400h - WARHOLM 46.87

gordanshumway wrote:

matt_london_413 wrote:

It's not even that.

It's just nobody that has ever been good in the 400 open has ever switched over to the 400 Hurdles.

By good I mean below 43.84. So yeah i'll say below 43.84 in the open 400 not 43.53. The male 400 hurdles set by Young is officially the weakest WR in track and field right now.

And I just did some more calculations I now think Van Nierkerk or however you spell that has potential to do 45.65 in the hurdles if he specifically trained for it.

46.8s aren't really impressive to me. Maybe to you it is though. I don't know.

This is a dumb statement. Angelo Taylor was a 44 flat 400m runner and still could never crack 47 in the hurdles. The longest standing record in track is not the weakest record.

So Angelo Taylor has the fastest open 400 time out of every 400H in history? Taylors time of 44.05 is still a second slower than the current WR.

Who are 2nd through 11th fastest 400 hurdlers of all time in the 400 open?

Taylor currently has the 21st fastest open 400 meter dash time of all time.

So yeah that's a really good 400 open.

This tells me a number of different things. First off is we don't know what Taylors true potential could have been in the hurdles had he put it all together and improved his form over the hurdles.

He probably had potential to run 46.2 in the hurdles based on that 400 open time... Which is way more potential than Warholm currently has.

And all 18 of those under 44 second 400 open runners I bet with a little bit of training could have destroyed 46.78.

When talking about speed and power like I said before, about 99.8 percent of 400 meter hurdlers are just weaker versions of 400 open runners excluding Taylor and who else?

If Warholm can break 44.01 in the 400 open then great but we don't know if he can or not..

Wariners 43.45 is still way more indicative of power and speed than anything Warholm is accomplishing right now. Form isn't really that impressive.

All of this just further proves that 46.78 is a weak WR. Just because Taylor ran 44.05 and ran slower than Warholm has in the 400h doesn't mean that Warholm is the stronger runner.

And like I said before Van Niekerk could probably jog a 46.78 when under 43.03 form. So it's just not really that big of an accomplishment what Warholm is doing right now.

Warholm found a loop hole and is trying to exploit it but it's really not that impressive, and i'm literally trying to be as nice as possible right now.

He would get destroyed by the majority of 100, 200, and 400 runners about 100 percent of the time.

So yeah great, big deal, he's .10 of a second off of a weak 400hurdles WR right now. Awesome.

But yeah a really good effort from Warholm at running. He gets an B+ for effort.

is Warholm the fastest 6'2 , 176 pound guy in the 400m? He sure looks heavier than Wariner atleast

+1 excellent post. Sounds plausible and though provoking. Seems like a lot of thorough research has been done on the subject.

46.78 is certainly not impressive. Look at Jakob. He could run 55 second laps and with his 3:28 and high leg length/forearm ratio and the fact that he can do a 8 second paused squat with 630 pounds means that even he could go 45 high in the 400H.

Any of the 100 meter guys could destroy 46.78 with slight training also. I would say most runners between 100m & 3000m could destroy 46.78 if they went for that. Some could go 41 high.

Javelin guys like Vetter could combine their runup speed and pure explosiveness to go very close to 46.78. Even at a super muscular 250 pounds.

20 years ago when he was in better shape, even Trump could have used his mental acuity and produced a low 45 sec. That's what his IQ and mental prowess converts to.

It was good for Warholm to find the limits of his low capability so I would give him a C-.

I would agree with the posters that have said 400h is weaker than the 400m flat.

It is well known that generally the 400h is an event which multi-eventers who aren't so fast over the 400m flat would turn to, or 400m flat runners who doing have the speed to be competitive over 400m.

It is rarely a first choice event for an athlete.

I also agree that a 43.5 400m guy could in theory run under 46 in the hurdles.

What I don't agree with are statements claiming the current crop of 400h are weak athletes. Warholm has run under 45 and could probably run 44.2. Rai Benjamin has broken 20s and run 44.3 with potential to run 44.0

Both these athletes will probably bring the 400 hurdles into the 46.2 range which is very strong.

ex-runner wrote:

I would agree with the posters that have said 400h is weaker than the 400m flat.

It is well known that generally the 400h is an event which multi-eventers who aren't so fast over the 400m flat would turn to, or 400m flat runners who doing have the speed to be competitive over 400m.

It is rarely a first choice event for an athlete.

I also agree that a 43.5 400m guy could in theory run under 46 in the hurdles.

What I don't agree with are statements claiming the current crop of 400h are weak athletes. Warholm has run under 45 and could probably run 44.2. Rai Benjamin has broken 20s and run 44.3 with potential to run 44.0

Both these athletes will probably bring the 400 hurdles into the 46.2 range which is very strong.

is it possible to put in the work to be a top 3 400 meter runner and great hurdler at the same time? there are sacrifices made in sprint workouts to be a hurdler. And most certainly not everybody can hurdle. People who have a proclivity for it often figure it out just by messing around before, during, or after practice. Other talented sprinters find out quickly that they are not so inclined for it when they try to do the same.

and also, hurdling is very often a first choice event for athletes. Like all the jumping events, it is something many kids can become almost annoyingly fixated on, often at the expense of their sprinting development.

kerron clement was the world record holder in the 400m indoors with a time of 44.57. That equals to 43.68 in the iaaf point calculator. He still "only" got to a time of 47.24 after a liftime of hurdeling. it's not as easy as taking someones 400m pr and adding 2-2,5 seconds to find their 400mh potential. It's also obvious that 400mh runners don't race flat as often and therefore haven't a time equal to their capacity at the event

Many people underestimate hurdles and steeple. If it was so easy more 45.5 or 13:10 runners would go for these events to easily get the medals or finals they' d miss otherwise.

ex-runner wrote:

I would agree with the posters that have said 400h is weaker than the 400m flat.

It is well known that generally the 400h is an event which multi-eventers who aren't so fast over the 400m flat would turn to, or 400m flat runners who doing have the speed to be competitive over 400m.

It is rarely a first choice event for an athlete.

I also agree that a 43.5 400m guy could in theory run under 46 in the hurdles.

What I don't agree with are statements claiming the current crop of 400h are weak athletes. Warholm has run under 45 and could probably run 44.2. Rai Benjamin has broken 20s and run 44.3 with potential to run 44.0

Both these athletes will probably bring the 400 hurdles into the 46.2 range which is very strong.

You would agree with the trolls but only because it deeply hurts you when a white athlete is the best in the world. You're a known anti white racist. Just a couple of years ago you were ogling and masturbating all around Benjamin & Samba but now that Warholm has destroyed them the 400H is not really an important event and anyone can run it fast. Am I right?

If you flip this now and have Benjamin or Samba in Warholms position, all of a sudden they are unbelievable athletes, like none have ever seen, and the 400H is an exhibition of incredible athletic talent. Am I right? This is exactly what was being posted just a couple of years ago.

I think we all know that if a top 400 runner could, he would most certainly go after the 400H medals in world events. There's certainly enough time. But you know what? They can't!

It's funny how you fawned recently over Holloway (who's proved to be a disappointment) and his amazing 110 hurdling capabilities, unreal athleticism, but you failed to mention once how any 100 meter runner going under 11 seconds could easily beat that time and that Holloway only went to 110H because he doesn't have any actual talent. Am I right?

Pretty sure most know that 400H ability requires 400m athleticism and talent plus an additional specific athleticism. Not only that, it seems to require height to be the best. 6'2" is a minimum. All the top 400 hurdlers (Young, Moses, Warholm, Benjamin) were at least this height. Van Niekerk/Norman are too short. Most 100m guys? Midgets. They need a ladder to go over the hurdles.

Lololol ? ????

you're yammering about some alleged drooling he supposedly did about samba and benjamin, who both have more esthetically pleasing techniques, while yourself drooling about cac-holm and raging about even the suggestion that he's overrated. so there's that

holloway ran a 6.5, a 43 split, did 8+ lj, sub13 110h and is already a world champion. so there's also that

The people who think 44.5-45.0 guys (at their best) could just jump into the 400H and win are crazy. How much money do you think track athletes make? Certainly not enough if they're struggling to get in Diamond Leagues, get few appearance fees and are tossups to make teams which is characteristic at that level. If they could just become 47 high-48 low guys, which is basically a guarantee to make decent money on the circuit, have a chance at Finals and medals, garner endorsement money/sponsors etc they'd do it. The truth is many guys aren't cut out for it and then there's a wide range who struggle enough in it that they need a 3-4 second buffer between their 400m top range and their hurdle time, which make it not worth their while.

I guess you are a troll, because this was seriously stupid

Holloway have the 55th best time ever in hes primarly event, Karsten the 2nd and 3rd

mr. nice guy wrote:

you're yammering about some alleged drooling he supposedly did about samba and benjamin, who both have more esthetically pleasing techniques, while yourself drooling about cac-holm and raging about even the suggestion that he's overrated. so there's that

holloway ran a 6.5, a 43 split, did 8+ lj, sub13 110h and is already a world champion. so there's also that

Hahahhaha. " esthetically pleasing techniques" Hahahahhha. What a disgraced troll fool. Cuz your butt boyz just can't keep up, not talented enough, losers? Now you're on here bashing all the white folks aint ya? Enjoy your jokes Buttamin, Sham-ba, and Hollow-talent. They're always going to be second best.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

The people who think 44.5-45.0 guys (at their best) could just jump into the 400H and win are crazy. How much money do you think track athletes make? Certainly not enough if they're struggling to get in Diamond Leagues, get few appearance fees and are tossups to make teams which is characteristic at that level. If they could just become 47 high-48 low guys, which is basically a guarantee to make decent money on the circuit, have a chance at Finals and medals, garner endorsement money/sponsors etc they'd do it. The truth is many guys aren't cut out for it and then there's a wide range who struggle enough in it that they need a 3-4 second buffer between their 400m top range and their hurdle time, which make it not worth their while.

Regardless. The point i'm trying to make is this. It's not an event that alot of people do and it's more of a technique event than straight out power and speed.

Power and speed is always going to be more impressive than technique. The hurdles is like on pace with a mudder or crossfit obstacle course at this point. Or running a 100 meter dash in heels.

It's not really about who's the strongest or fastest, just who can glide over the hurldes with as least resistance as possible. Which is the reason why no good 400 open runners excluding Taylors rogue 44.05 and maybe a few others that have ran around 44.25, do it.

Therefore it just further emphasizes that this record is a weak WR because out of the top I would say 60 by 400 meter dash times currently ran in the world, maybe what like 3 or 4 of those runners were 400 meter dash runners?

It's just not a very good percentage.

And I meant out of the top 60 by 400 meter open times in the world, like 3 or 4 of those best times were also 400 meter hurdlers. Forgot to put the word hurdlers in there.

It's not that. It's that most good and by good I mean in the top 1 percent of open 400 meter dash times, don't run the hurdles because they don't want to risk getting injured for the 400 open.

What we need to do is look at the top 100 by 400 meter dash open times ever ran and see how many of those top 100 individual performances in the 400 open were also 400 meter hurdlers.

Then out of 100 we could get a full percentage. I'm going to guess that out of the top 100 meter individual times ever ran that only like 8 of them were 400 meter dash hurdlers. Angelo Taylor is one of them.

So that's like only 8 percent and it's just not a very good percentage if i'm right about that.

you are trashy, pathetic, unamusing

norwegians aren't white, they're mixed because of viqueens

superior athletes samba and benjamin both went sub47, dweeb. they're not even better now (yet) because of injuries, dweeb. and yes, there's such a thing as a good looking technique, moran

best not make crazy promises

go back to worshipping throwers. then cry once they tell you they'd be sprinters if it wasn't for their weight

Hey, looky here. it's Nice Guy fool posing as another poster now. Sound even dumber here.

Power and speed in the 400 flat? How ridiculous are you? Most 400 runners are very weak.

Kevin Mayer could bench press 5 of them put together.

For most people 400H is even more impressive than 400 flat and that's because it combines speed with jumping ability. That's the ultimate combination and you know it.