably have trouble sneaking under 4:30 for a mile.

I agree with you in spirit, that sprinters wouldn't make good distance guys.

Wariner and Spearmon, however, are really "runners", not sprinters. (it's amazing that Spearmon ran under 10.00).

I am 5'10", and off very little treadmill training, ran a 18:30 treadmill 5k after figuring out pacing, and an honest 4:58 mile on the track. I'm normally 185, but was around 175 when I did that, and was older than 40.

Those guys are much younger than me, much taller, much lighter, and much less dedicated to "power". IMHO they could easily go under 4:30 in the mile, with not too much effort or training.

It is the longer distances, the 10,000 and marathon, where they would have trouble, of course. I never said they could succeed at the longer distances, which they certainly could NOT. I merely suggested that after 4 years they might be closer to distance qualification than Rudisha would be to sprint qualification.

I'd like to see ANY current or past 10.07 or better sprinter train for, and actually run, a marathon! Now on the start line: Johnson, Greene, Bailey, Boldon, Powell, Crawford (!), Leonard Scott (!!!!), Cason (!!!!!!), Burrell, the list goes on.

In particular, I'd like to see Leonard Scott trim down to, say, 145 or 140. Would he be a thin guy with ridiculous traps?

No chance Rudisha would even come close in the 100 and 200.

I think the 400 is within the realm of possibility, but anything from 800 to marathon is extremely doable.

[quote]Sprint Geezer wrote:

I agree with you in spirit, that sprinters wouldn't make good distance guys.

Wariner and Spearmon, however, are really "runners", not sprinters. (it's amazing that Spearmon ran under 10.00).

I am 5'10", and off very little treadmill training, ran a 18:30 treadmill 5k after figuring out pacing, and an honest 4:58 mile on the track. I'm normally 185, but was around 175 when I did that, and was older than 40.

Those guys are much younger than me, much taller, much lighter, and much less dedicated to "power". IMHO they could easily go under 4:30 in the mile, with not too much effort or training.

quote]

I am completely baffled as to you what your very slow times have to do with anything that is being discussed. Not relevant in the slightest.

I think it's totally relevant to concluding that Spearmon or Wariner could run a sub-4:30 mile, as was suggested unlikely by a previous poster.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

I think it's totally relevant to concluding that Spearmon or Wariner could run a sub-4:30 mile, as was suggested unlikely by a previous poster.

I still think that it's a stretch for either of them to go 4:30. Maybe - it isn't that fast, and speed is still important in the mile. They are sure not going 3:43 for 1500 though, any more than Kenenisa Bekele is going 10.3.

And all of those guys that you mentioned could go under 12 for a 100. 12 is worth about 55 for a 400, according to the iaaf scoring tables. We can debate all day long how fast they could run for a 400 (there are threads devoted to it), but they could all go under 50 in their heyday, so I don't think the equivalent of a 55 400 would be beyond them.

Team Analysis wrote:

Oh, and no hurdle races. He would have a chance in the steeplechase, but the other two are ridiculous for someone who has probably never trained hurdles.

There's no way anyone could do this, but in Rudisha's case by removing the hurdles you remove 2 races he'd conceivably have a shot at, the 400 hurdles and the steeplechase. I'd agree there's no possible way he could ever make the A standard in the 110 hurdles.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

I think it's totally relevant to concluding that Spearmon or Wariner could run a sub-4:30 mile, as was suggested unlikely by a previous poster.

Because you could run a blazing 4:58 mile, they could run 4:30? Oh, okay, I see the relevance.

Despite what most people have thought in other threads on this topic, most world class sprinters would have a difficult time breaking 4:30 in the mile. Some probably could, but you are using two very different energy systems. That is why people run different events. 4:30 is hardly blazing, but it isn't as easy as it appears.

I don't see how anyone will ever be able to do this...4 yrs or not.

That said, it would be fun to have a competition to see who can do best (points system of some sort) over all distances over,say, a 2 yr period.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

The idea of Rudisha making the 100 or 200 standards is totally laughable!

Ditto the 5000, 10000, marathon, 110H...

Only the 400 seems likely. The 400H seems plausible, the 1500 possible--but extremely unlikely.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

I challenge ANY of you distance guys to find a FAT meet, and try to run a sub-12 second 100m from a standing start. You will not succeed. Neither would any of the greats.

Just to throw in my two cents here. In high school I was an 800 guy who dabbled in the decathlon my senior year for run. At the state meet I ran 1:55 in the 800, then the next week was the decathlon. I ran 12.2x FAT from a standing start and 50.91 FAT, also standing start.

So (1) I would agree with you that most distance runners cannot break 12 FAT from a standing start. Based on my anecdote of one, it would suggest to me you would need to have 50-flat 400 speed, which most distance runners do not have. However, (2) the great 800 and milers of the world will have 45-48 second speed, so I would expect all of them to break 12.

Anyone who thinks this feat is possible with a lifetime of training in each event is completely retarded. It's just not possible.

short answer: no

long answer: nope

What might make this possible is the specification of PEDs. Take a guy like Borza, Wariner, Spearmon, Lemaitre and jack him up on steroids for as long as needed for the 100 (obviously na for the latter). Then as they come down from that, start them with distance training and start use of epo/cera/whatever new. Eventually you'll have a slim sprinter who's a responder to training and drugs and has a good set of lungs, heart who can scare up to 5k at least.

He won't be able to get the standard in the 5k or 10k. He just doesn't have the speed.