deanouk-
I checked out the video. There is absolutely no way that is an 11-second 100m, sorry. I have seen thousands of runs, and that is not between 10.9 and 11.1--it was not even an 11.3, even though that is closer to the truth.
Your hand-timing is off, the video speed is off, the exact point at which he crosses marks is unable to be judged, the source of your error over the full 400m is likely completely manifested over the first 100m, and so on--not to mention the fact that it was a relay.
And again, what I said was that Rudisha could do a 12-second 100m from the blocks right now, and that with training I could see him doing 11-flat.
I also said that with specific sprint training, some of the distance greats could get down to around 11, or slightly faster, and that WITHOUT sprint training, that is right now, they wouldn't break 12.
I specifically excluded 800 guys from that statement. I believe that the fastest "power-type" 800 guys could probably run 10.7-10.8 from the blocks with sprint training, which is a fast 100m. With training, the very best historically might do 10.5--a smoking time.
But FAR from 10.20, or 10.07. Sprinting is weird--it takes an exponentially greater sprinter to get the ever-diminishing gains when you start reaching, in particular, the 10.20's.
By the time you hit 10.10, there aren't many guys left. Let me put it this way: a 10.07 under still conditions would be a 9.97 (+2.0), which very few people have achieved, and which there is absolutely no way any distance or middle-distance guy could achieve. If they could, they WOULD be a 100m guy.
Everybody with potential to run 10-flat runs the 100m rather than middle distance.
Going the other way, "only" 10.17 speed would be needed under still conditions to run a 10.07 (+2.0) This is still well within that exponential range of 100m performance, and unachievable by anybody other than a dedicated sprinter.
This year, the 28th guy on the 100 list so far is Dexter Lee of Jamaica, with a 10.06 (+2.0). Ahead of him on the list is nothing but huge names.
Take a look at these guys--they are absolutely nothing like distance guys, or even middle distance guys. The 100m is about POWER, which means huge force, and minimal time to both contract and relax. That requires not only specific training, but intrinsic muscle development and neurology. Sorry, but super-fast sprinters (which a 10.20 or 10.07 sprinter surely IS), are born more than they are made.
Like I said, I could run 11 all day long, and got down to 10.49 At that point I was told "Sorry son, you're not fast enough for the pure 100, maybe you should switch to multi's. You know why? Because if I had put in a ton more work, it was believed that I would have gotten down to 10.40 or 10.3 high--which gets you exactly nowhere. And I agree with that assessment.
I have seen guys walk off the street--literally--in meets in the USA (Philly, St. Louis, Ypsilanti, DC) and run 10.9x, 10.8x, 10.7x, and in one case a 10.6x. Guys in basketball shorts, given crappy middle-distance spikes that didn't fit. To even THINK of running 10.0x, you MUST be around 10.5 with very little sprint training, and those guys are out there, but they aren't middle-distance runners.
Or are they? I would be willing to change my mind on this, because certainly there could be someone placed in middle-distance for one reason or another who is really fast, if you could provide me with one real example.
If you can, I will believe only that example, however. But I do not discount the possibility.
For instance, take a look at 800m turnover vs 100m turnover--not even close. Think about the power that is needed, then take a look at middle-distance runners.
Take me vs Nick Symmonds. We are both 5'10. I have 20 lbs on him, I bench 350, I leg press around 900, I full squat 450, etc. The elite sprinters of today could do the weights I do, which they then translate throughout the evolution of the season to speed on the track--but that is where the basic power comes from. If you can combine it with favorable neurology--on which it is in part dependent--you have real talent--if you combine that with the right psychology, you have a winner.
Symmonds can't touch those sorts of numbers while training for 800m--indeed, it would probably be counter-productive, because he would be putting energy into a region that wouldn't ever be used in the 800m race. NO middle-distance runner could put up sprinter numbers while training for middle-distance.
Could they ever, if they trained for it specifically? The answer is a definite maybe--I do not discount the possibility. But if they did, they would end up right where I am at the present moment--very strong, and very slow (as far as sprinters go). Look at the turnover they exhibit--it is nothing, and it can only be "developed" to a slight degree by sprint training. The potential needs to be there already, and that generally means youth combined with natural ability.
Look at Rudisha. His turnover is nothing. His stride is beautiful and huge, and that would certainly benefit him from 60-100m, but he has to GET to 60m first, where his lack of turnover and power would be fatal.
There are plenty of really strong guys who are really slow--and conversely, there are plenty of not-so-strong guys who are really fast! You know, those whip-fast skinny kids you see running sometimes, or on the basketball court. THOSE are the potential sprinters, not the middle-distance types.
Finally, you will point to Bolt, who doesn't have the greatest turnover, but who has huge stride length, and good power delivery on acceleration. Can he serve as an example of what a tall middle-distance guy would be like, who received sprint training? That is, as long as he was anywhere near the field at 50m, he would blow them all away in the second half of the race?
I don't know, it is an interesting proposition. My initial feeling is that he cannot serve as an example, but that might just be bias on my part. He was probably fast but not whip-fast, which is why he was put into the 200m rather than the 100m (if true). The question is, why wasn't he put into the 400 or the 800 instead, and if he had been, would he be competitive against Rudisha or Wariner?
Quite possible, I think it could might have gone either way in his case--he was certainly thin for a long period, and his weights still suck. He is an anomaly (obviously). Are the best 800 runners anomalies too? Maybe, and it would suck for them if they were put in the 800m when they could have succeeded at the (I'm assuming) much more lucrative and glamorous 100m.
I know that if I trained like crazy and was a 10.1x runner, I'd switch to the 200 or 400, given all the sub-10 guys around, a la Michael Johnson.
I know it looks like I'm making a case against my own argument, but I maintain that a 10.07 (or even a 10.20) is about power, turnover, and intrinsic neurology, which is missing in middle-distance runners, no matter how good they might be.