i think the closest to a full sweep would be an 800 runner who would have a chance at winning the 100. I could totally see rudisha being able to run at least a 10.5 in his prime.. and I would also reckon hes got enough aerobic capacity to wreck house up until the 10k, which I think could be close. No chance in the marathon though.
No Rudisha could not have run 10.5. I am not sure you understand this sort of thing.
help us understand what he could have run then, sincerely what's your opinion and why?
i'm not saying he could have gone 10.5 for sure, but also don't know many 45.x 400 runners that aren't sub-21 in the 200 and there aren't many sub-21 200 runners that can't run 10.5
should also be noted that he ran these 45.x 400s (multiple seasons) as a rust-buster to get his season underway
No Rudisha could not have run 10.5. I am not sure you understand this sort of thing.
help us understand what he could have run then, sincerely what's your opinion and why?
i'm not saying he could have gone 10.5 for sure, but also don't know many 45.x 400 runners that aren't sub-21 in the 200 and there aren't many sub-21 200 runners that can't run 10.5
should also be noted that he ran these 45.x 400s (multiple seasons) as a rust-buster to get his season underway
Rudisha can absolutely not run 10.5. If he's very lucky, he miiight have been able to dip under 11 in his prime.
You can not extrapolate based on a 400m runner's 200m performances and then extrapolate again to look at 100m performances.
Good 800 runners can often run a solid 400, as we saw in Rudisha. They will run a relatively worse 200 than their 400. And their 100 is relatively worse than their 200.
It all comes down to the fact that people who are dedicated sprinters, practice accelerating from a standstill multiple times a week. A guy like Rudisha probably works on his starts a tiny bit or does a few reps from a standstill. And when he does work on his start, he only needs to get up to 24s/200m speed really.
help us understand what he could have run then, sincerely what's your opinion and why?
i'm not saying he could have gone 10.5 for sure, but also don't know many 45.x 400 runners that aren't sub-21 in the 200 and there aren't many sub-21 200 runners that can't run 10.5
should also be noted that he ran these 45.x 400s (multiple seasons) as a rust-buster to get his season underway
Rudisha can absolutely not run 10.5. If he's very lucky, he miiight have been able to dip under 11 in his prime.
You can not extrapolate based on a 400m runner's 200m performances and then extrapolate again to look at 100m performances.
Good 800 runners can often run a solid 400, as we saw in Rudisha. They will run a relatively worse 200 than their 400. And their 100 is relatively worse than their 200.
It all comes down to the fact that people who are dedicated sprinters, practice accelerating from a standstill multiple times a week. A guy like Rudisha probably works on his starts a tiny bit or does a few reps from a standstill. And when he does work on his start, he only needs to get up to 24s/200m speed really.
I have nothing but respect for Rudisha, 800m king. But watch this video. He's unexpectedly very clumsy out of the blocks and looks extremely awkward in the set position. He's slow to react. Everyone immediately gaps him. It's a relatively weak field and of course his insane strength and efficiency pulls him along to almost a victory.
The 800m is about as different from the 100m as the 800m is different from the marathon. Thinking a non-sprinter can be remotely competitive in sprinting events that far from their specialty is like thinking Rudisha would be a great marathoner, after all, he can run 1:41, so he should easily be able to run a 3:30 1500, right? And if you can run 3:30, then why can't you run a sub 13:00 in 5,000m? And sub 13, well easily sub 28. And if you're running sub 28, you have no reason not to run a 2:05 marathon. See how absurd that sounds?
help us understand what he could have run then, sincerely what's your opinion and why?
i'm not saying he could have gone 10.5 for sure, but also don't know many 45.x 400 runners that aren't sub-21 in the 200 and there aren't many sub-21 200 runners that can't run 10.5
should also be noted that he ran these 45.x 400s (multiple seasons) as a rust-buster to get his season underway
Rudisha can absolutely not run 10.5. If he's very lucky, he miiight have been able to dip under 11 in his prime.
You can not extrapolate based on a 400m runner's 200m performances and then extrapolate again to look at 100m performances.
Good 800 runners can often run a solid 400, as we saw in Rudisha. They will run a relatively worse 200 than their 400. And their 100 is relatively worse than their 200.
It all comes down to the fact that people who are dedicated sprinters, practice accelerating from a standstill multiple times a week. A guy like Rudisha probably works on his starts a tiny bit or does a few reps from a standstill. And when he does work on his start, he only needs to get up to 24s/200m speed really.
i get we aren't going to change each other's minds on this one
but i'm curious, what do you think the slowest 100m time is realistically for someone that has run a 21.34 200?
As much as a lot of people here have a running bias, there is no way any of the top MD guys (or Rai Benjamin) win more female events than the decathletes do. Even Warholm who came from the Decathlon - we are assuming they are coming from their current states of fitness/competence right?
Yeah Jakob wins everything from 800 to the Marathon pretty easily. Maybe he wins the 400 (but not sure if he runs much faster than high 48's out of blocks so possibly not). Hocker also close - I think he has more power out of the blocks for the 400m but can he win the Marathon? Maybe. Either way that's what 7 events max? (4,8,15,3kS,5,10,Mar).
If we looks at Pierce LePage the current world champ in the Decath, he is winning the 1,2,4,100h,400h on the track (remember these hurdles are so low compared to what he runs in the 110 and he's also a 46.8 400m flat guy) and winning the LJ, Shot, Disc, Javelin (the womens implements are considerably less weight then the mens - the shotput is 4kg vs 7.26kg!!! alone) and PV. He's probably winning the HJ even though his PR is now 1 cm behind the recent WR and he's probably winning the TJ just based on his LJ ability (he's jumped 14.14 but as it's not a Dec event it's doubtful he's anywhere near his potential. Hammer throw probably takes a few years of technique work so lets give the ladies this one.
So by my count that is at least 10 absolute locks, and most probably 12 in this hypothetical scenario. The skinny MD boys go home devastated.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Fred kerley could easily triple in the 100 200 and 400, but gets blown out by keely in the 800
Jakob could crush the 800 1500 and 5k but probably loses to chebet in the 10k. Same thing with 400m if he went down.
A rudisha type wins 800 400 and has a chance at 200 and 100 but probably gets beat by ETH or shacarrie.
Could any male win 4 or 5 golds as a female in an olympics? Who has best shot?
Thoughts?
Are You out of Your mind, Jakob Ingebrigsten Could beat ANY WOMAN at 10k or Steeple or Marathon even the 400 what have the Woman ran this year High 48?
Any shot putter would shot Jakob farther than Jakob would shot the actual damn weight.
The real answer is that any dude that qualified to Oly in decathlon would be the one winning more medals in women events (basically anything from 800 m and below, plus all field events).
Rudisha can absolutely not run 10.5. If he's very lucky, he miiight have been able to dip under 11 in his prime.
You can not extrapolate based on a 400m runner's 200m performances and then extrapolate again to look at 100m performances.
Good 800 runners can often run a solid 400, as we saw in Rudisha. They will run a relatively worse 200 than their 400. And their 100 is relatively worse than their 200.
It all comes down to the fact that people who are dedicated sprinters, practice accelerating from a standstill multiple times a week. A guy like Rudisha probably works on his starts a tiny bit or does a few reps from a standstill. And when he does work on his start, he only needs to get up to 24s/200m speed really.
i get we aren't going to change each other's minds on this one
but i'm curious, what do you think the slowest 100m time is realistically for someone that has run a 21.34 200?
Where did 21.34 come from? I genuinely have no idea.
If someone can run 21.34, at the very slowest, they can be somewhere around 10.6-10.8 would be my guess.
I've witnessed kids be very bad out of the blocks dip under 22 with a 100m PR right around 11 flat. A very, very strength oriented guy, like a super lanky 800m runner, who's probably worse out of the blocks than 99% of good high school sprinters, could run sub 22 with a slightly worse 100m PR than that.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.