Well we took one of the best 100 guys out there and put him in a 400 relay, 47 something, not exactly 42secs material
Well we took one of the best 100 guys out there and put him in a 400 relay, 47 something, not exactly 42secs material
Haven't all of the events from 400m through 10k leveled off or become significantly weaker? Why did you single out the 400m? How many sub 13 5ks were run this year?
Good question. Maybe it's because there is a 200m race. If there was no 200m race the guys not quite fast enough to be 100m stars would compete at the 400m. These runners with great top end speed who were forced to compete at the 400m would have a chance at lowering the 400m record. Bolt could have set the 400m record. Don't know about now though.
More money wrote:
Skuj wrote:Why?
More money. More prestige. More ladies.
+1
Should be obvious.
nn wrote:
Good question. Maybe it's because there is a 200m race. If there was no 200m race the guys not quite fast enough to be 100m stars would compete at the 400m. These runners with great top end speed who were forced to compete at the 400m would have a chance at lowering the 400m record. Bolt could have set the 400m record. Don't know about now though.
all of this is wrong
none of that explains why the 400 times have allegedly stagnated since the 60's
and no Bolt could not have set the 400 record
Streeters wrote:
More money wrote:More money. More prestige. More ladies.
+1
Should be obvious.
But it isn't supported by the actual stats.
Who sad: I'll never run a 400 that fast again, it hurts too much?
HardLoper wrote:
Streeters wrote:+1
Should be obvious.
But it isn't supported by the actual stats.
Hi HardLoper!!!! How have you been?
It's obvious the drug protocols have benefited this distance the most. I remember around 05' or so a bunch of runners were running 19.6X and a few did 19.5X. Everybody on the message boards stated that talent improved. I partially believed this idea but I knew that something was up too.
Michael Johnson disagrees with you.
"He has the build to be a great 400m runner and he certainly has the speed. Without a doubt I think if he chose to make the switch at some point in his career and decided he was going to train for the 400m I am certain he would break the world record and probably run under 43 seconds and become the first person to run 42 seconds."
TAA wrote:
Hi HardLoper!!!! How have you been?
Pretty good. Your posts have been good in the last few months, at least the ones I've read. And I'm not just saying that.
A lot of the U.S. top 400m runners in the 1990s did test positive at one time or another, invalidating a few of our relay golds. But we definitely are not generating the same kind of dominance in the event. 2:54!
Yes in the past guys who would be lane fillers at the major level would run in the 200 meters and win medals. Ie Pietro Mennea or Mike Marsh.
Mauna Kea wrote:
Steve Martin wrote:You must be new here. The OP is far from the brightest bulb on this message board.
Anyone who says "try to keep up" is probably one of SMJO\'s many handles, i.e. one of the dullest bulbs on this message board. Indeed the money argument doesn't much sense.
The money argument makes no sense? What exactly do you think is driving these athletes? Idiot.
The 400m is like a marathon for a fast sprinter. It hurts.
The "money" argument is based on two false premices that the 100 has improved more than other events since the 1960's, and that the 100 wasn't the most popular event already in the 60's.
At the end of the 1960's, the low-altitude world records were...
100m 10.03 (4.7% worse than today)
200m 19.9H = 20.14 auto (5.0% worse than today)
400m 44.67 (converted from Y 3.5% worse than today)
Today, those rank #103, #103, and #115. I am guessing skuj is looking at the altitude-aided records from Mexico City, 9.95, 19.83, and 43.86, and seeing that the 43.86 is a lot closer to today's WR. At first I was going to guess the weather was a lot nicer on the day they ran the 400 at Mexico City... but according to the guy who created the basic calculator, an elevation of 2250m benefits the 100m by about 0.08, but it benefits the 400m by 0.50 - so the 400m actually gets 56% MORE benefit than the 100. As counter-intuitive as that is, that's exactly what happened. Lee Evans's low-altitude PR was only 44.95.
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jmureika/track/
If you want to talk about trends, you have to really look at large samples, top 25 lists, not one-off performances.
What do you mean since the '60s? Butch Reynolds took down Lee Evans 43.86 by a huge amount in 1988 -- almost .6 seconds, more if you consider Evans mark was altitude aided. If you consider Tommie Smith's 44.5 the sea level world record, Reynolds lowered it by more than a second. Reynolds 43.29 for me, is a lot more impressive than Michael Johnson's record which only lowered Reynolds' mark by .11. But yeah, since Reynolds' mark progress has been miniscule.
Merritt vs James vs Makwala at altitude would have a chance at the WR. But there are no altitude meets with enough money or prestige.
In any case, nobody's going to break 43:18 by much. The record will be within a couple tenths of it for at least 20 more years. It is so close to the human limit that it would be like running 9.50 for 100m. It will take a Bolt-like freak of nature to do it, and the last 400 runner with that potential was the ill-fated Quincy Watts.
It's the eternal struggle between fast, intermediate, and slow twitch fibers. The balance has to be just right.
Jeremy Wariner was relatively slow in the 200m distance compared to his 400m rivals. he just didn't have enough fast twitch fibers to compensate - as much as he tried.
I feel he might have had more intermediate fibers than just pure fast twitch. He always seemed to - in his prime - destroy people in the last 100m. He was just not slowing down as much thanks to the right mix of muscle fibers.
Maybe the answer to your question might come in finding another Jeremy Wariner - or a runner who be a better 800m runner than a 200m guy. The strength is the key.
Bad Wigins wrote:
It's probably a self-limiting event. After ATP-CP power is gone it depends on acid-producing glycolysis which puts a wall at around 40 seconds. The faster you go, the faster you produce acid so that you tie up even earlier.
That's why there's nobody that can get out in 20.5 and bring it back around in +2. The fastest 400 runners get out in 21.xx on mainly efficiency. Through years of rote they learn to float. Every tenth faster requires so much extra power, for various reasons, that it doesn't work at 20 second pace.
I've never seen a coherent theory about how the body "clears lactate" or "buffers" acid or otherwise deals with rigging, and I think there's no such thing. Whatever you call how the body handles acidosis, I think there's a solid ceiling to it that all elites have long since reached, and their gains are a matter of finding ways to produce less acid in the first place. Which is much harder to do at 20 point than 21 point. All those people who think Bolt could do sub 43 are wrong, he'd have trouble getting to sub 44.
Bolt could run sub 43 if he was serious about it. You do know he ran very fast over 400 at a very young age don't you.?
Regarding your question, the answer is not to try to improve buffering, but to use more elastic return from the muscles, just as it is in any race. So I agree with your point, that is what MJ was doing.