Advantages of starting blocks in a 400m race?

I heard 1/2 second somewhere but I've no idea where or if it's true.

Comparing block start versus "distance runner lean start" depends on how fast you are running. If you are running 53, 54 range, I'd say blocks get you a tenth maybe. Running 65, 70, no advantage, or even maybe slower out of blocks. Running 44, 45, probably .3 to .4 advantage.

However, compared to a 3pt stance, I would predict much lower differences. A good 3 pt stance would be at most a tenth slower for a 44/45 second 400 runner. For a low 50s runner, probably less than a tenth difference. For 65/70s 400 times, no difference.

Predicting a half second difference is nonsense. A good sprinter could easily run within a half second of his 100m PR with just a standing start, so the 400m would be even less of a difference. The blocks only affect the first 3 to 4 strides off the line. Beyond this point, you'll be in the same position if you are properly accelerating regardless of how you started.

I ran the 400 in high school and false started once in the two point stance. I just kind of leaned too hard and my back foot came forward to catch my balance after the set command.

Others in the field had blocks.

I always used blocks for a 400 after that.

runnerdnerd wrote:

However, compared to a 3pt stance, I would predict much lower differences. A good 3 pt stance would be at most a tenth slower for a 44/45 second 400 runner. For a low 50s runner, probably less than a tenth difference. For 65/70s 400 times, no difference.

Can you point me to the rule that allows 3 point stance?

Why wouldn't a 3 point stance be allowed?

I had a teammate that put one hand down to start the 800.

The main reason to use blocks in 400 in most meets is by USATF and IAAF rules they are required in events of 400 and less. They are not required in high school, masters, and NCAA meets (but I think you would get an argument from many NCAA meet officials). You also look weird (read: not a real sprinter) not using them in sprint events.

Distance runners are almost always too weak to use blocks to advantage, and should use 3 point. Really, only sprinters have enough power to get an advantage from blocks, and if you don't practice technique every week and do weight or plyos, you should avoid them where legal.

Blocks and 3 point are actually prohibited in 800 and longer by the rules (you may only have two points of contact). We get around this by having 800 runners try 3 point touching the toes of the shoes and not the track with one hand, and this is faster for most than a standing start, particularly for those sprinting the first 60.

You may be able to see the difference here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz3kvTTsCHU

IAAF Rule 162.3 and .4:

USATF 162.7 and .8:

400 and under you have to use blocks. Over 400 you cannot use blocks.

Over 400 it has to be a start from a "standing position" and you can't touch the ground with your hand, so a 3-point start is out. I question whether a start where you rest your hand on your shoe is really a "standing position" even if your hand isn't in contact with the track.

NCAA Rule Rule 5, section 1:

So for individual races, the NCAA only permits blocks in races under 800. Your hand cannot touch the ground in races 500m or longer.

A couple of things:

1) I guess my teammate broke the NCAA rules by putting his hand on the ground for an 800. I think he stopped doing that after his freshman year and he did get as high as second at NCAA's

2) It seems like the thread was about open meets and high school races. You can choose not to use blocks in those meets

I spoke to the advantages of using blocks for a 400 and my response was to not lose balance before trying a quick start.

Why make blocks mandatory for the higher levels?

I guess someone just likes writing regulations.

So here's a theoretical question:

I assume you get the most bang for the buck from blocks the shorter the distance, so that the difference between a block start and no-block start would be a higher percentage at 100m vs. 400m.

My question is when does any advantage from blocks disappear?

I can't imagine that there would be any difference at 10000m and there would be a big difference at 100m. So at what point between 100 and 10000 do blocks stop making any difference? You would think it's between 400m and 800m since that's how the rules work, but is that really the case?

This was a d1 meet, not high school. He ran sub 47.5.

A Spectator wrote:

This was a d1 meet, not high school. He ran sub 47.5.

No matter. As I told you above, starting blocks are not required by NCAA rules.

If he had used blocks and knew how to use them, he might have been marginally faster but if he's not comfortable with blocks they might slow him down.

Theoretical Question wrote:

So here's a theoretical question:

I assume you get the most bang for the buck from blocks the shorter the distance, so that the difference between a block start and no-block start would be a higher percentage at 100m vs. 400m.

My question is when does any advantage from blocks disappear?

I can't imagine that there would be any difference at 10000m and there would be a big difference at 100m. So at what point between 100 and 10000 do blocks stop making any difference? You would think it's between 400m and 800m since that's how the rules work, but is that really the case?

At the 1956 Olympics, the 800m had a waterfall start with six of the eight runners choosing to use starting blocks and two runners standing.

The runners using blocks clearly get out much faster than the standing runners. The eventual winner, Tom Courtenay, gets the best start and inside position on the first turn.

At the 1964 Olympics 800m, the start was in staggered lanes and there were no blocks, but footage shows that Peter Snell did have both hands down in a sprinter's stance.

By 1968, everyone in the 800m was standing up at the start. So the rules probably changed in the interim. But the practical advantage would still be there if the rules allowed.