Has anyone run a 10.7 100m, and a 14:30 5k?

Good call until the 10.0 come off its that's ventolinesque.

Thanks. Yes, the 10.0 might appear a bit silly, I mean't to put 10.2. But I think people are misunderstanding what I meant. I didn't mean to say that a '10.7 in 1930s is the literal equivalent of 10.0 today. I simply meant the calibre of athete running 10.7 in the 1930s woud likely be running close to 10 second flat today, and that's largely true. 10.7 would have placed him 5th in the 1936 Olympic final. A 10.00 flat 100m would get you 6th in the 2016 final, and 5th in last year's London final.

The WR was 10.3 until 1936 and then lowered to 10.2 So the difference relative to the world record is roughly the same for Harbig in the 1930s and a 10 flat guy today. Also, I'm not sure but I think according to Said88s list, Harbig ran 10.6 at least once.

Anyway, the point is Harbig DID run 10.7 seconds which is the OP's criteria. The question we should be discussing is whether Harbig would likely be able to run 14:30 for 5000m if you brought the same athlete into the 21st century. Who was the last 1000m world record holder who wouldn't be able to break14:30 for 5000m?

Another way of comparing athletes of eras and their potential for such an elite 100/5000 double, is asking how many sprinters today can run 10.7 and how many 5000 runners can run 14:30. Let's say it's 1,000 for each event (I suspect the 14:30 might be a bit rarer than the 10.7).

Harbig was in the top 20 for 100m in his era. He was the best ever for 800 and 1000m. He was probably in the top 20 or so for the 1500m and certainly would have been (and probably top 5 or 10) if he had ran it more than just an early season one off training exercise. So it's absurd to believe he wouldn't be top 1000 in the 5000m.

The Czech decathalete Jan Podebradsky ran 10.7 and a 4:07 1500m (one of the top 10 fastest in a decathalon) so he might have been able to do it, although likely never ran a 5K.

Also the British former decathalete Dean Macey has a 100m pb of 10.69 and a best 1500m of 3:55. Again, doubt if he ever ran a 5K.

He was one of the most talented decathletes ever - shame he got badly injured when he was still only 23.

https://www.iaaf.org/athletes/great-britain-ni/dean-macey-169771

Coevett wrote:

RejectJogger wrote:

He's really not. He still runs at age 60 and can go 18 minutes in a 5k and has a sh*t ton of newspaper clippings and medals that prove him right. I know it sounds crazy but hes really done it

Isn't it a coincidence that somebody 'who works at your school' is one of the very few people in history to have done this (if in fact, he or anybody else has done it).

Andre Bucher has run 22.57 for the 200m and 14:06 for the 5000m.

But if a 1:42 800m guy who is one of the few athletes to have competed in both sprints and the 5K hasn't done it, then the answer is probably no.

I mean you dont gotta believe me

Mo Farah's last lap for one tactical race was a 50. He went 26 for the first 200m, then 24. His last 100 was handtimed at around 11.0. I think Mo Farah has a chance of running 10.7 considering he has a superior kick.

Beachboy wrote:

Mo Farah's last lap for one tactical race was a 50. He went 26 for the first 200m, then 24. His last 100 was handtimed at around 11.0. I think Mo Farah has a chance of running 10.7 considering he has a superior kick.

He ran 13 seconds plus off the blocks in a Superstars 100m.

Coevett wrote:

Andre Bucher has run 22.57 for the 200m and 14:06 for the 5000m.

But if a 1:42 800m guy who is one of the few athletes to have competed in both sprints and the 5K hasn't done it, then the answer is probably no.

Ovett ran a 21.7 200m and 13:20 for 5000m at different times in his career. The 200m was when he was a teen and focusing on

400m. It shows that with a bit of focus on the start, he could probably have run 10.7 ht for 100m. Certainly in his peak middle distance years (77-81) he could have run faster than 13:20 for 5k, but I doubt he still had simultaneous 21.7 200m (from a stationary start)speed, and certainly not 10.7 100m speed.

Coe, while not having a 5000m pb as fast as Ovett, did run 14:06 in 1980, so meets the upper end of the criteria. He also ran a 7:55 3000m in 81, so was certainly capable of 14mins for 5000m. He also ran 21.7 as the last rep of a series of 200m, and a 45.6 400m relay that year; from a stationary and stumbling start. I would suggest that in 81 Coe was capable of a 21 mid 200m from blocks at the peak of his season, and could have run way below 14:30 at any time. Based on what he could do over 200 and 400, he would have been close to a 10.7 for 100m from blocks. I'm sure if he was given a few weeks to practise in an attempt to run 10.7, he likely would have.

So while I think Coe was capable of 10.7 and 14:30 in 81, he still never actually did it. I can't imagine anyone has done it over the same season, although there have clearly been quite a few who could have come close over the course of a career.

Pretty sure Alan Webb blasted an 8 second 100 on the backstretch of that world champs 1500.

RejectJogger wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Isn't it a coincidence that somebody 'who works at your school' is one of the very few people in history to have done this (if in fact, he or anybody else has done it).

Andre Bucher has run 22.57 for the 200m and 14:06 for the 5000m.

But if a 1:42 800m guy who is one of the few athletes to have competed in both sprints and the 5K hasn't done it, then the answer is probably no.

I mean you dont gotta believe me

We don't. Give us his name and we'll look up the times if they exist (but they don't).

garth bale

any 800 guy that was OK at cross country and has a 45 x 400m.

joaquim cruz had a 10.8 as a teen? and is all time great in iK so he had a real shot, except no one would try to do it.

edwin moses might have a shot.

I have not read most of the thread but I would say Mark Everett in his prime would have had a good chance. He could have run 10.7 and 14:30 if he tried. He ran 44.59 and 1:43.20.

jiiaf wrote:

I have not read most of the thread but I would say Mark Everett in his prime would have had a good chance. He could have run 10.7 and 14:30 if he tried. He ran 44.59 and 1:43.20.

I disagree, another similar case is Emmanuel Korir and he only ran 33:35 for 10k XC, and 25:48 for 8k, that is not 14:30 equivalent at all

Brightest Stars burn the fastest wrote:

jiiaf wrote:

I have not read most of the thread but I would say Mark Everett in his prime would have had a good chance. He could have run 10.7 and 14:30 if he tried. He ran 44.59 and 1:43.20.

I disagree, another similar case is Emmanuel Korir and he only ran 33:35 for 10k XC, and 25:48 for 8k, that is not 14:30 equivalent at all

https://www.tfrrs.org/athletes/5991835/UTEP/Emmanuel_Korir.html

You need to understand that your use of equivalents is manifesting a lack of understanding of the subject. Equivalents are somewhat irrelevant. Nobody said these guys could run the equivalent of 14:30 at longer distances. The 14:30 is vastly inferior to the 1:43 and the 10000m would be much inferior to the 5000m. An athlete like this might be able to run 14:30 but only be able to run 32 minutes, for example. Again, it is not clear to me that these guys can easily do the 10.7 and 14:30 in the same week, but they could do both in the same year, for example, IF they had a damn good reason to.

mkd wrote:

I can think of a few 800 guys with that kind of speed...

Can imagine Rudisha, Kszczot and Alfred Kipketer managing that. Maybe Korir (although not sure of endurance). And possibly a 2013 Duane Solomon and/or prime Bekele?!

Brandon Johnson.

Xanax wrote:

thedub wrote:

I am having a heated discussion with my roommate. He is under the impression that it is IMPOSSIBLE to run a 10.7 100m and also be able to run a 14:30 5k.

I believe that someone with a 1:44 800 PR could accomplish both of these times.

With a good reaction time and block-training, a speed-oriented 1:44 guy should be able to go 10.7.

Unfortunately we don't really have any data points (i.e. a distance runner who has attempted a 200).

I'm not convinced that Rudisha could go under 14:30 without some distance-focused training.

hahahahahahhaha you are very high if you think rudisha couldn't run 13:50 with distance training

Boris Berian, Nijel Amos, and Abubaker “Dope Man” Kaki

All three have significant speed with solid endurance and strength backgrounds.

Berian trains with Big Bear where they do a lot of General training, and try to cover all bases so I have no doubt he could run a 14:30 5k in his best shape. He hasn’t run an open 400 in years, but he was quoted as saying he’s “run 45s in practice all the time”. If that’s the case he should definitely be sub 11 in the 100, although 10.7 may be a stretch.

Amos ran an 8:33 3k 8 years ago, when that was his primary event, not insanely impressive but he’s obviously improved since then. Running that pace for another 2k doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility. He’s also been training with OTC and I recall they tend to do a lot of 1500 and endurance based training , so that definitely shouldn’t be an issue. His 200 pr is 21.34 and his 400 is 45.5 and others can reference his 43x split at WCs a few years back if they want too. The point is, Amos obviously has the speed, he’s outkicked Rudisha in the past and closed 1:43 races in 26. I’d give him roughly a 10.8 with perfect conditions and out of blocks.

Kaki... well we all know Kaki.

" I simply meant the calibre of athete running 10.7 in the 1930s woud likely be running close to 10 second flat today, and that's largely true."

No, it's not. Like I said, it is worth 10.4 FAT, 10.3 FAT at best.

Your example of Olympic placements is mistaken due to greatly increased talent pool and participation today vs then. As an example, if I was transported back to 1932 I could have medalled in the 100, 200, LJ, DT, obviously the Deca, maybe even JT if I got a bit lucky. Today? LMAO

Again I don't know specifically about Harbig, but consider this: that era was woefully undifferentiated, considering that he was apparently top 20 in both the 100 and 1500, as you suggest. Can you imagine!

No distance runner is ever going 10.7, and no short sprinter is ever going 14:30

That leaves long sprinters and middle distance. In my experience the chance of a 200/400 sprinter going 10.7 is far greater than that of a 1500m runner going 10.7, which is almost zero. Likewise, the chance of a 1500m runner going 14:30 is far greater than that of a 200/400 sprinter going 14:30, which is almost zero.

So IMO we are left with athletes who are excellent maybe somewhere from 400-800m.

You can already see the change in body type between 400 and 800m athletes, 400m athletes being visibly more muscular and heavier, and possibly even significantly taller. Forget about a 14:30 guy, you would be insanely challenged to find even a good 800 guy who can go 10.7. As has been pointed out many times, Lewandowski DID NOT, it was a different guy named Lewandowicz.

Of course I'm talking 10.7 FAT, not a flying hand-timed 10.7 (which is hard enough).

10.7 is no joke.

14:30 is also no joke, you have to have trained to achieve that kind of time, and you have to be primarily aerobic. For 10.7 you have to be primarily anaerobic. You cannot be both simultaneously.

What I could see is an elite 800-type training a year in the 100m and going 10.7, then training another year and approaching 14:30. I have my doubts about whether they would achieve either.