Nick Willis Only has 50 400m speed???

If you run a time at the end of a workout, then of course you can run it faster fresh. Why is this even a question?

Clearly did not read the description of the post. And it does not surprise me that much. Geb has said he can only run 51ish. Willis' talent (and that of other elite milers) is in being able to close very near their top speed in a 1500m. If you think Willis could run 46 or 45 you need to re-evaluate your perspective on the nature of elite distance running.

dsfafasd wrote:

Clearly did not read the description of the post. And it does not surprise me that much. Geb has said he can only run 51ish. Willis' talent (and that of other elite milers) is in being able to close very near their top speed in a 1500m. If you think Willis could run 46 or 45 you need to re-evaluate your perspective on the nature of elite distance running.

No, I clearly read the post just fine. He said he ran it at the end of a workout. I never said he could run 45 or 46. You made that up all by yourself.

While Willis probably could go a bit faster if he just warmed up and actually raced an open 400 it isn't necessarily true that everyone will run faster just because they are "rested".

My PB is from a day when I had already raced three times.

Never could top that.

runslow wrote:

If you run a time at the end of a workout, then of course you can run it faster fresh. Why is this even a question?

You just made up that statistic in your head.

SMJO wrote:

While Willis probably could go a bit faster if he just warmed up and actually raced an open 400 it isn't necessarily true that everyone will run faster just because they are "rested".

My PB is from a day when I had already raced three times.

Never could top that.

Why are you even posting here? You're inventing an argument that no one else is even talking about. This is a clear example of your insanity. Twisting words to prove yourself right in an argument that no one else is even participating in. We're not talking about what you "will" run. We're talking about what you "could" run and you know it.

You have forgotten that you are already arguing with someone else on this thread...

An argument which you started.

Who is insane?

Willis's best 400m split was 48.6 in a relay and his best open was 50.07. He said that he felt that both were an accurate showing of his ability.

He was born to run the mile / 1500. His speed-endurance is world class and his efficiency at 57-60 seconds is what makes him so good. His form is efficient for the distance and he knows how to utilize his strengths. You will rarely see him go over the red line early in a 1500m / mile, but his staying power is pretty good once at top end and all out.

I had a long talk with Willis about speed in Boston this year.

We were talking about Rupp's speed and what not.

Willis basically said there is a big difference between one's 400 pb and their speed. Between what one can do with a standing start and what one can shift to in a workout.

Willis told me he's never broken 50 in a 400 but could split 47 in 4 x 400s regularly in Michigan. It just takes Willis a ton of energy to get going - hence his slow 400 pb. But Willis feels there is no need tow work on that as you do'nt ever sprint from a standing start in a distance race.

What does that have to do with Rupp? Well Salazar always talks about how Rupp is faster than Farah. Yes, from a standing start but that's irrelevant for a distance runner. What can you shift to.

Rupp and Farah work a lot on starts, weights, etc.

SMJO wrote:

You have forgotten that you are already arguing with someone else on this thread...

An argument which you started.

Who is insane?

Who is insane? Still just you. Here you are again making things up, or you can't read. How have I forgotten that I'm arguing with someone else when I clearly said "WE are talking about..."? Also, what does it matter that I started it (I didn't but let's pretend)? I never said that I didn't.

rojo wrote:

Willis told me he's never broken 50 in a 400 but could split 47 in 4 x 400s regularly in Michigan. It just takes Willis a ton of energy to get going - hence his slow 400 pb.

Are you really suggesting that a 4x400 relay split is ~3 seconds faster than an open split?

runslow wrote:

SMJO wrote:

You have forgotten that you are already arguing with someone else on this thread...

An argument which you started.

Who is insane?

Who is insane? Still just you. Here you are again making things up, or you can't read. How have I forgotten that I'm arguing with someone else when I clearly said "WE are talking about..."? Also, what does it matter that I started it (I didn't but let's pretend)? I never said that I didn't.

You need to go back and read what you wrote. Short term memory loss is common in the crazies.

Your use of the word "could" in your argument leads me to believe that you are in the same fantasy land as Ventolin.

SMJO wrote:

You need to go back and read what you wrote. Short term memory loss is common in the crazies.

Your use of the word "could" in your argument leads me to believe that you are in the same fantasy land as Ventolin.

Here we go. Just like Ventolin, you seem to not be able to stick to the points given to you nor do you answer any questions asked of you. Is your ego that fragile? Aren't you too old by now for such silly behavior? You're old enough to be a grandfather. Time to grow up.

I am not old enough to be a grandfather but I'm not sure what that has to do with countering an argument.

A grandfather tends to be more stubborn and set in their ways and even more likely to give a mouthy kid a swift kick in the ass.

My ego is not fragile at all.

Ignore SMJO.

He denies the laws of physics.

Ignore ventolin, he has many aliases.

rojo wrote:

Willis told me he's never broken 50 in a 400 but could split 47 in 4 x 400s regularly in Michigan. It just takes Willis a ton of energy to get going - hence his slow 400 pb. .

If you can split 47 then you can break 50 in a fresh open 400. shut up rojo

i have to agree

it is not possible to split 47+ & not break 50 in an open 400

either 1 or other or both figures have some error

logic indicates his 47+ may not been timed properly ( or took stick after 400 point ) or/& that 50-flat was not a fully rested, focused, peak shape 400 like he was preparing to run a 400 in zurich

dsfafasd wrote:Geb has said he can only run 51ish

your source ?

if true, it is big news

i have said for years the calculator says geb at his peak woud only have 50-high/51-flat speed, which is consistent with a 51+ in training which was unlikely to have been a fully rested focused effort like preparing to run 400 in zurich

it also offers evidence for calculator's view that peak kennster wouda been a 51+ guy as his speed wasn't as good as geb's

( geb was likely in 3'29+ shape when running 3'31i but kennster woud never have broken 3'30

( 3'32+ being best on circuit, but he was likely worth 3'30-mid/high at his peak ) )

this is all why i was shocked at mo's 50.8 in that slow 5k, which logic indicated had to be an open, rested 400 of 49-high/50-flat & from which calculator said indicated 3'28 ability, which took some believing for me

it really does indicate that mo wouda crushed peak geb/kennster on last lap of slow, tactical 5k/10k if they had all waited for the last lap...