Rudisha averages 12.61 per 100m. Could most people be trained to run 100m that fast?

Hardloper wrote:

Really? So developing strong fast-twitch muscles in the hamstrings and quads have NOTHING to do with it? It was obviously the "100m training" he did in high school?

What are you talking about? I didn't say "NOTHING". And I didn't say it was "obviously" the "100m training". You have some very poor reading comprehension.

But yes it's entirely possible that jumping ability has little to do with 100m ability. Swimmers develop strong hamstrings and quads too. Are they automatically good sprinters or distance runners? No.

It's rather well established that jumpers and sprinters have some crossover. Jesse Owens and Carl Lewis did both. You don't see anyone swimming and running the 100 meters so that's a bit silly. Pushing off a wall after a flip turn could help with your jumping and sprinting ability some though.

ksksi wrote:

But yes it's entirely possible that jumping ability has little to do with 100m ability. Swimmers develop strong hamstrings and quads too. Are they automatically good sprinters or distance runners? No.

How do you know that? It's entirely possible that a swimmer could be an exceptional sprinter, jumper or distance runner.

Hitmonlee wrote:

It's rather well established that jumpers and sprinters have some crossover. Jesse Owens and Carl Lewis did both. You don't see anyone swimming and running the 100 meters so that's a bit silly. Pushing off a wall after a flip turn could help with your jumping and sprinting ability some though.

Jesse Owens and Carl Lewis doing both does not mean that it's rather well-established that there is some crossover. And those two are irrelevant to what we were talking about. We are talking about high jumpers not long jumpers. Bringing those two up actually might go AGAINST your argument. Why didn't either of them automatically and easily excel at the high jump?

And yes I do see people swimming and sprinting/running all the time. It's not silly at all. It's directly related to the subject. All that leg power and that huge aerobic engine doesn't make swimmers good runners. There is no automatic crossover. Even more directly related athletes like Lance Armstrong don't automatically excel at running despite his success in cycling.

Never ran the 100, but I imagine my best would have been right around 12.6. I had some speed - I was normally the fastest kid on the playground - and I ran 55.9 and 2:03 in high school when I was put in the shorter events.

Since I estimate I could beat 97-98% of society at the shorter events, I would guess 2-3% could do it with training, tops. 12.6 isn't slow at all.

I think pretty much any able bodied 18-35 year old male should be able to do this. It's not that fast really.

Did you guys not see the guys trying to run Ryan Hall's MP?

ksksi wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Really? So developing strong fast-twitch muscles in the hamstrings and quads have NOTHING to do with it? It was obviously the "100m training" he did in high school?

What are you talking about? I didn't say "NOTHING". And I didn't say it was "obviously" the "100m training". You have some very poor reading comprehension.

True, you didn't say "NOTHING," you said it in lower case.

High jumping has nothing to do with 100m sprinting. The explosivity does not cross over to sprinting ability.

ksksi wrote:

Swimmers develop strong hamstrings and quads too. Are they automatically good sprinters or distance runners? No.

It usually makes them better than the average person, depending on what event they swam. It sure doesn't hurt.

Hardloper wrote:

It usually makes them better than the average person, depending on what event they swam. It sure doesn't hurt.

You're making things up. Where's the research that it usually makes them better than the average person and that it doesn't hurt?

SMJO wrote:

ksksi wrote:

But yes it's entirely possible that jumping ability has little to do with 100m ability. Swimmers develop strong hamstrings and quads too. Are they automatically good sprinters or distance runners? No.

How do you know that? It's entirely possible that a swimmer could be an exceptional sprinter, jumper or distance runner.

You're reading comprehension is horrible.

ksksi wrote:

SMJO wrote:

How do you know that? It's entirely possible that a swimmer could be an exceptional sprinter, jumper or distance runner.

You're reading comprehension is horrible.

My're comprehension is not.

an 800 guy wrote:

We are actually probably pretty similar: the IAAF tables gives a 25.98 200 as the equivalent for 12.68 (I've never competed at 100m)and your 400 is only 0.4 off mine. What are your 800/1500 times?

2:08 for the 800 and a slooooow 4:43 for the 1500. But then again, I consider myself as a 400/800 guy.

ksksi wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

It usually makes them better than the average person, depending on what event they swam. It sure doesn't hurt.

You're making things up. Where's the research that it usually makes them better than the average person and that it doesn't hurt?

Because if they're a swimmer, they aren't too fat, and have some muscle. My friends who were swimmers weren't all-star sprinters (some were okay) but they can outrun your average Joe and keep up on a 3 mile easy run. Have you seen an "average person" lately?

I'm a 400/800 guy. I've run 54/2:06 and I've gone 24.5 in the 200 and 11.high in the 100 from a standing start. 12.6 is not that fast.

Run Hard or Run Home wrote:

I'm a 400/800 guy. I've run 54/2:06 and I've gone 24.5 in the 200 and 11.high in the 100 from a standing start. 12.6 is not that fast.

No you are not a 400/800 guy. You are a mediocre sprinter.

11 high is pretty fast but you are terrible at anything over 100.

I'm a marathoner. Best of 2:53. 11.67 FAT from a froggy start and 24.93 in a sleet storm on a track with a hill on it. 12.61 is my first 100 of a marathon (and I'm usually about 27th at that point).

SMJO wrote:

Run Hard or Run Home wrote:

I'm a 400/800 guy. I've run 54/2:06 and I've gone 24.5 in the 200 and 11.high in the 100 from a standing start. 12.6 is not that fast.

No you are not a 400/800 guy. You are a mediocre sprinter.

11 high is pretty fast but you are terrible at anything over 100.

"From a standing start" means "I timed it myself" which means there was a reaction time of about -1.000 and the clock stopped about 5 meters short.

faster than dirt wrote:

I'm a marathoner. Best of 2:53. 11.67 FAT

I don't know why you consider yourself a marathoner. A 11.67 is way more impressive than a 2:53.