Can a weekend warrior run a 54 400?

Average height has been increasing for the past 100 years.

jjjjjjj wrote:

wr holders in the sprints have been getting consistently taller for 100 years, as I understand it.

Your co-worker has some serious talent and leave it at that. He hustled you- like a billiards player.

I train with a master, this guy had been out of sports for a decade or so, and at 38 returns to the track without training at all. Puts on spikes, and runs a solo 1'58. Just to see if he's still got it. Since he's been rocking the masters scene a bit. Lots some speed but still runs a 54.

I like to think that had I been taught to run properly or at least the way I am technically able to run today, I at 25 should not have had mcuh trouble with a 54. I was a pretty handy mtbike racer at the time, being 6'4" with freakishly long legs.

And about taller people : there is always a trade-off of countless factor, but being tall is in fact one of those that favor speed. In all distances in fact. Picture a 30 foot tall giant, proportioned like Gebre. Would he run a mean 10k? You betcha. And a 36 foot tall Bolt, would he gets through a 100m well? No doubt.

Just, being 10% taller than the other guy isn't enough to be a sure winner. The additional speed from such a tiny difference in height makes it a mere factor amongst many.

Skater wrote:

Picture a 30 foot tall giant, proportioned like Gebre. Would he run a mean 10k? You betcha. And a 36 foot tall Bolt, would he gets through a 100m well? No doubt.

You're 30 foot tall giant's bones wouldn't support his weight and his heart wouldn't be able to circulate blood around his body.

Skater wrote:

I train with a master, this guy had been out of sports for a decade or so, and at 38 returns to the track without training at all. Puts on spikes, and runs a solo 1'58.

Cmon...what does "out of sports" mean? He didn't run or workout for a decade and his first attempt was 1:58? Um, no it wasn't. Why do people have to attempt to exaggerate what really happened so much?

Most likely he had been running for the last decade but just not competing seriously.

Surprise! wrote:

Skater wrote:

I train with a master, this guy had been out of sports for a decade or so, and at 38 returns to the track without training at all. Puts on spikes, and runs a solo 1'58.

Cmon...what does "out of sports" mean? He didn't run or workout for a decade and his first attempt was 1:58? Um, no it wasn't. Why do people have to attempt to exaggerate what really happened so much?

Most likely he had been running for the last decade but just not competing seriously.

Dude, I don't think someone running a 400 at 7:52 mile pace off no training is THAT unbelievable.

Concerned Citizen wrote:

Dude, I don't think someone running a 400 at 7:52 mile pace off no training is THAT unbelievable.

Even though I suspect you already know this, I was assuming he meant for 800m.

If the thought of spikes and blocks crossed his mind on this, it makes me think that he has had some background in track and field and know how much they can help.

Running 4 fun wrote:

If the thought of spikes and blocks crossed his mind on this, it makes me think that he has had some background in track and field and know how much they can help.

Ding, ding, ding - the OP got hustled. Weekend warrior probably was a 48 or 49 guy himself and just happenned not to talk about it and when the OP talked running he saw opportunity for a minor hustle.

Flagpole wrote:

That's silly and proves nothing. The general consensus among the uninformed is that the taller the person is, the faster they are...and at ALL distances too.

You said OP failed to prove that tall people aren't faster. OP raced a tall person over 400. This implies you think tall people aren't better sprinters.

Running 4 fun wrote:

If the thought of spikes and blocks crossed his mind on this, it makes me think that he has had some background in track and field and know how much they can help.

2012xxx wrote:

Ding, ding, ding - the OP got hustled. Weekend warrior probably was a 48 or 49 guy himself and just happenned not to talk about it and when the OP talked running he saw opportunity for a minor hustle.

I find it incredibly unlikely that a 48 or 49 second guy would not have spikes. Besides, anyone that fast would not have escaped attention earlier. A Google search on that guy comes up blank as far as race results are concerned - no high school times, no college times, no times in all-comers meets for any distance.

I'm definitely not ruling out the possibility of secret training, though, as that's nearly impossible to track.

I doubt he just ''sits on his butt monday through friday." Regardless, he did claim to play sports on the weekend. Basketball, flag football, soccer, ultimate frisbee- weekend warrior type sports- require a lot of sprinting and fast twitch muscles. If you havent sprinted since your hs days and picked up distance running, it's no surprise he beat you.

No it doesn't. It means exactly what I said it means...that not every tall person will beat a shorter person.The OP's office had only one piece of information regarding the two runners...how tall they were, and they all figured the taller guy would win because of his "long legs". What kind of crap is that?Back when I worked in an office with other people, I had just joined a new company, and several of them were going to do a corporate challenge 5k. I joined them. Talk began about how this one woman was fast (she ran in the 23s for crying out loud) and how this other guy was fast (he was a 21:30 guy). So, I do my own little investigation about how the race went in previous years to see if I had a shot to win, and it was within the realm of possibility, so on the morning of the race one of my co-workers (they don't know me too well yet as I had just joined the company, and I'm not one to talk about myself uninvited) asks me what my plan is, and I say, "I'm going to go out with the leaders and see what happens." She thought I meant the leaders from our office, not leaders in the whole race. So, she says, "but they're all taller than you." She was then shocked that I meant the leaders of the whole race. Well, I finished 3rd that day in 16:23, 5 minutes ahead of the "fast" office guy.To be fair though, the two guys who beat me that day were taller than me, but so were most of the people I beat.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

That's silly and proves nothing. The general consensus among the uninformed is that the taller the person is, the faster they are...and at ALL distances too.

You said OP failed to prove that tall people aren't faster. OP raced a tall person over 400. This implies you think tall people aren't better sprinters.

I don't dispute that tall people aren't faster over long distance. But beating a tall person over 400 meters wouldn't have proven anything.

You could have proven to your office that short people are faster over distance, but unfortunately you were beaten by 2 tall people. Now your office probably thinks tall people are faster over all distances.

Well, at that time, I would have beaten all of them from 50 meters on up to 50 miles.Actually, those in the office that day got a big ol' bunch of learnin', and the woman who initially mentioned my height as a limiting factor later corrected herself.Fact is, there are more people out there than you might imagine who believe simply that the taller you are, the faster you are. I've heard that statement so many times I can't even believe it. I suppose I have heard that more than most since I am shorter than most (5'5" on a good day), and so I've heard it as a statement of awe when I just destroyed the field (filled with athletes who were ALL taller than me), and in comments before a race about me when they didn't know who they were dealing with.

Bad Wigins wrote:

I don't dispute that tall people aren't faster over long distance. But beating a tall person over 400 meters wouldn't have proven anything.

You could have proven to your office that short people are faster over distance, but unfortunately you were beaten by 2 tall people. Now your office probably thinks tall people are faster over all distances.

Either he's Michael Johnson or he trains more than he's letting on.

Or you made this up.

Skater wrote:

I train with a master, this guy had been out of sports for a decade or so, and at 38 returns to the track without training at all. Puts on spikes, and runs a solo 1'58. Just to see if he's still got it. Since he's been rocking the masters scene a bit. Lots some speed but still runs a 54.

A guy who is 38 with zero running goes out and runs a 1:58. I don't believe that.

Please email me if this is a true.

You say you 'train' with him. So was he doing some running with you but no workouts - still hard to believe but maybe. But no running and a 1:58 - no way.

I dont think Rudisha could do that.

Bro, this was almost a 10/10, but the username made it not-quite-subtle-enough. I'm feeling an 7.5/10 still.

Yes, you saw it. Genetics rule!