Gwalkerruns wrote:
Relay splits should not be compared to open.
i totally agree.
Gwalkerruns wrote:
Relay splits should not be compared to open.
i totally agree.
I'm so tired of hearing this - as a former HS sprinter (however poor) these comments are incredibly misleading. An open 400 is not in any way the same as a 400 on any relay. Putting together an open 400 is an incredibly technical thing that requires a lot of planning and small execution details that distance runners don't prioritize in their training. A 4x400 relay is an indication of pure speed, many sprinters who are not in good shape can split low 44s on a relay because their open 400 is not yet ready for competition (see Tony McQuay, who always makes and performs on relay teams and has demonstrated world class ability, but who doesn't podium in U.S championships frequently). Murphy's open 400 is slow for the same reasons as Symmonds. Two mid-d guys who don't know how to run a 400 but who have tremendous speed over 400m, (especially Murphy, who splits his 45s and 46s running on the rail instead of in lanes) but don't work on certain mechanical and tactical aspects of running in one lane for a lap. He may run very well in Doha.
Spending too much time on dancing with the stars?
He also lost a 1:47 race at Mt Sac, which he won last year in his only 1:43.
PrZ wrote:
He also lost a 1:47 race at Mt Sac, which he won last year in his only 1:43.
1:47.xx
1:46.xx
1:51.xx
1:55xx
1:46.xx
?????
...First five 800s for Murphy in 2016.
You know, the year he went 1:42.xx for the Olympic Bronze Medal.
Which he also won those races.. huge difference difference
WellllWhooopiDeeDoooo wrote:
PrZ wrote:
He also lost a 1:47 race at Mt Sac, which he won last year in his only 1:43.
1:47.xx
1:46.xx
1:51.xx
1:55xx
1:46.xx
?????
...First five 800s for Murphy in 2016.
You know, the year he went 1:42.xx for the Olympic Bronze Medal.
mcvred wrote:
I'm so tired of hearing this - as a former HS sprinter (however poor) these comments are incredibly misleading. An open 400 is not in any way the same as a 400 on any relay. Putting together an open 400 is an incredibly technical thing that requires a lot of planning and small execution details that distance runners don't prioritize in their training. A 4x400 relay is an indication of pure speed, many sprinters who are not in good shape can split low 44s on a relay because their open 400 is not yet ready for competition (see Tony McQuay, who always makes and performs on relay teams and has demonstrated world class ability, but who doesn't podium in U.S championships frequently). Murphy's open 400 is slow for the same reasons as Symmonds. Two mid-d guys who don't know how to run a 400 but who have tremendous speed over 400m, (especially Murphy, who splits his 45s and 46s running on the rail instead of in lanes) but don't work on certain mechanical and tactical aspects of running in one lane for a lap. He may run very well in Doha.
Eh, you are overstating the difference between open 400s and 400s on a relay. The main difference for MD runners is that the slight running start can really improve the first 50m of the race, as exploding out of the blocks from a standstill is an unfamiliar feeling. So yeah, getting out slower in the first part of the race can have a trickle down effect on the next 350m, but 400m is still 400m, they aren't "not in any way the same."
Probably a PR. Plus that’s a great time for early season for a 800m/mile guy. Only one world class miler has ever run under 47, Seb Coe. So 47 high is a great time.
the magic rat wrote:
mcvred wrote:
I'm so tired of hearing this - as a former HS sprinter (however poor) these comments are incredibly misleading. An open 400 is not in any way the same as a 400 on any relay. Putting together an open 400 is an incredibly technical thing that requires a lot of planning and small execution details that distance runners don't prioritize in their training. A 4x400 relay is an indication of pure speed, many sprinters who are not in good shape can split low 44s on a relay because their open 400 is not yet ready for competition (see Tony McQuay, who always makes and performs on relay teams and has demonstrated world class ability, but who doesn't podium in U.S championships frequently). Murphy's open 400 is slow for the same reasons as Symmonds. Two mid-d guys who don't know how to run a 400 but who have tremendous speed over 400m, (especially Murphy, who splits his 45s and 46s running on the rail instead of in lanes) but don't work on certain mechanical and tactical aspects of running in one lane for a lap. He may run very well in Doha.
Eh, you are overstating the difference between open 400s and 400s on a relay. The main difference for MD runners is that the slight running start can really improve the first 50m of the race, as exploding out of the blocks from a standstill is an unfamiliar feeling. So yeah, getting out slower in the first part of the race can have a trickle down effect on the next 350m, but 400m is still 400m, they aren't "not in any way the same."
People are freaking out way too much about the difference between splits and open 400m races. The difference is not that large. A good number to go by is 0.7 seconds slower for an open 400m. The only people this might not be true for are the really slow twitch guys, but those guys also are not often running 4x4 relays. Another reason a lot of people seem to run significantly faster in relays is because they run relays much more often than they ever ran open 400m races. My senior year of college I basically ran the 800 and 4x4 at every meet. The 800 and open 400m were back to back so I never got a chance to race that, but I raced the 4x4 all the time and was used to running it. For a guy like Murphy, running an open 400m once a year or less, you're not likely to have your best race the one time you run it. If he ran an open 400m 5-6 times this year I bet you'd see some much faster times sprinkled in there.
ThatAverageRunner wrote:
People are freaking out way too much about the difference between splits and open 400m races. The difference is not that large. A good number to go by is 0.7 seconds slower for an open 400m. The only people this might not be true for are the really slow twitch guys, but those guys also are not often running 4x4 relays. Another reason a lot of people seem to run significantly faster in relays is because they run relays much more often than they ever ran open 400m races. My senior year of college I basically ran the 800 and 4x4 at every meet. The 800 and open 400m were back to back so I never got a chance to race that, but I raced the 4x4 all the time and was used to running it. For a guy like Murphy, running an open 400m once a year or less, you're not likely to have your best race the one time you run it. If he ran an open 400m 5-6 times this year I bet you'd see some much faster times sprinkled in there.
Totally agree. In college, I would usually run the open 400 once at some cold meet in early March, but I'd run the 4x4 all the time. Always wish I had a couple more shots at it later in the season, because I know my PR would have been much closer to my relay splits.
It's still 400m, people!
People are freaking out way too much about the difference between splits and open 400m races. The difference is not that large. A good number to go by is 0.7 seconds slower for an open 400m. The only people this might not be true for are the really slow twitch guys, but those guys also are not often running 4x4 relays. Another reason a lot of people seem to run significantly faster in relays is because they run relays much more often than they ever ran open 400m races. My senior year of college I basically ran the 800 and 4x4 at every meet. The 800 and open 400m were back to back so I never got a chance to race that, but I raced the 4x4 all the time and was used to running it. For a guy like Murphy, running an open 400m once a year or less, you're not likely to have your best race the one time you run it. If he ran an open 400m 5-6 times this year I bet you'd see some much faster times sprinkled in there.[/quote]
i had the same experience.
the magic rat wrote:
ThatAverageRunner wrote:
People are freaking out way too much about the difference between splits and open 400m races. The difference is not that large. A good number to go by is 0.7 seconds slower for an open 400m. The only people this might not be true for are the really slow twitch guys, but those guys also are not often running 4x4 relays. Another reason a lot of people seem to run significantly faster in relays is because they run relays much more often than they ever ran open 400m races. My senior year of college I basically ran the 800 and 4x4 at every meet. The 800 and open 400m were back to back so I never got a chance to race that, but I raced the 4x4 all the time and was used to running it. For a guy like Murphy, running an open 400m once a year or less, you're not likely to have your best race the one time you run it. If he ran an open 400m 5-6 times this year I bet you'd see some much faster times sprinkled in there.
Totally agree. In college, I would usually run the open 400 once at some cold meet in early March, but I'd run the 4x4 all the time. Always wish I had a couple more shots at it later in the season, because I know my PR would have been much closer to my relay splits.
It's still 400m, people!
Says the slow twitcher #4 guy who doesn't even have an open time to their credit.
FAS timed, block start, 400 open, + 1.5 seconds = 400 "split" from handheld stopwatch. Every time.
If your coach told you otherwise, it's because he likes to tell you white lies and not hurt your pride.
Want the truth? Ask real, open 400 sprinters what their open time is vs their 4 x split. Same answer.
1.5 seconds faster for 4x vs open.
Don't ask Mid d guys, ask real sprinters. they don't need to prop up their legitimate 46's.
Isn't Clayton back in Akron with LaBadie? Still with NOP, but back with his old coach, I'm told....
NopeNot Even Close wrote:
the magic rat wrote:
Totally agree. In college, I would usually run the open 400 once at some cold meet in early March, but I'd run the 4x4 all the time. Always wish I had a couple more shots at it later in the season, because I know my PR would have been much closer to my relay splits.
It's still 400m, people!
Says the slow twitcher #4 guy who doesn't even have an open time to their credit.
FAS timed, block start, 400 open, + 1.5 seconds = 400 "split" from handheld stopwatch. Every time.
If your coach told you otherwise, it's because he likes to tell you white lies and not hurt your pride.
Want the truth? Ask real, open 400 sprinters what their open time is vs their 4 x split. Same answer.
1.5 seconds faster for 4x vs open.
Don't ask Mid d guys, ask real sprinters. they don't need to prop up their legitimate 46's.
I'm not sure what you are objecting to. I am just saying that if I ran more than one open 400 per season (in a cold first weekend meet), my open time would be closer to my relay splits. You don't think people are likely to have faster PRs with more races at the distance, and later in the season?
And we had a "real sprinter" on my 4x4, he ran 45.9 open, but never 44 mid in the relay. And when did Michael Johnson split 41 mid/high? Not saying 1.5 seconds isn't the case with some people (that dude split 43.3 at Penn, he seems like a good candidate), but it definitely isn't a hard and fast rule.
NopeNot Even Close wrote:
the magic rat wrote:
Totally agree. In college, I would usually run the open 400 once at some cold meet in early March, but I'd run the 4x4 all the time. Always wish I had a couple more shots at it later in the season, because I know my PR would have been much closer to my relay splits.
It's still 400m, people!
Says the slow twitcher #4 guy who doesn't even have an open time to their credit.
FAS timed, block start, 400 open, + 1.5 seconds = 400 "split" from handheld stopwatch. Every time.
If your coach told you otherwise, it's because he likes to tell you white lies and not hurt your pride.
Want the truth? Ask real, open 400 sprinters what their open time is vs their 4 x split. Same answer.
1.5 seconds faster for 4x vs open.
Don't ask Mid d guys, ask real sprinters. they don't need to prop up their legitimate 46's.
1.5 seconds? Are you crazy? Anyone who deserves to be in a 400m race should not be over 1 second slower than their relay split. Yes, I was hand timed many times by my coaches. I always took their word. You know why? Because at some of those meets I had the race recorded. I'd even go back and time my split myself out of curiosity (since you never know), and I was always within .1 of my coaches when I averaged a few attempts at timing. Additionally, some of our meets had FAT splits for everything, including the 4x4s, and wouldn't you know it, my FAT split with within hundredths of a second to what my coaches had.
Sure, there are coaches who don't know how to work a stop watch, as well as coaches who don't know how to time splits (i.e. take the split when handing off and not when the baton crosses the line). But your assumptions are crazy. 1.5 seconds is not standard in any way. You don't see a slew of pro 4x4 relays splitting sub 43 second splits. That's absurd.
I'm guessing you had a coach tell you that you ran a biiiig PR of 52 seconds on the relay and you were really excited, then you ran an open 400m in 54 and were devastated and from then on you simply just believed that splits are 1.5-2 seconds faster even though the real reason is that your coach was as dumb as you and started your split when you got the baton and only really timed you for ~390 meters. Tough luck.
ThatAverageRunner wrote:
NopeNot Even Close wrote:
Says the slow twitcher #4 guy who doesn't even have an open time to their credit.
FAS timed, block start, 400 open, + 1.5 seconds = 400 "split" from handheld stopwatch. Every time.
If your coach told you otherwise, it's because he likes to tell you white lies and not hurt your pride.
Want the truth? Ask real, open 400 sprinters what their open time is vs their 4 x split. Same answer.
1.5 seconds faster for 4x vs open.
Don't ask Mid d guys, ask real sprinters. they don't need to prop up their legitimate 46's.
1.5 seconds? Are you crazy? Anyone who deserves to be in a 400m race should not be over 1 second slower than their relay split. Yes, I was hand timed many times by my coaches. I always took their word. You know why? Because at some of those meets I had the race recorded. I'd even go back and time my split myself out of curiosity (since you never know), and I was always within .1 of my coaches when I averaged a few attempts at timing. Additionally, some of our meets had FAT splits for everything, including the 4x4s, and wouldn't you know it, my FAT split with within hundredths of a second to what my coaches had.
Sure, there are coaches who don't know how to work a stop watch, as well as coaches who don't know how to time splits (i.e. take the split when handing off and not when the baton crosses the line). But your assumptions are crazy. 1.5 seconds is not standard in any way. You don't see a slew of pro 4x4 relays splitting sub 43 second splits. That's absurd.
I'm guessing you had a coach tell you that you ran a biiiig PR of 52 seconds on the relay and you were really excited, then you ran an open 400m in 54 and were devastated and from then on you simply just believed that splits are 1.5-2 seconds faster even though the real reason is that your coach was as dumb as you and started your split when you got the baton and only really timed you for ~390 meters. Tough luck.
Close.
I actually got excited when the clock at the State Meet said 49.73.
Just as excited as I was when we dropped below 3:18.xx in the 4x400.
Weird thing. I was the only one who ever broke 50 in the open and two others never cracked :52.
You do the math 52.xx Man.
Again. Stop with the 400 split nonsense.
Inconsistent hand times on splits, running starts, no blocks, ----4 x's are never,ever close to an open time.
Just stop.
Uhm, still No wrote:
Close.
I actually got excited when the clock at the State Meet said 49.73.
Just as excited as I was when we dropped below 3:18.xx in the 4x400.
Weird thing. I was the only one who ever broke 50 in the open and two others never cracked :52.
You do the math 52.xx Man.
Again. Stop with the 400 split nonsense.
Inconsistent hand times on splits, running starts, no blocks, ----4 x's are never,ever close to an open time.
Just stop.
This is hilarious if this is actually the same poster as before. I hate getting into Letsrun PR contests (since it is stupid, and I wasn't that fast, and being faster doesn't always make you more knowledgeable about running anyway), but "slow twitcher # 4 guy" (your words) middle-distance runner me would have beaten you pretty handily in an open 400. You ever think about moving up? Sounds like you coulda been a good miler with those wheels.
the magic rat wrote:
Uhm, still No wrote:
Close.
I actually got excited when the clock at the State Meet said 49.73.
Just as excited as I was when we dropped below 3:18.xx in the 4x400.
Weird thing. I was the only one who ever broke 50 in the open and two others never cracked :52.
You do the math 52.xx Man.
Again. Stop with the 400 split nonsense.
Inconsistent hand times on splits, running starts, no blocks, ----4 x's are never,ever close to an open time.
Just stop.
This is hilarious if this is actually the same poster as before. I hate getting into Letsrun PR contests (since it is stupid, and I wasn't that fast, and being faster doesn't always make you more knowledgeable about running anyway), but "slow twitcher # 4 guy" (your words) middle-distance runner me would have beaten you pretty handily in an open 400. You ever think about moving up? Sounds like you coulda been a good miler with those wheels.
+1.
Also, my premise still stands that his coach was probably awful at getting splits or something. But he is set in his ways and is already getting defensive. He's been exposed so there's no point in continuing this argument with him. Too bad he didn't use a registered name so I'd have a way to remember his ridiculous claims.
Jdjshdjs wrote:
mcvred wrote:
Symmonds' PR is just a hair faster than this. I don't see much here.
True, but Clayton has split 45s and 46s on relays before. Don’t think Symmonds ever did that. Comparing current Clayton to past Clayton is more relevant than comparing Clayton to Symmonds.
Symmonds ran 47 from a standing start. He obviously could've run 46 in a relay.
fast trot wrote:
Spending too much time on dancing with the stars?
What star?