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

Funny isn't it. If you'd said to me that Bolt could hit 13s per 100m 8 times consecutively I'd have said of course he could. But when that becomes a 1:44 800m it suddenly seems so much less plausible!

I wonder what Bolt "running" 13s for 100m would look like?

I disagree. I believe he could run right at or just under 48 seconds for a 400, which is averaging under 12 seconds per 100. No matter how much of a distance base you have, your 100 all out will be faster than your 100m average over 400m. 11.4-5. Let's not forget this man closes races in around 50-51 seconds (12.5-12.75) for three straight months out of the year.

runnerdnerd wrote:

not even close wrote:

Willis would be better (and faster) using standing start (correct starting technique for distance runners) rather than using blocks.

But he would be much, MUCH slower than using flying start, which is what he did here.

Somebody with a lower top end speed gets up to maximum speed a bit quicker than somebody with elite top end speed. So I think a block start would only add about a second to his flying 100m. So, I'd guess around 12.1

This flying 100m is hand timed though, so obviously not very precise, may or may not be accurate.[/quote]

Metric Miler wrote:

cammy wrote:

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.

I know he is a distance runner but you will be hardpressed to find someone who can run near 23 flat and barely break 12 in the 100

8minpace wrote:

I disagree. I believe he could run right at or just under 48 seconds for a 400, which is averaging under 12 seconds per 100. No matter how much of a distance base you have, your 100 all out will be faster than your 100m average over 400m. 11.4-5. Let's not forget this man closes races in around 50-51 seconds (12.5-12.75) for three straight months out of the year.

Pretty much every sentence of this post is dead wrong.

Like a previous poster mentioned, it's a question of just how "rolling" it was. I like to think of Nick Symmonds's thoughts on his 100m ability:

http://runnerstribe.website/interview-with-nick-symmonds-long-jump-and-the-marathon/

On the other side of the spectrum, if you had to line up at the start line for a 100m race, what would your predicted time currently be?

Hmmmm. 12.5 secs maybe, 12.6.secs, If I was on the fly I could go quicker, but I’ve never just knocked out a 100m from the blocks. Perhaps if my life depended on it, and I had to get everything out of this 100m, from blocks, I’d go around 11.3 secs.

That’s closer to what I was thinking.

Yes when I’m really fit, I go 10.4 to 10.5 on the fly without much trouble. The launch is the problem for me because I’m not fast off the line.

What’s the fastest workout you can remember doing? In regards to a workout which afterwards you’re thinking, “damn I’ve never been this fast.”

The week before The Daegu World Championships, I was spiked upped doing 6x200m with a 200m walk recovery after each interval. I had tapered really well, and was super fit for that meet, and I was cranking out 22 to 23 seconds for each 200m rep, which I had never ever run. With the right conditions and peaking at the right time I was looking at my coaching, and saying, “did I really just run that?” This was exactly when you want to hit these types of sessions, although on this day I was surprised how effortlessly I was pumping out 22’s and 23’s. Note as well, that this is a result from years and years of work and not just 9 months of preparing.

I don't wanna call Nick out on this, but he really wouldn't run 11.3. He might think he could, but 11.3 is a bit too fast. He even said 12.5, then said if he really had to he could run 1.2 seconds faster?!

This is like when Johnson said he could run UNDER 18s for the 200m. Athletes have confidence in themselves and that's great, but no.

Metric Miler wrote:

I don't wanna call Nick out on this, but he really wouldn't run 11.3. He might think he could, but 11.3 is a bit too fast. He even said 12.5, then said if he really had to he could run 1.2 seconds faster?!

This is like when Johnson said he could run UNDER 18s for the 200m. Athletes have confidence in themselves and that's great, but no.

Your right though, in 100m 1.3 seconds is a huge difference, you can't really try harder in a sprint, that's why it's called a sprint, no one can go from 12.6 to 11.3 just by "trying hard"

For reference, Steve Ovett ran 11.5 and 21.7 (hand-timed) in races with a 3:32 PB (later 3:30)

http://thegreatdistancerunners.de/SteveOvett.html

These are pretty much "lower limit" for similar milers as Steve raced the 100/200 regularly as a schoolboy and occasionally as a senior, so knew how to sprint properly (probably out of blocks).

He did said that he could run 10.4 / 10.5 on the fly with not much trouble. I wonder what his absolute max would be? 10.4 would mean 11.5 at best (I don't know of any who run their flying / FAT time at better than a .9 ratio - and it's only short people who get close for obvious reasons). He also did say if his life depended on it, so maybe it's the absolute theoretical yet plausible fastest.

Metric Miler wrote:

I don't wanna call Nick out on this, but he really wouldn't run 11.3. He might think he could, but 11.3 is a bit too fast. He even said 12.5, then said if he really had to he could run 1.2 seconds faster?!

This is like when Johnson said he could run UNDER 18s for the 200m. Athletes have confidence in themselves and that's great, but no.

Woah - totally used the wrong data. Please disregard. Meant to say flying fastest 10m time in a race x 10 / FAT, which would surely be much faster for Nick if he can do 10.4 for the entire thing.

kanny wrote:

He did said that he could run 10.4 / 10.5 on the fly with not much trouble. I wonder what his absolute max would be? 10.4 would mean 11.5 at best (I don't know of any who run their flying / FAT time at better than a .9 ratio - and it's only short people who get close for obvious reasons). He also did say if his life depended on it, so maybe it's the absolute theoretical yet plausible fastest.

Metric Miler wrote:

I don't wanna call Nick out on this, but he really wouldn't run 11.3. He might think he could, but 11.3 is a bit too fast. He even said 12.5, then said if he really had to he could run 1.2 seconds faster?!

This is like when Johnson said he could run UNDER 18s for the 200m. Athletes have confidence in themselves and that's great, but no.

I interpreted his 11.3 life depending on it quote to mean that if he had some distant competition with a few months to work on it he could get down toward's there. I.e. 11.3 with 100m training as opposed to 800m training.

Just read an article on Clayton Murphy running 11.84 FAT as a HS senior off of 800/mile training:

http://www.ohio.com/sports/zips/stuff-of-legends-the-day-clayton-murphy-ran-the-100-1.667402

Straight up stud.

Like most threads on LetsRun, many of the responses so far have been idiotic. Not only do they show a gross ignorance of the relevant physiology involved... some of the posts fail in rudimentary logic and violate the elementary principles of common sense. That being said, the base speed of distance runners and its effect on success in championship performance has been a particular interest of mine, so here we go...

First, lets make sure were understanding the facts properly - what we know, what we don't know. As Nick said in his post, this 100m was done at altitude, with a rolling start. We have no other information. We don't know if the flying 100m was done before a workout, during a workout, or after a workout. More importantly, we don't know anything about where Nick's current training cycle. That is to say, we have no context, and context is important here. Knowing the volume and intensity that Nick's body has been exposed to in the weeks leading up to this is, obviously, essential context. Trying to project someone's 100m ability from the scant information available is difficult, if not impossible.

We know that sprint times are, all other factors being equal, faster at altitude (decreased air density means decreased resistance and faster times). We also know that a flying start is obviously faster than starting out of blocks (I'm not going to waste time explaining why). Lastly, we can assume that Willis was in the midst of an intense training cycle, given that he just went up to altitude (you don't go there to rest and recover).

Nick Willis is one of the best 1500m runners on the planet. Most elite 1500m runners have an incredible combination of strength and speed. Most can run under 50 seconds in the 400m - in fact, in the current state of the sport, if a 1500m athlete cannot run that fast, I would say that they are likely barred from success on the world stage, as a matter of physiology. Nowadays, a 10,000m runner needs close to that kind of speed in order to medal at the Olympics. Willis has clocked a 50-point 400m at the end of a workout. Here is footage of Willis running a 35.8 for 300m (admittedly +/- a few tenths), which would be three consecutive 11.93 100m:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qq_0r2gvYY

Conclusion: there's not enough information available to make an accurate projection of Nick's 100m ability. But, Nick Willis is phenomenally fast for a 1500m runner. I think its reasonable to conclude that much. Critically, he can draw on that speed even when fatigued. We know this because... he won a silver medal at the Olympics.

I was going to post this vid but then saw you did it. He looks so relaxed going that fast. Looks like he is barely trying.

Bla, bla bla

From his 11.11 with a rolling start a lot of people of here have correctly assesed that he would be at least a second slower off the blocks......... Which is more than you have done - other than implied that he would be faster off his 300m +/ - a few tenths (and with a flying start)

He might be phenominally fast over 1500m but he is not know for having that great a finish even at that distance

Well aren't you a bag of fun?

What you said isn't true anyway, you can project his 100m ability to an extent, if you try.

For starters we know he isn't going to run 10 flat, for example. We know he won't run faster than 11 seconds either, if he can't break 11 with a moving start. We can assume he will run faster than his likely 400m pace ~ 12.2/12.3.

So his 100m ability lies somewhere between 12.2 and 11.11.

Seen as pro sprinters reaction time is in the region of 0.15 seconds, and Nick Willis is unlikely to have the reaction time matching that, but we will continue.

So now his true 100m ability lies between 11.26 and 12.3.

Then there is the question of how much time would he lose after reacting to the gun, clearing the blocks. It typically takes pro sprinters 0.3s to clear the blocks. I assume it will take Nick longer as he has far less power than a pro sprinter (he is skinny).

But even still, that means his 100m ability is between 11.56 and 12.3.

Now, the first 10m of acceleration will be another source of lost time compared to the rolling start. This is the most arbitrary part of this discussion and the source of most error.

For Usain Bolt, it takes him just under 2 seconds to clear the first 10m. Taking away our reaction and blocks clearing time this leaves ~ 1.55s. If Nick hit 0m at his top speed, and each 10m took 1.11s and we could say he would lose 0.44s from a blocks start (accelerating like Bolt but with Nick Willis top speed). This would give him a time of 12s. If Nick hit 0m at half his top speed (more likely), then he would lose 0.22 from a blocks start, giving 11.78. I realise how rough this is, but this is the purpose of discussion.

So, we can at least get his 100m estimate to between 11.78 and 12.3, which isn't bad. I think based on all the assumptions we have made, he will be closer to the 12.3 than the 11.78.

Also, Bolts best known flying start 100m is 8.5, his best 100m 9.58. For me, that is proof enough that Nick would struggle to break 12.

Either way, this isn't random guessing by any means.

Source used:

Ben L Wrong wrote:

Interesting. 11.2x ability? (from the blocks, in peak form, during the summer)

Nick Willis ‏@nickwillis 2 min

Altitude benefits more than just your endurance. I just shocked myself with a rolling start 100m PB - 11.11s

Sorry, this isn't that great. He's a world class runner, and can't break 11s on the fly for the 100m. He needs to work more power, certainly a weakness in his training.

Considering Ovett and Murphy's performances, 11-high FAT seems reasonable for Nick.

Metric Miler wrote:

Also, Bolts best known flying start 100m is 8.5, his best 100m 9.58. For me, that is proof enough that Nick would struggle to break 12.

That's because you don't know anything about proof or logic. When did Bolt run that flying 8.5? The rest of your post was mostly OK until you got here.