Asbel Kiprop 48 for the 400 on the dirt track

Worth bearing in mind that altitude for a 400 may not have that much overall effect.

The lower air resistance is somewhat offset by lack of oxygen which impacts the significant aerobic component of the race.

Anyhows, that indicates certainly around the 48-flat mark at sea-level on a synthetic track ( if you use 1s/lap conversion between dirt/synthetic )

Now, at his 800 peak he was a 1'43-flat guy ( 1'43.17 in his 1st serious 800 has to be worth quicker if he'd run some more top field 800s that year as he was a newbie to 800 )

There isn't really any point trying a any calculator at this point : 48-flat & 1'43-flat are pretty much what was expected of Hicham.

Now, I don't anyway believe his 1500 potential was anywhere close to 3'26, so it does indicate Asbel shoud be a bit quicker than 48.0 at sea-level ( I'm talking in '08 or 1'43 year - He may be slower over 400 currently than he was back then )

1'43.0 with

47.50 ->3'26.8

47.25 ->3'27.6

47.00 ->3'28.5

Realistically, at his peak ( maybe Peking '08 or in his 1'43 season ), I think low-47/47-flat was better indicator of his 400 ability.

As for those 1500s - they are purely hypothetical - Canova has stated that he just doesn't do the endurance work to get anywhere close to those potentials

Of course Ventolin, but if we were to add .2 for the altitude, then it would be a 48.9, and then subtract one second for the surface, we're at 47.9, and then people can differ on how much running in lane 1 may have hurt him. He can probably run 47 flat or a little slower in ideal conditions. I do think he may win gold at Daegu, but he has been rather inconsistent and so it would probably be a surprise to many.

That track could be just about any distance. 400 meters, my ass.

steve "red" wrote:

He didn't even win, who cares that he 48 for the 400 on the dirt track barefoot from lane 1

What are you doing here then?

At least he actually ran the 400m a lot of elite runners seem to be scared of running it

Very few middle distance runners would be able be able to replicate that run. Notice how he does not look like he is sprinting, but still maintaining that superb middle distance form. That's a class runner

tracks in kenya are not necessarily surveyed?one story states an error (long) of 15m.anyone know something about this?alsoi have elg at 47 flat, kiprop at 47 high, both at peak.

Yeah, with spikes on, it is not really impressive at all.

Hopefully that goes some way in denouncing all the nonsense that often gets sprouted of how the likes of Lagat couldn't break 50. Of course they can. They may be middle distance runners but they still have decent wheels. The state of that track must be worth a bit of time too.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

steve "red" wrote:

He didn't even win, who cares that he 48 for the 400 on the dirt track barefoot from lane 1

What are you doing here then?

At least he actually ran the 400m a lot of elite runners seem to be scared of running it

Very few middle distance runners would be able be able to replicate that run. Notice how he does not look like he is sprinting, but still maintaining that superb middle distance form. That's a class runner

I agree coach. And combine that 400 ability with world jr cross champ endurance!? This guy should not be losing ANY 1500/miles. He looks like a very laid back guy, I wonder how much he relies on his talent, and how hard he really trains.

400 meter coach wrote:

DOS SANTOS wrote:

WTF ????? animal!!!

On a synthetic track with the right conditions, I would say he's easily in the 45 range.

Get out of here!

There is a world of difference between a 48.7 and 45.**, even if the former is on cinders. I'd say the difference from dirt to synthetic is nearer 0.5 than 1 sec, and there is the added advantage of his run being at altitude.

With a few relay runs on synthetic tracks he could possibly run a 47 low, which will be more like 47 high in an open 400.

running speed = stride length v stride frequency. stride length is often misjudged as simply how long someones legs are, or how big their backkick looks, when in actuallity, stride length is the distance your center of mass moves from Toe off to the touchdown of the stance phase. So the distance covered while not on the ground (flight phase). Someone with very little power who is 6'2" could easily have a smaller stride length than a very explosive 5'7" athlete. Kiprop has very exagerated backside mechanics, which give the impression that his stride length is huge. however, if you look at someone who has good frontside mechanics, has a powerful stride, but it does not look very impressive because his natural flexibility is not very good, look at Allen Webb. Im not saying one has a bigger stride length than the other, cause it would take some testing to find that out, but their is a substantial difference in height, yet both have a 1:43 PR. If there is a clear enough video where we could count the number of steps they take in their respective 1:43's, then we could see how they match up.

chet wrote:

I am not disputing your guess, but remember that the altitude actually helps in the 400...

Not so sure about this. Does anyone know? - it's been a long time since I've looked at a conversion chart. However, I definitely don't think that they would add on any time just because of the altitude. If anything, there would be no change.

I don’t know if that track is 400 Meters….I once was timed at 39 sec for the 400 meters on a high school meet..Those Kenyan track boy!

Interesting that black people are just as annoying at Kenyan track meets as in the us.

400 meter coach wrote:

DOS SANTOS wrote:

WTF ????? animal!!!

On a synthetic track with the right conditions, I would say he's easily in the 45 range.

Yea right......

I believe that the Robertson guy just stated on the video ROJO posted today that the track they are running on there in Iten is 410 meters. Check the story on the front page today and watch the video with Robertson. Pretty sure this is the same track that this race is run on.

fanningtheflames wrote:

running speed = stride length v stride frequency. stride length is often misjudged as simply how long someones legs are, or how big their backkick looks, when in actuallity, stride length is the distance your center of mass moves from Toe off to the touchdown of the stance phase. So the distance covered while not on the ground (flight phase). .

um, pretty sure stride length is measured from one footfall to the next. In other words, divide distance covered by number of strides (foot touches) to get avg stride length. You don't discount the distance the foot is on the ground, that would be silly. So yes, longer legs will help with stride length.

Allen webb has a rapid turnover and short stride length compared to runners like Rudisha and kiprop. This is party due to height, and partly due to mechanics and possibly flexibility. Rudisha can go 180 spm even at 1:42 pace (not sure about the whole way, but much of the way). Webb might be more like 220 spm. Big difference. Rudisha and kiprop have much longer strides.

At times as he was on the finishing stretch he reminded me of Roger Bannister.

If that's the track in Iten then it is long yeah. I'm sure when UKA went out there they measured it after being told the rumours and got something like 407m. If that's where Kiprop is running then you can knock almost a second off his time.

That effort is definitely worth a 45 second 400m with competition and the right track. Would he consider tripling in london? 400m, 800m, 1500m?