That 48.7 split was the last of four events of pacing that day for Hocker, so it's fair to say that he can run 47.
No it is not. Read what the posters above have been saying. A 47.xx open 400m is an entirely different realm than splitting 48s or closing a 5k in 52.
Just because a distance athlete has good speed reserve and endurance doesn't mean they can run faster in an open sprint race. ENDURANCE NEVER CREATES SPEED.
I've heard, "Speed can create endurance, but endurance can never create speed," when discussing long sprints and middle distance.
I think 47-low is realistic for Hocker with a little bit of 400 specific training. Right now, probably 48-low in an all out 400. I think the better discussion for his "kick" is what is 100 or 200 time is. Everybody's kick is about 150 or so out with 300-400 ramping up to that. I think Hocker is sub-11 in an all-out 100 (Mondo ran 10.37 and Warholm ran 10.47, and Hocker shouldn't be very far off from either of them) and certainly 22-low in a 200.
I think Hocker is sub-11 in an all-out 100 (Mondo ran 10.37 and Warholm ran 10.47, and Hocker shouldn't be very far off from either of them) and certainly 22-low in a 200.
lmao absolutely not
He's barely under 12. If he ran 22 low he would easily run 46 in an open 400.
Ok, so we're saying that Cole can kick at 51.x sec in a 1500 or 5000 race (yes, his latest kick was 52.x but that was mostly in lane 2 right?) but he couldn't run 47.x in a 400?
Yes, this gets covered ad nauseam here. Trying to compare sprint speed to distance runner speed is apples to oranges.
The first issue is the start. A flying start does wonders for a distance runner. Out of the blocks, a sprinter had already gained ~1s advantage over the distance runner because the distance runner has zero acceleration abilities.
Nick Symmonds was way faster, pure speed wise, than Hocker. He recorded a 47.x open 400m. Most of the elite 800 guys right now will run 45–47s for an open 400. Some might dip into the 44s and some maybe cap out at 48. If Hocker had 47 speed, he'd easily be running 1:43s and 1:42s.
I don't believe this to be the case. Symmonds was actually quite "slow" for an 800 runner and was on the extreme end of being an endurance-type 800 runner, running very successfully at 1,500 as well. Hocker has tremendous pure athletic ability before you get into his endurance capabilities. At worst, he is the same speed as Symmonds (47-low) and I think he is a little faster than prime Symmonds.
Yes, this gets covered ad nauseam here. Trying to compare sprint speed to distance runner speed is apples to oranges.
The first issue is the start. A flying start does wonders for a distance runner. Out of the blocks, a sprinter had already gained ~1s advantage over the distance runner because the distance runner has zero acceleration abilities.
Nick Symmonds was way faster, pure speed wise, than Hocker. He recorded a 47.x open 400m. Most of the elite 800 guys right now will run 45–47s for an open 400. Some might dip into the 44s and some maybe cap out at 48. If Hocker had 47 speed, he'd easily be running 1:43s and 1:42s.
I don't believe this to be the case. Symmonds was actually quite "slow" for an 800 runner and was on the extreme end of being an endurance-type 800 runner, running very successfully at 1,500 as well. Hocker has tremendous pure athletic ability before you get into his endurance capabilities. At worst, he is the same speed as Symmonds (47-low) and I think he is a little faster than prime Symmonds.
You think Symmonds was slower than Hocker in a sprint? IDK how much crack you smoked to come to that conclusion. An OG 800 finalist, a 1:42 man pre all the new drugs and bicarb and spikes and stuff? That's just nonsense. Why isn't Hocker running 1:42s then?
I think Hocker is sub-11 in an all-out 100 (Mondo ran 10.37 and Warholm ran 10.47, and Hocker shouldn't be very far off from either of them) and certainly 22-low in a 200.
lmao absolutely not
He's barely under 12. If he ran 22 low he would easily run 46 in an open 400.
I guarantee you he has never done the specific speed endurance workouts to convert his time from 100 or 200 into a good 400. It's a very specific type of fitness to run a good 400. Running a 100 or 200 just takes fitness he already has (speed). I can guarantee he would be a sub-11 100 guy. I ran 11-low and was still only a 49-high and 1:50-high runner. Speed is speed, and can present itself in the 100 or 200. Hocker has that.
Per the World Athletics scoring tables, an 11-flat 100 is 886 points. That's equivalent to a 22.29 200, a 49.54 400, and a 1:55.1 800 (each of these thresholds are effectively world-class female athlete times). He absolutely can break 11-flat in the 100.
I think Hocker is sub-11 in an all-out 100 (Mondo ran 10.37 and Warholm ran 10.47, and Hocker shouldn't be very far off from either of them) and certainly 22-low in a 200.
lmao absolutely not
He's barely under 12. If he ran 22 low he would easily run 46 in an open 400.
Sorry, 46 mid-47 mid would be my estimate for Hocker with a 22 low.
I don't believe this to be the case. Symmonds was actually quite "slow" for an 800 runner and was on the extreme end of being an endurance-type 800 runner, running very successfully at 1,500 as well. Hocker has tremendous pure athletic ability before you get into his endurance capabilities. At worst, he is the same speed as Symmonds (47-low) and I think he is a little faster than prime Symmonds.
You think Symmonds was slower than Hocker in a sprint? IDK how much crack you smoked to come to that conclusion. An OG 800 finalist, a 1:42 man pre all the new drugs and bicarb and spikes and stuff? That's just nonsense. Why isn't Hocker running 1:42s then?
Because Hocker isn't an 800 meter runner and has never specifically trained for it? Hocker is 2.21 seconds slower than Symmonds at 800 but 7.80 seconds faster than Symmonds at 1,500. They're just different types of fitness, and Hocker is the more talented between the two of them.
I guarantee you he has never done the specific speed endurance workouts to convert his time from 100 or 200 into a good 400. It's a very specific type of fitness to run a good 400. Running a 100 or 200 just takes fitness he already has (speed). I can guarantee he would be a sub-11 100 guy. I ran 11-low and was still only a 49-high and 1:50-high runner. Speed is speed, and can present itself in the 100 or 200. Hocker has that.
Per the World Athletics scoring tables, an 11-flat 100 is 886 points. That's equivalent to a 22.29 200, a 49.54 400, and a 1:55.1 800 (each of these thresholds are effectively world-class female athlete times). He absolutely can break 11-flat in the 100.
None of what you're saying makes sense.
David Rudisha would have been extremely lucky to break 11 for a 100m. You think Hocker is faster than Rudisha?
Comparing WA points from 100/200/400/800 makes zero sense. Those are equivalent performances, not some scalable metric. Bridging the gap in performances from 400 to 800 is far from linear, things change once the aerobic system kicks in.
You think Symmonds was slower than Hocker in a sprint? IDK how much crack you smoked to come to that conclusion. An OG 800 finalist, a 1:42 man pre all the new drugs and bicarb and spikes and stuff? That's just nonsense. Why isn't Hocker running 1:42s then?
Because Hocker isn't an 800 meter runner and has never specifically trained for it? Hocker is 2.21 seconds slower than Symmonds at 800 but 7.80 seconds faster than Symmonds at 1,500. They're just different types of fitness, and Hocker is the more talented between the two of them.
So Hocker beats Symmonds in a 400. Loses the 800. Then wins the 1500. Is that what you're saying? That's not how running works lmao.
Ok, so we're saying that Cole can kick at 51.x sec in a 1500 or 5000 race (yes, his latest kick was 52.x but that was mostly in lane 2 right?) but he couldn't run 47.x in a 400?
Yes, this gets covered ad nauseam here. Trying to compare sprint speed to distance runner speed is apples to oranges.
The first issue is the start. A flying start does wonders for a distance runner. Out of the blocks, a sprinter had already gained ~1s advantage over the distance runner because the distance runner has zero acceleration abilities.
Nick Symmonds was way faster, pure speed wise, than Hocker. He recorded a 47.x open 400m. Most of the elite 800 guys right now will run 45–47s for an open 400. Some might dip into the 44s and some maybe cap out at 48. If Hocker had 47 speed, he'd easily be running 1:43s and 1:42s.
case in point, Wakeman's 400m PR is 48, and he's a 1:43 guy. I agree with Hocker's strength, he could easily be a 1:42 guy with a 47 speed, wouldn't be surprised with a 1:41 high even.
Hocker posted he ran a 49 in training. Apparently he's satisfied with it or he wouldn't have posted it. I guess 48- 49 is about right, when we're talking about block-start.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
I guarantee you he has never done the specific speed endurance workouts to convert his time from 100 or 200 into a good 400. It's a very specific type of fitness to run a good 400. Running a 100 or 200 just takes fitness he already has (speed). I can guarantee he would be a sub-11 100 guy. I ran 11-low and was still only a 49-high and 1:50-high runner. Speed is speed, and can present itself in the 100 or 200. Hocker has that.
Per the World Athletics scoring tables, an 11-flat 100 is 886 points. That's equivalent to a 22.29 200, a 49.54 400, and a 1:55.1 800 (each of these thresholds are effectively world-class female athlete times). He absolutely can break 11-flat in the 100.
None of what you're saying makes sense.
David Rudisha would have been extremely lucky to break 11 for a 100m. You think Hocker is faster than Rudisha?
Comparing WA points from 100/200/400/800 makes zero sense. Those are equivalent performances, not some scalable metric. Bridging the gap in performances from 400 to 800 is far from linear, things change once the aerobic system kicks in.
Rudisha would have been 10-low in the 100 depending on how good his block start was. He was fast as sh** You seriously think he would lose to freaking Mondo in a 100?
Because Hocker isn't an 800 meter runner and has never specifically trained for it? Hocker is 2.21 seconds slower than Symmonds at 800 but 7.80 seconds faster than Symmonds at 1,500. They're just different types of fitness, and Hocker is the more talented between the two of them.
So Hocker beats Symmonds in a 400. Loses the 800. Then wins the 1500. Is that what you're saying? That's not how running works lmao.
Symmonds would win at 400 and 800 because he has better speed endurance. I would take Hocker at 100 and 200 over Symmonds because he has better pure speed.
You think Symmonds was slower than Hocker in a sprint? IDK how much crack you smoked to come to that conclusion. An OG 800 finalist, a 1:42 man pre all the new drugs and bicarb and spikes and stuff? That's just nonsense. Why isn't Hocker running 1:42s then?
Because Hocker isn't an 800 meter runner and has never specifically trained for it? Hocker is 2.21 seconds slower than Symmonds at 800 but 7.80 seconds faster than Symmonds at 1,500. They're just different types of fitness, and Hocker is the more talented between the two of them.
Dude, you lost all credibility with the "Hocker wouldn't be far off Mondo's 10.37 or Warholm's 10.47" in the 100. That's so laughably absurd that you should take the L and move on. Like others have said, there's not a chance in hell that Hocker could run sub-11.0 in a 100.
David Rudisha would have been extremely lucky to break 11 for a 100m. You think Hocker is faster than Rudisha?
Comparing WA points from 100/200/400/800 makes zero sense. Those are equivalent performances, not some scalable metric. Bridging the gap in performances from 400 to 800 is far from linear, things change once the aerobic system kicks in.
Rudisha would have been 10-low in the 100 depending on how good his block start was. He was fast as sh** You seriously think he would lose to freaking Mondo in a 100?
Yes, this gets covered ad nauseam here. Trying to compare sprint speed to distance runner speed is apples to oranges.
The first issue is the start. A flying start does wonders for a distance runner. Out of the blocks, a sprinter had already gained ~1s advantage over the distance runner because the distance runner has zero acceleration abilities.
Nick Symmonds was way faster, pure speed wise, than Hocker. He recorded a 47.x open 400m. Most of the elite 800 guys right now will run 45–47s for an open 400. Some might dip into the 44s and some maybe cap out at 48. If Hocker had 47 speed, he'd easily be running 1:43s and 1:42s.
case in point, Wakeman's 400m PR is 48, and he's a 1:43 guy. I agree with Hocker's strength, he could easily be a 1:42 guy with a 47 speed, wouldn't be surprised with a 1:41 high even.
Hocker posted he ran a 49 in training. Apparently he's satisfied with it or he wouldn't have posted it. I guess 48- 49 is about right, when we're talking about block-start.
This wasn't an all-out 400. It was a 400 as fast as possible without getting up on his toes and sprinting. Jakob runs these all the time for 300s as well. There's a little extra there if that's the entirety of the race he was running.
This thread reminds me of how people speculate Mo Farah and Bekele could've run 11-flat in the 100m, when Mo got dusted by two heavy-weight boxers in the superstar 100m.
David Rudisha would have been extremely lucky to break 11 for a 100m. You think Hocker is faster than Rudisha?
Comparing WA points from 100/200/400/800 makes zero sense. Those are equivalent performances, not some scalable metric. Bridging the gap in performances from 400 to 800 is far from linear, things change once the aerobic system kicks in.
Rudisha would have been 10-low in the 100 depending on how good his block start was. He was fast as sh** You seriously think he would lose to freaking Mondo in a 100?
10-low???!!! LOLOLOLOL. My god, do you do stand-up shows?
Go read the posts about how non-sprinters wildly overestimate sprint times. You are Exhibit A.
Because Hocker isn't an 800 meter runner and has never specifically trained for it? Hocker is 2.21 seconds slower than Symmonds at 800 but 7.80 seconds faster than Symmonds at 1,500. They're just different types of fitness, and Hocker is the more talented between the two of them.
Dude, you lost all credibility with the "Hocker wouldn't be far off Mondo's 10.37 or Warholm's 10.47" in the 100. That's so laughably absurd that you should take the L and move on. Like others have said, there's not a chance in hell that Hocker could run sub-11.0 in a 100.
lmao...If hocker could run sub-11, he would be running 3:23 and 12:20 in the 5k.