![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Awl --
100 m sprinters -- purely anaerobic, right? Do you think any of them include distance running at all, for "crosstraining" purposes? Distance = 1 mile. Does anyone know what people capable of a 10 sec 100m would run a mile in? How bout distance runners running the 100m? Intuition tells me that milers, even marathoners, would do better in the 100m than 100 m people would do in a mile -- cuz, well, they are already traversing 100 m. huyuk .. I don't think sprinters could even *complete* a marathon, proly not even close. If this is true, the vast asymmetry of the two camps is inneresting.... Opinions? -- EA |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() One of my running buddies went to the 400m hurdles olympic trials. He would hurdle trash cans on our training runs for kicks ![]() He could do mid 32's in the 10k on a good day, 33's on a bad day. Whenever I was with him near the end of a race, it was no contest ![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article
, John Hurley wrote: Why don't you find some good strong 100 meter runners and put some cash on the line and race them in a mile. I read somewhere that 10K was about the right distance for long distance runners and track runners to compete in. Longer distances would favor the LDRs and shorter distances would favor the TRs. I don't know how true that is, though. -- Michelle -- 26.2 Because I can |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A Sprinter is born and not made. Speed in the sprint events is a gift.
A Sprinter who trains for a mile race could conceivably master this event. Why? Because he would have the advantage of speed at the most critical moment, and that is during the finish. Conversely, a distance runner who does not posses the gift of speed, has little chance of ever succeeding in the sprint events. In my youth I was capable of a 10.4 second 100 yard dash. I ran cross country (a 2 & 1/2 mile event) in the off season and I was among the top five on the team. E.A. Williams |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "pithydoug" wrote One of my running buddies went to the 400m hurdles olympic trials. He would hurdle trash cans on our training runs for kicks ![]() He could do mid 32's in the 10k on a good day, 33's on a bad day. Whenever I was with him near the end of a race, it was no contest ![]() You kicked his ass?? ![]() I only beat him once in a 10k, he was hung over pretty bad and ran a high 33. Once we were together at mile 5 and he ran a 4:25 final mile on a downhill. He was like ... gone! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"jobs" wrote in message
... On 8/16/2010 10:07 AM, Existential Angst wrote: Awl -- 100 m sprinters -- purely anaerobic, right? Do you think any of them include distance running at all, for "crosstraining" purposes? Distance = 1 mile. Does anyone know what people capable of a 10 sec 100m would run a mile in? I'd think between 4:00-4:30. But, it's just conjecture. That's way too fast. Think of the decathlon, where strength is required for many of the events. They're not pure sprinters, but a comparison of decathlon records, representing good generalists with a tilt toward strength, illustrates the difficulty of strength athletes running that fast, and vice versa somewhat for the milers dropping down to the 100m. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decathlon 100m 10:22 1500m 3:58 Consider that it was the best decathlete sprinter and the best decathlete 1500 guy setting these times, and these weren't the same person. Also consider the world record holder's best times: 100m 10.64 1500m 4:22 I think most pure sprinters would be well over 4:30 in the mile (as are most decathletes) considering that you have to add at least 15? seconds because the mile is longer than the 1500. Since some milers are have great kicks, some might go under 11 seconds for 100m. You can be born with both good sprint speed and a big aerobic engine, but I think most top sprinters are much more specialized and would have very low relative VO2maxs, slowing them down dramatically in events over 400m. -Tony How bout distance runners running the 100m? Intuition tells me that milers, even marathoners, would do better in the "better" is a purely subjective term. E.g., sprinter with 9.87s and 4:19 vs miler with 11.05s and 3:58. Who is better? 100m than 100 m people would do in a mile -- cuz, well, they are already traversing 100 m.huyuk . I don't think sprinters could even *complete* a marathon, proly not even close. I know people that have "completed" marathons on mileages of 15-20 mpw. I'd guess sprinters probably do 15 mpw or more. I'll guess they can "complete" a marathon. If this is true, the vast asymmetry of the two camps is inneresting.... Opinions? The "asymmetry" arises because there are too many variables in the equation and all of them are subject to a subjective standard. Also, you're comparing speed vs distance. You're trying to see what a 100m sprinter could do at a distance that is 420 times his usual distance. Maybe you should use an equally large factor when trying to judge a marathoner's performance at 100m? jobs |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tony S." wrote in message
... "jobs" wrote in message ... On 8/16/2010 10:07 AM, Existential Angst wrote: Awl -- 100 m sprinters -- purely anaerobic, right? Do you think any of them include distance running at all, for "crosstraining" purposes? Distance = 1 mile. Does anyone know what people capable of a 10 sec 100m would run a mile in? I'd think between 4:00-4:30. But, it's just conjecture. That's way too fast. Think of the decathlon, where strength is required for many of the events. They're not pure sprinters, but a comparison of decathlon records, representing good generalists with a tilt toward strength, illustrates the difficulty of strength athletes running that fast, and vice versa somewhat for the milers dropping down to the 100m. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decathlon 100m 10:22 1500m 3:58 Consider that it was the best decathlete sprinter and the best decathlete 1500 guy setting these times, and these weren't the same person. Also consider the world record holder's best times: 100m 10.64 1500m 4:22 Dan Obrien at the 1996 Olympics (gold medal): 100m 10.5 1500m 4:46 I think most pure sprinters would be well over 4:30 in the mile (as are most decathletes) considering that you have to add at least 15? seconds because the mile is longer than the 1500. Since some milers are have great kicks, some might go under 11 seconds for 100m. You can be born with both good sprint speed and a big aerobic engine, but I think most top sprinters are much more specialized and would have very low relative VO2maxs, slowing them down dramatically in events over 400m. -Tony How bout distance runners running the 100m? Intuition tells me that milers, even marathoners, would do better in the "better" is a purely subjective term. E.g., sprinter with 9.87s and 4:19 vs miler with 11.05s and 3:58. Who is better? 100m than 100 m people would do in a mile -- cuz, well, they are already traversing 100 m.huyuk . I don't think sprinters could even *complete* a marathon, proly not even close. I know people that have "completed" marathons on mileages of 15-20 mpw. I'd guess sprinters probably do 15 mpw or more. I'll guess they can "complete" a marathon. If this is true, the vast asymmetry of the two camps is inneresting.... Opinions? The "asymmetry" arises because there are too many variables in the equation and all of them are subject to a subjective standard. Also, you're comparing speed vs distance. You're trying to see what a 100m sprinter could do at a distance that is 420 times his usual distance. Maybe you should use an equally large factor when trying to judge a marathoner's performance at 100m? jobs |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"jobs" wrote in message
... On 8/16/2010 10:07 AM, Existential Angst wrote: Awl -- 100 m sprinters -- purely anaerobic, right? Do you think any of them include distance running at all, for "crosstraining" purposes? Distance = 1 mile. Does anyone know what people capable of a 10 sec 100m would run a mile in? I'd think between 4:00-4:30. But, it's just conjecture. How bout distance runners running the 100m? Intuition tells me that milers, even marathoners, would do better in the "better" is a purely subjective term. E.g., sprinter with 9.87s and 4:19 vs miler with 11.05s and 3:58. Who is better? You could come up with some kind of scale, ito perhaps comparing "closeness" to records, %-wise, expressing a kind of "versatility". But, I was not so much instigating any bipedal dick-waving, as much as trying to ascertain "cross-over" effects of various specialties. What is amazing to me is that marathoners are *already* at a 5 min mile pace, so wittling that down to 4:00 would not seem to be that much of a stretch, for a single mile -- altho I do realize the "exponentiality" of efforts in shaving off seconds. Mebbe a more interesting way to pose the Q: At what distance would sprinters and marathoners have approx. equal times? Sprinters and milers? Milers and marathoners? Which I think some have alluded to. Someone mentioned sprinters putting in 15-20 mpw. That seems like an awful lot. -- EA 100m than 100 m people would do in a mile -- cuz, well, they are already traversing 100 m.huyuk . I don't think sprinters could even *complete* a marathon, proly not even close. I know people that have "completed" marathons on mileages of 15-20 mpw. I'd guess sprinters probably do 15 mpw or more. I'll guess they can "complete" a marathon. If this is true, the vast asymmetry of the two camps is inneresting.... Opinions? The "asymmetry" arises because there are too many variables in the equation and all of them are subject to a subjective standard. Also, you're comparing speed vs distance. You're trying to see what a 100m sprinter could do at a distance that is 420 times his usual distance. Maybe you should use an equally large factor when trying to judge a marathoner's performance at 100m? jobs |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John Hurley" wrote in message ... Tony: Does anyone know what people capable of a 10 sec 100m would run a mile in? I'd think between 4:00-4:30. But, it's just conjecture. That's way too fast. Think of the decathlon, where strength is required for many of the events. They're not pure sprinters, but a comparison of decathlon records, representing good generalists with a tilt toward strength, illustrates the difficulty of strength athletes running that fast, and vice versa somewhat for the milers dropping down to the 100m. Remember Tony that the question being posed is "people capable of a 10 sec 100m" ... I have to think that many of the top decathlon athletes are capable of going not just between 4 and 4:30 but under 4 minutes at times or at least on the very low end of the 4's ...for 1500. Looks like Robert Baker is at 3:58 ... for 1500 ... that puts decathletes at ( well the top ones ... like sprinters who can run 10 sec 100 meters ) at well into the low 4's. Jobs looks like you nailed it! The point I was making is that decathletes are less specialized, and not as fast at 100m as pure sprinters, and need good 400m and 1500m times to get the highest point total. So they should be able to run faster 1500m times than pure sprinters. But the fastest decathlete (who I could not find a 100m PR for) ran 1500m in 3:58, yes, but that's the equivalent of a ~4:15 mile, with the vast majority of decathletes running over 4:30 in competition, while their personal PRs might be slightly lower. So how does that support Jobs idea that pure sprinters can run a *mile* in close to 4 minutes? On the contrary, I think pure sprinters would be slower than decathletes, and I'd suspect none of them could run faster than the above referenced ~4:15 mile equivalent posted by the best decathlete 1500m runner, who was probably significantly slower than the fastest 100m decathlete in the 100m. I think this points to the best 100m runners being able to run perhaps up to 4:30 in some cases, but most of them are probably slower, even 5 minutes or more; e.g. slower than decathletes, as a comparison group. -Tony |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A Sprinter can be trained to excel at endurance races. The distance
runner who lacks inherent speed cannot excel in the sprints, regardless how hard he trains. Sprinters are born and not made. While endurance for distance races can be acquired through training, there is no training regimen that will turn the average runner into a world class sprinter. Can a world class miler win at the hundred? Without the gift of speed _ NO. E. A. Williams |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A School for Sprinters | Pat[_2_] | Swimming | 0 | December 16th 07 04:03 AM |
rec.running sprinters on video (me & donovan) | [email protected] | Running | 3 | May 9th 06 04:43 PM |
New to running, will have to run 1.5 mile in 9:00...need info | [email protected] | Running | 11 | May 11th 05 09:59 AM |
New to running, will have to run 1.5 mile in 9:00...need info | [email protected] | Running | 1 | May 9th 05 04:17 PM |
running the mile in PE class | Dan Carlino | Running | 17 | October 6th 04 05:42 AM |