Lenny Leonard wrote:
Webb ran 47 in high school. No doubt he could have run 46.xx in his 3:30 days.
1) Webb did not run 47 out of the blocks in HS.
2) Improving endurance does not = improving speed. Steve Ovett ran 47.5 and 21.7 (out of the blocks, not in relays) before becoming a world-class miler. After becoming a world-class miler he continued to compete in 4x400 relays and occasional sprints and never improved upon his earlier times.
lol lol lol lol wrote:
Steve Ovett ran 47.5 and 21.7 (out of the blocks, not in relays) before becoming a world-class miler. After becoming a world-class miler he continued to compete in 4x400 relays and occasional sprints and never improved upon his earlier times.
Watch, beginning at @3:10:
http://youtu.be/Dx1xf7ggv4MOvett ran 3:30.77 this year. According to the Ventolinesque mental midgets and clueless fanboys on LRC, he should have run this leg 2-3 seconds faster.
Steve Ovett ran a very fast 200 as a teenager out of the blocks for a miler. I recall reading 22.0 but it might be closer to 23.0. And he also was a respectable youth long jumper. He had some of the best raw speed of any miler coming up in the 1970's.
Dave Moorcroft might be a better example. He was a 3:49 miler but was only a 1:54 800 runner at age 18 or 19.
Most guys who run under 4 probably have 49-48ish speed, though many of them are slower.
The guys with sub-4 miler strength and 46 second speed tend to world champions.
Well, at least malmo and lol lol lol lol are making sense on this thread. The reason some of you believe that these good milers were so fast at 400 is it is the explanation which appears to provide some line of demarcation to separate them from you.
Ask yourself this question, which is somewhat related to the thread's topic: who was the fastest distance runner on your team, meaning 3000m and up, for example, and how did his 400 speed compare to the rest of the team members? Many times this individual may be one of the slower 400m runners on the team, and the majority of the time is not the fastest at 400 (of course I am excluding sprinters).
Gerry Lindgren? 4:01 in high school and what must have he topped out at? 52?
Reality check223 wrote:
why does a 400m time not count if it's from a relay?
It does count, if you add roughly 1 second to the time. It's not as exact as an open 400, of course, but it still gives you a ballpark figure. In all relays, the times for the last three legs feature running starts and do not include reaction time to the sound of a starter's pistol. And in 4x400 relays, the last three legs very often feature reduced wind resistance due to running behind someone at a high rate of speed. And needless to say, hand times taken of relay legs are notoriously sketchy.
casual commentary wrote:
Gerry Lindgren? 4:01 in high school and what must have he topped out at? 52?
Lots of runners with poor speed can run 4:01 or even 4:00. They aren't milers. Salazar ran a 4:01 mile on a relay in college and he probably couldn't break 26 for a 200. I would bet the house on that.
Big difference between 3:57 and 4:01 in a mile. Its night and day.
Bob Kennedy had good speed for the Big 10 in a distance race but had to take it 500 meters out from home when he was winning NCAA Champs in the 1500.
I know he ran 3:56 for the mile. I would be surprised if he ever broke 1:49 or 50 in a 400 ever.
Renato Canova has said Silas Kiplagat's 400m speed isn't all that impressive.
Gooogoo wrote:
Marcus O'Sullivan ran 3:50 and was rumored to not be able to run under 50 sec for 400m. He also ran 100+ sub 4:00 min in the mile.
That's sheer bullsh*t. Maybe he never put much effort into his 400 time, but it's impossible to run much under 4:00 if you don't at least have the capacity to break 50.
Well there you have it wrote:
I wouldn't worry too much about their poor speed. As long as they have good foot speed, that's what counts (or is it leg speed? I can never keep those straight).
Foot and leg speed are the same thing in the context of running. Try moving your feet faster than your legs or vice versa and tell me how it goes for you.
marijuologist wrote:
it's impossible to run much under 4:00 if you don't at least have the capacity to break 50.
It's certainly possible to run 3:50 or under without sub-50 speed. Whether that is "much under" 4:00 is a matter of opinion, I suppose...
You don't need sub 50 seconds 400m speed to break 4:00 in the mile. However, you most certainly need it to break 3:50 in the mile.
Aussiemiler wrote:
You don't need sub 50 seconds 400m speed to break 4:00 in the mile. However, you most certainly need it to break 3:50 in the mile.
Tell that to Eamonn Coghlan and others.
Coughlan could break 50 seconds in the 400m. He may never have run a 400m at his peak, but could have broken 50 if did. Also, I have never heard of a sub 3:50 miler named Others.
Aussiemiler wrote:
Coughlan could break 50 seconds in the 400m. He may never have run a 400m at his peak, but could have broken 50 if did. Also, I have never heard of a sub 3:50 miler named Others.
I think I will trust Coughlan's judgement of his own abilities over yours.
I am calling b.s on that one.
I ran 50 flat in a 4 X 400m relay. I'd like to get three guys like me and race these sub-4 milers in a 4 X 400 so we can show them whose boss. Maybe that way I can finally win at something.
50 guys or so have broken 3:50 for the mile. I would bet that all of them could have broken 50 seconds for 400m.