No Single Human has ever both 1. Run their Age in Seconds in a 400m and 2. Shot their Age in Strokes in 18 holes of Golf.

GREAT at stuff wrote:

theJeff wrote:

19:29, 6 (back before running)

14:11, 73

A handicap of 73 is like ... golfing in the 140s ... that suxs.

No single Human has ever both 1. Posted on Letsrun with a post like this and 2. had half a brain.

Prove me wrong.

73 wrote:

GREAT at stuff wrote:

14:11, 73

A handicap of 73 is like ... golfing in the 140s ... that suxs.

Well yeah, for most people that suxs. But not for me. I am GREAT at stuff!

Prove me wrong. wrote:

No single Human has ever both 1. Posted on Letsrun with a post like this and 2. had half a brain.

Prove me wrong.

Prove you wrong?!? Impossible! You are unquestionably CORRECT!

Interesting idea - but consider this. About 100 guys worldwide ran at or below their age in the 400 last year, according to masters rankings.com. Many thousands, of course, can do that in minutes for 10K. My goal is to do both in the same year. The sweet spot for this seems to be mid to late 60’s - at least that’s where most of the 400 guys are that can beat their age.

I think Bernard Lagat spends some time on the green. Maybe he could be the one?

theJeff wrote:

[quote]macdaddy wrote:

1. I believe a fair number of people are about golf and a fair number of people care about track.

4. The capitalized words are not random. Look up "How to Capitalize Titles". Better yet, ask your teacher after recess.

1) I also believe that a fair number of people care about golf and track. What I don't believe is that many people care about running their age in seconds or shooting their age in golf.

1a) Similar to people enjoying track and juggling. No one has ever both a) run their age in seconds for 100m and b) juggled their age in balls. Whoop de doo!

4) Your title capitalization was fine - your issue comes in when you used the same capitalization for your description :)

Getting older by the day ... wrote:

Interesting idea - but consider this. About 100 guys worldwide ran at or below their age in the 400 last year, according to masters rankings.com. Many thousands, of course, can do that in minutes for 10K. My goal is to do both in the same year. The sweet spot for this seems to be mid to late 60’s - at least that’s where most of the 400 guys are that can beat their age.

To run your age - in minutes - in a 15k, a 70 year old would need to average 7:30s.

To run your age - in minutes - in a 20k, a 70 year old would need to average 5:37s, and a 75 year old would need to run 6:03s. No one has come closer than 8 minutes to running their age in a 20k, if my cursory glance is correct.

There you have it: the ultimate feat in distance racing longevity would be for someone to run their age in a 20k. Fwiw, men age 55-84 have "run their age" in a 10 miler. That also might be the closest running equivalent to "shooting your age" in golf: you have a limited window of time to accomplish it on both the young and old ends, and you need to be among - roughly - the top 1% of competitors in your age group to accomplish it. Not sure which is more impressive: running your age in a 400m or in a 20k. I would say the 400m, just because it is more relatable than the odd 20k distance. Surely it isn't a coincidence that roughly the same age window have accomplished both.

How has no-one mentioned speed golf yet? 2 birds with one stone, scores are usually like 140 or somethin, lets see someone break x2 their age ( to be reasonable). that would be impressive

macdaddy wrote:

theJeff wrote:

[quote]macdaddy wrote:

1. I believe a fair number of people are about golf and a fair number of people care about track.

4. The capitalized words are not random. Look up "How to Capitalize Titles". Better yet, ask your teacher after recess.

1) I also believe that a fair number of people care about golf and track. What I don't believe is that many people care about running their age in seconds or shooting their age in golf.

1a) Similar to people enjoying track and juggling. No one has ever both a) run their age in seconds for 100m and b) juggled their age in balls. Whoop de doo!

4) Your title capitalization was fine - your issue comes in when you used the same capitalization for your description :)

1. You are possibly right, if you change the "or" to "and". I assure you, there are a number of blue-hairs out there whose sole obsession is to shoot their age in golf before they die; I assume the same is true in the running world.

The connection is that golf and running are rare sports in which your goal is to get a low - not high - score. There simply aren't that many activities out there that it would even make sense to make the comparison.

4. Copy / paste :-)

I just did wrote:

How has no-one mentioned speed golf yet? 2 birds with one stone, scores are usually like 140 or somethin, lets see someone break x2 their age ( to be reasonable). that would be impressive

Speed golf your age over 9 holes. A 65 year old would need to shoot 36 - even par at your average course - in 29 minutes. That'd be legit.

For reference, I shot a 38 in 30 minutes in my late 20s when I was around a 6 hdcp and could prolly run a 23 minute 5k (that was before I began my nearly mediocre running career.)

Willis is a golfer and obviously fast in the 400, with longevity. He plays speedgolf somewhat seriously!

There is a great video of him playing speedgolf with Lagat, who could also have a good hope of running 50s at 50y.

Surely either of them can break 75 at 75 if they are alive, and stay fit and keep golfing.

I know who can wrote:

Willis is a golfer and obviously fast in the 400, with longevity. He plays speedgolf somewhat seriously!

There is a great video of him playing speedgolf with Lagat, who could also have a good hope of running 50s at 50y.

Surely either of them can break 75 at 75 if they are alive, and stay fit and keep golfing.

The lowest score in competition was shot by Mitch Williamson of Orange in New South Wales shot a score of 77 in an incredible time of 31 minutes, giving him a Speedgolf score of 108 at the Yarra Bend Golf Club in Melbourne hosted the Australian Speedgolf Open on 29 August 2016. This was not an official Guinness World record because Guinness was not onsite to validate it as a world record.

The official Guinness record was shot by professional Christopher Smith at the Chicago Speedgolf Classic at Jackson Park Golf Course on October 16, 2005. Smith shot 65 in just 44:06 while carrying six clubs for a speed golf score of 109:06.

So, a 55 year old playing at a world record level over 9 holes would play their age.

Hukk wrote:

I had a gentleman's bet with my dad that I would try to run my age in seconds before he could shoot his age in golf. He came closest, shooting 79 at age 75. He passed passed on to the Great Fairway in the Sky, while I still will struggle to run 65 when I turn 65....

⤴Well Fine job running 65 400@65yrs?!?!? Do you have a Sprinting background? If that 65 stat is true you would be the one to run 53sec 400@53yrs!

I lost to 55 year old this weekend over 400m at a masters event. He ran 56 something. I’m 38 but had a 800 and a 1500 in my legs already , that’s my excuse ! He’s gone sub 55 this season.

"Ivan Lend,l the former tennis great, is nearly 60 now and has a handicap of 0. Clearly still a fitness fanatic too. Could imagine him being able to do both in his 60's. "

Have you seen pictures of Lendl lately? He's got more than a few pounds around his middle. No way he can run sub 60 (let alone shot it).

Best Korea wrote:

Kim Jong Il accomplished both of these pedestrian feats before his 30th birthday.

What else you got?

I'm not disputing that he could have run 400m in under 30 seconds, but he's never made this claim, so it probably hasn't happened.

blort wrote:

"Ivan Lend,l the former tennis great, is nearly 60 now and has a handicap of 0. Clearly still a fitness fanatic too. Could imagine him being able to do both in his 60's. "

Have you seen pictures of Lendl lately? He's got more than a few pounds around his middle. No way he can run sub 60 (let alone shot it).

Had two hip replacements as well, apparently. So I guess we can rule him out.