Nick Willis ran 11.11 100m PB!!! (with a rolling start)

Why do distance runners think they are fast or know anything about sprinting?

not even close wrote:

Ben L Wrong wrote:

But 8.5 was hand timed.

And Nick Willis is not in peak form (like Hayes in Tokio 64'), according to himself.

This 11.11 was hand timed too you idiot.

12-mid to high. He's not going to be noticeably faster over 100m in summer "peak" form.

Exactly it's not like middle distance runners start doing 30m sprints & pumping big weights in summer

I love how he lists the 100ths of a second as if it is meaningful in any way.

11.11....baby!

There's "hand time" at an actual race with experienced officials (which is still obviously not FAT), and there is hand time by your coach at practice. 11.11.....lol.... could have been 11.8-12.1 for all we know.

Nice that he's measuring his time out to the hundredth of a second while relying on someone to start the clock with exact precision on a flying start. Please.

Further proof that Rupp never ran 10.9 with a rolling start.

No idea why Willis is quoting a rolling start, hand timed 100m to 2 hundredths of a second lol.

runnerdnerd wrote:

not even close wrote:

That's not true. Someone with a low top end speed has crap acceleration, so they still take just as long to get there.

No, in terms of distance to max speed, it is much quicker, more like 30m or 35m to maximum speed, whereas an elite 100m run is out near 50m before hitting top speed.

I don't think so, he is terrible at accelerating because he doesn't practice it and doesn't have the power required. He will find it incredibly difficult to reach whatever his top speed is within the 100m.

He would almost definitely run a much better 200m than 100m from a blocks starts. Reaching his top speed at 90m or so then holding on with his endurance. I wouldn't be surprised if his 200m is quicker than his 100m x2.

And yet he gets BLASTED by matt centrowitz.

Metric Miler

I wouldn't be surprised if his 200m is quicker than his 100m x2.

Bolt's 200m is faster than his 100m x2. Likewise for other 100m sprinters.

this is facts.

Thinker of critical thoughts wrote:

If this was done by a black competitor Nick Willis would probably accuse them of doping

Bunch of morons.

Rolling start does not = flying start. Who knows how fast he was going at 0m...

.2 for hand timed is an estimation at best. It could be +.2 or -.2 based on the reflexes of the timer

Someone giving him .5s for it not being "a race"? Cmon...

Altitude is not going to be giving him much benefit.

He's probably a 11high guy in a 100m race.

Somewhere around 11.7/23/48/1:45/3:30

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. If this speed is "actually" real, it doesn't benefit him run he gets struck on the rail. I agree with previous posts that "who knows how far of a rolling start he had into 0m?" There is a hell of a difference between a 5m roll compared to a 15m roll. I would be shocked if he could break 11.5 from a standing start.....and an FAT time would be slower than that. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter unless he is in the right position during the race to use it.

You guys, calm down.

Adding just 1.2 seconds would be a kind estimate, for someone who can actually start/accelerate at an elite level. For Willis you need to add 1.5 at least.

If he was at 11.1 from a rolling start, that is very impressive since he already had several strides to start tiring out. By starting "fresh" from the blocks, he would be about a half second faster so 10-point-low.

But was he on Porn?

We can't take these numbers at face value after his recent admissions.

I'd be more impressed if Bolt could run Willis's 10000m PB plus 20% than Nick Willis being able to run Bolts 100m PB plus 20%

larkimm wrote:

I'd be more impressed if Bolt could run Willis's 10000m PB plus 20% than Nick Willis being able to run Bolts 100m PB plus 20%

If Willis ran 11.5 I'd be damn, damn impressed. You are looking at this as a distance runner I guess.

cammy wrote:

Metric Miler

I wouldn't be surprised if his 200m is quicker than his 100m x2.

Bolt's 200m is faster than his 100m x2. Likewise for other 100m sprinters.

Not quite, his 100m is 9.58 and his 200m 19.19. Gatlin has run 9.74 and 19.57.

Gay has run 9.69 and 19.58.

Powell 9.72 and 19.90.

I think Willis' 200m would be a lot faster than his 100m x 2. Assuming his 800m would be 1:44 flat or 1:43.9 then his 400m ability will be around 48.8.

His 200m ability will then be in the region of 22 high/23 flat. He might just break 12 for a 100m from blocks.

Metric Miler wrote:

larkimm wrote:

I'd be more impressed if Bolt could run Willis's 10000m PB plus 20% than Nick Willis being able to run Bolts 100m PB plus 20%

If Willis ran 11.5 I'd be damn, damn impressed. You are looking at this as a distance runner I guess.

Oops, my bad there.

With Willis' best at 1500m, how about Bolt at 1500m - 4:22 or lower (25% x NW PB) for 1500m or Willis at 12.0 (25% x UB PB) for 100m

larkimm wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

If Willis ran 11.5 I'd be damn, damn impressed. You are looking at this as a distance runner I guess.

Oops, my bad there.

With Willis' best at 1500m, how about Bolt at 1500m - 4:22 or lower (25% x NW PB) for 1500m or Willis at 12.0 (25% x UB PB) for 100m

Yeah I would be very surprised to see Bolt break 4:30 even. Still, both marks (4:22 and 12.0) are equally unimpressive lol. Especially for professional athletes! Shows the power of specificity I guess.