Rudisha averages 12.61 per 100m. Could most people be trained to run 100m that fast?

Did some research on the online cool running pace calculator and you are right on roughly 12.61 100m/sec. There are many good amateur distance runners that with the proper training for 100m, just simply wouldn't be able to run that fast, in my opinion.

I'd say 25%, although ideal training might increase it to 40. The fat guys won't be at a huge disadvantage sure, but the weak, uncoordinated, or slow twitch ones will. It will be hard to get many of them to break 15, though I do agree that speed can be trained for.

I ran many many 100s. In workouts, at the end of races, chasing my dog when he ran away. I never ever came anywhere close to that time for 100.

If 4% could do it, I'd be very surprised. Half of males in their twenties are so fat, or so out of shape, or smoke so heavily currently that it would take them a good part of the year to be able to run 100 hard, let alone sprint it.

Remember that Rudisha isn't running those 12.61 segments from a standing start. He's doing it from a running or flying start. A flying 100 is equivalent to about 13.5 from standing or 3pt, and that might be doable for people who can run 400 just under 60 seconds.

Hell, even that crossfit champion could almost do that.

No. The number would likely be about 2% higher than the number who have actually already done it or can at least move their legs that quickly for any length of time.

I would say 8% of the human race could do it. Males and Females included.

Watch a whole schoolyard full of kids running around and you can see that many have very good running style and OK speed but very few are actually fast.

Link wrote:

I ran many many 100s. In workouts, at the end of races, chasing my dog when he ran away. I never ever came anywhere close to that time for 100.

If 4% could do it, I'd be very surprised. Half of males in their twenties are so fat, or so out of shape, or smoke so heavily currently that it would take them a good part of the year to be able to run 100 hard, let alone sprint it.

You're assuming that what you were doing was conducive to 100m training.

Being fat or smoking does not prevent someone from running 12.6 in a 100. This isn't a 400.

Hitmonlee wrote:

Being fat or smoking does not prevent someone from running 12.6 in a 100. This isn't a 400.

Maybe not the smoking, though I doubt it's helpful.

As far as being fat goes...I hope you are joking. It's still extra dead weight you have to carry around. Now, unless your morbidly obese fat probably isn't stopping a 10.5 guy from running 12.5, but for people that need every little bit they can get it's significant.

SMJO wrote:

No. The number would likely be about 2% higher than the number who have actually already done it or can at least move their legs that quickly for any length of time.

I would say 8% of the human race could do it. Males and Females included.

Watch a whole schoolyard full of kids running around and you can see that many have very good running style and OK speed but very few are actually fast.

I'm a sprinter myself, which makes me a statistical outlier. But for people who are endurance-trained, 13.5 would be roughly equivalent to 2:15 800 and 4:55-5:00. 12.5 would be more like 2:00 and sub-4:40. Anyone who has been on or coached a high school team will know that 4:40 is about the point where athletes who are not seriously talented run out of their genetic ability and can't get faster no matter what they do. We are talking about a few percent in each case, but the faster case is a much smaller piece of even a track team.

How out of touch are you? 40%? No way.

coach d wrote:

Anyone who has been on or coached a high school team will know that 4:40 is about the point where athletes who are not seriously talented run out of their genetic ability and can't get faster no matter what they do.

Lol "run out of their genetic ability"? You have no understanding of genetics.

My educated guess is that the average man maxes out at around 13.0 for 100m.

No

Standing start with blocks would be interesting though

I'd say it'll be around 40%. More like 4 %, my figure might not be accurate but at least it's not ridiculous like yours. Stick with the generally accepeted track rules while you are at it

The question is meant to imply by using random group that you are dealing with the lowest common denominator. In this case I think a random group of 20 year old men would have much more break 12.6 than an equivalent distance group that is already biased toward being slow twitch. Sprinting is not distance running.

If Rudisha ran Cross country he would be much slower

kskso wrote:

coach d wrote:

Anyone who has been on or coached a high school team will know that 4:40 is about the point where athletes who are not seriously talented run out of their genetic ability and can't get faster no matter what they do.

Lol "run out of their genetic ability"? You have no understanding of genetics.

He still knows a whole lot more than you do.

800 fan wrote:

Pick a random group of men in their 20s and train them. After a year, how many of them would be able to run a 100 in 12.61 or faster?

Rules:

- Spikes and blocks are optional.

- The 100 is from a standing start on an all-weather track.

- No tailwinds are allowed.

- Only FAT times count, hand-timing is not acceptable.

I'd say it'll be around 40%. Sounds high, but the 100 is short enough for fat kids to sprint the whole way.

NO

SMJO wrote:

He still knows a whole lot more than you do.

Troll better next time.

Let me put things in perspective:

I was a sprinter in high school. The fastest female sprinter from the school was a 12.6ish 100m runner. This was the fastest girl from a D1 school with well over 22000 students. This same girl also happened to win league finals in the 100 in a strong league as well.

This girl was a lot faster than your average male. And she could smoke most of the guys on the teack team. I would assume she was faster than most of the distance team, maybe sans some of the 800m studs.

12.6 is a faster than it sounds.