Distance runners with sub-50 400m speed?

I agree with the basic premise of the thread. But one "problem" in this discussion is that, generally speaking, most high school coaches are not thinking about developing future Olympians, they are thinking about winning track meets. Depending upon the school and the league, the guy with a 49.x 400 can likely score pretty well in several events--maybe the 200, 400, and 2 relays, or maybe drop a relay and pick up the 100 or LJ. Move that kid up to the mile and maybe he doubles with one other distance event most meets. And again, depending upon the strength of the league, his winning the mile by a second or 30 seconds is the same points for the team. So unless you luck into having an Alan Webb, there's little incentive for the coach to track his sub-50 guys to distance.

Grand Prix mile final in around 1998, he ran a 50.x to close out a 4:04 mile but was beaten in the final 5 meters because he eased up slightly. He looked amazingly relaxed at that pace but was clearly close to all out. As for the fastest women...take a look at this-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltq12LTARtw

~56ish last lap

To be competitive at 1500 at the very top levels, you need to be able to run 3:30 and be able to kick in 51-52 in a slow race. To run 3:30, you need to run 1:43-1:44 for 800. To run 1:43-1:44 for 800, you need sub 49 400m speed. If you can't break 54 for 400m, you have 3 options:

1)train for speed more (weights, hills, sprints, pylos), the Ethiopians have the best kicks because they do short hill sprints, pylos, and finish many workouts with 50-60m sprints. If you don't train for speed you won't have any.

2a) bump up the volume and move to the marathon

2b)get a great publicist and run ultras

3)become a cross country specialist

because you will never win at the highest levels on the track.

gamecock wrote:

I agree with the basic premise of the thread. But one "problem" in this discussion is that, generally speaking, most high school coaches are not thinking about developing future Olympians, they are thinking about winning track meets. Depending upon the school and the league, the guy with a 49.x 400 can likely score pretty well in several events--maybe the 200, 400, and 2 relays, or maybe drop a relay and pick up the 100 or LJ. Move that kid up to the mile and maybe he doubles with one other distance event most meets. And again, depending upon the strength of the league, his winning the mile by a second or 30 seconds is the same points for the team. So unless you luck into having an Alan Webb, there's little incentive for the coach to track his sub-50 guys to distance.

Great point. I don't think it's a problem for this discussion, so much as it is the problem that prompted the question in the first place. Whenever a solid athlete with good speed is 'found' in the U.S., the football coach gets first dibs. Out of 100 kids that have 48-50 second 400m speed, 80 of them will play American football, 10 of them will play football, and 10 will play Halo. Okay, that's being overly dramatic. Probably 40 of those will run track as well, as long as it's okay with the football coach, and you can almost guarantee that of the 40, zero will be encouraged to run any event longer than 400m, and one or two might decide on their own to try an 800 or 1600. Paul McMullen is probably the best example I can think of for this situation.

And with Alan Webb, his coach had a particularly unique thought process among high school coaches, in that he developed the athlete as opposed to 'used' the athlete. If the entire U.S. development process was changed from the ground up to focus on the athlete, my initial question would be irrelevant! The 50 second kids with distance potential would be sorted from the 50 second kids with sprint potential, and we'd have ridiculous depth at 800m-10000m like we do in the sprints.

Good points. It's important to recognize that I'm not suggesting that we start taking 45 second 400m runners and high-21 200m guys away from the sprints and get them running 100 miles a week. Best case scenario there would create a 14:00 5k runner with an absolutely DEVASTATING kick! I'm just saying that, in the middle ground, if we gave as many athletes over to distance training as we do to sprint training, would we end up with a situation like Kenya and Ethiopia, where we have a great depth of edge of the bell curve athletes that also have great finishing speed, a trait that many of us on LetsRun moan about our athletes lacking?

just sayin wrote:

As a developing runner in the United States, you will ALWAYS be encouraged to race the shortest distance that your natural speed will allow.

Well, very often, but not absolutely *always*. Two counter-examples:

1) When Stanley Floyd (10.07 100m) went out for track in high school, he was put into the longer events because his older brothers (same high school) had all run distance or mid. And he sucked. It wasn't until partway through his soph year that he ran against his team's sprint coach in a 100y fun-run and ran 9.9, which took him out of the distances for good.

2) When I took over the women's program at a college in Upstate NY, one of the runners was a junior who had spent her career in the distances. She ran cross and usually the 5,000 in track, neither particularly well.

In the early part of the indoor track season, just to get a sense of the talent I had, I timed everybody in a flying 20m. This woman turned out to be the fastest on the whole team, including the sprinters. That year she was all-East in the 600m, and the next year she was part of a 4x100 that qualified for Nationals.

The interesting thing to me was that both Floyd and my athlete were black--people who in most programs (but not theirs!) would have been stereotyped into the sprints anyway.

Here's a nice article on Floyd, by the way, from back when Sports Illustrated covered track:

lease wrote:

just sayin wrote:

As a developing runner in the United States, you will ALWAYS be encouraged to race the shortest distance that your natural speed will allow.

Well, very often, but not absolutely *always*. Two counter-examples:

My gambit worked! Making absolutist statements on LetsRun is a surefire way to bring out the experts. Thanks for the info...very interesting article on Floyd.

Now, how about an opinion on my question? Would distance training large numbers of sub-50 second 400m capable runners result in increased depth of world-class 5000m/10000m runners in the U.S.?

Guppy wrote:

on the runs wrote:

Can you site a race of even moderate pace in which El Guerrouj ran the last 400m in 51 seconds? El Guerrouj was known for his long, sustained drive over the final 600m, and I can't remember him ever running inside 53sec for the last 400m.

How about the 2004 Olympic 1500m? He closed in 51.9 after a 53.x 3rd lap.

No, they ran 60 and 61 for the first two laps. That's almost 5000m pace for El Guerrouj.

I know El Guerrouj can run 50 or 51 off of a slow pace but typically in his races he'd have a reliable rabbit, taking him through 800m in 1:50-1:54 and trying to keep that pace to 1200m (usually 2:50 or so, though as quick as 2:44 once). In those races (of which there were many) he couldn't run 51 for the last 400m. He'd most often run the shit out of everyone over the last 600m and very few could keep up with him.

Most of it depends on build.

If you have a 22/47 guy who has has powerful hips, muscular arms/torso and big legs, he will possibly run a good 800, and maybe a decent 1500, but will probably not be world class at 5000+. Even if they are able to handle the higher volume, changing body type is difficult and slow, if not impossible. They would just have too much weight to carry around.

But if you have a guy running the same times who is much slimmer (think Ovett or Coe), then they will probably have a lot of success over the longer distances. They will be able to handle the higher volume better and are naturally better suited to the 800/1500, and maybe the 5000 after a while. Ovett ran a lot of events as a junior-the 100,200,400 as well as the 800 and mile, ending up about a 11.5/22/47 guy. Coe also ran about 22flat and 46ish.

This is probably why we get a lot of wishful posters hoping Jeremy Wariner would run an 800. A skinny 20.2/43.4 guy has the potential to do some damage at 800m.

It would be interesting to see what a guy like Wariner could do if he had the *desire* to be a good 800 runner. If he took the same attitude toward the 800 as he does to the 200 (i.e. doing this well will make me a better 400m runner), I think he could run a very respectable if not incredibly fast 800m.

I think what people dream about is a guy like Wariner training like Peter Snell for a few years. It would be completely improbable (and foolish) for someone like Wariner to take a risk like that though.

Although now that I think about it for a second, why couldn't Wariner, after age catches up with him and his 400s consistently slip into the low 45s, move up to the 800 (like a 1500 guy matures into the 5000)? I can't see it happening, but it would be interesting.

Canova has said that he doubts that even guys like Geb, Shaheen, and Bekele are sub 50 guys.

I dont know if I agree, but he\'s said it.

Russel Brown, runs (ran?) for stanford in the mile.

Back in NH though he won state titles in almost everything from 5k XC down to the 55m Dash. Granted he was small school but he kind of fit the mold of a Runner who had some crazy range.

It may have already been said but I feel like people who show any kind of potential in sprinting gravitate towards it because there is more chance for them in the US and more recognition. Nick Symmonds had said something like "It's amazing how we can have 6-7 of the top 400 runners in the world but go one event up and we have nobody"

Bekele and Geb are probably right around 50flat-Jos hermans said Geb ran a 49.9 time trial and bekele seems to have similar speed. They just have the ability to close out 5k/10k races very close to maximum speed-Bekele in particular.

just sayin wrote:

And with Alan Webb, his coach had a particularly unique thought process among high school coaches, in that he developed the athlete as opposed to 'used' the athlete. If the entire U.S. development process was changed from the ground up to focus on the athlete, my initial question would be irrelevant! The 50 second kids with distance potential would be sorted from the 50 second kids with sprint potential, and we'd have ridiculous depth at 800m-10000m like we do in the sprints.

That sounds good on letsrun, but isn't particularly practical. Imagine a HS or college football coach who saw his major goal being to develop potential NFL talent, rather than cobble together the kids he has into a winning team this year (and the next, and the next). That guy would be unemployed. Obviously, when a once-in-a-lifetime kid comes along (in any sport) you do what you can to help him reach his (or her) long-term potential, but still within the context of your team's and school's goals. Don't get me wrong--I'd love to see it work out that more "fast" kids find their way to distance. But that would require a major philosophical shift among coaches that's not likely anytime soon.

on the runs wrote:

Guppy wrote:

How about the 2004 Olympic 1500m? He closed in 51.9 after a 53.x 3rd lap.

No, they ran 60 and 61 for the first two laps. That's almost 5000m pace for El Guerrouj.

What does the first two laps have to do with anything? They were talking about how fast he could CLOSE a race.

In Beijing, El G closed in 53.x and 51.9 (overlapping 400m splits over the last 700 meters).

Read the question and the argument again.

I'm pretty sure Meseret Defar ran 56.? for the last 400 of the 07 World champs 5k.

3200guy wrote:

I'm pretty sure Meseret Defar ran 56.? for the last 400 of the 07 World champs 5k.

No, she didn't really kick till 200 to go and ended up with a 30.xx penultimate 200 then a 28...total 58high

but, she has ran 56 before...

just sayin wrote:

Now, how about an opinion on my question? Would distance training large numbers of sub-50 second 400m capable runners result in increased depth of world-class 5000m/10000m runners in the U.S.?

Of course it would. But the part about sub-50 is a bit of a red herring. Only a tiny fraction of the population ever explores their potential in minor sports like track. Train large numbers of ANY type of kid -- just head to the beach on a summer day and kidnap 1000 kids -- and you'll produce some champions.

The real problem is convincing those kids to give training a shot (without the kidnapping part). And for kids with sub-50 talent, there are even more distractions -- not just the sprints, but more popular sports like basketball and football, because the sub-50 kids are also likely to be athletically gifted in a general way.

To be clear: I do agree with your premise that getting speedy kids to try distance would, hypothetically, produce some great distance runners. But in terms of identifying systemic problems with talent development in North America, that effect is swamped by the much larger effect of having so few kids, speedy or not, give serious training a shot.

This thread brings up an interesting point. In my opinion the best 1500 meter talent in the US lies within the African-American community. Case in point: Very few African-Americans run the 1500 in high school. Nevertheless, Steve Holman, Terrance Herrington, Regina Jacobs were among the most successful milers at the elite level. David Krummenaker ran a rediculously fast 1500 off 800 meter training. Why he wasn't a career 1500 meter guy is beyond me. Maybe it was the fact that he was probably encouraged to run 400/800 by every coach he has ever had because of his speed. Think of all the Krummenakers out there. Guys that had fast 400 meter speed in high school that were just waiting to bust out a 3:32. Instead, they become mediocre 400 guys or 800 guys.

I have no way of proving it, but I bet that if Bryshaun Nelloms fully recovers he could be a hell of a miler if he chooses to become one. His physique is slight and he has the smoothest stride of anyone out there.