“The 400 and 800 are two very different events physiologically.”
nice job ignoring my argument entirely. nowhere did i say the 400 and 800 were similar events. they are not. i was arguing the 400h and 800 are similar events, which i stand by. they obviously aren’t identical but the 400h requires an amount of conditioning and endurance on par with the 800 to run successfully.
“Wariner, the kind of 400 runner everybody thought was able to do very well in the 800, only ran 1:53.”
wariner ran 1:53 in 2015, 8 years removed from his 400 PR in 2007. additionally, it was during his short comeback, and was run in march as one of his first races of the year. that 1:53 was not representational of his 800 capability in the slightest.
“Moreover, Warholm is more a 200/400 guy than a 400/800 guy. ”
huh? what evidence can you point to that supports this? he ran 20.91 indoors at the same time when he ran 45.96, when the majority of athletes running similar 400 times indoors run in the range of 20.4-20.7, which is pretty far away from 20.9, especially indoors. he did also run 44.87 outdoors in the same year he ran that 20.91, but because it was run in june and outdoors, i think that’s a poor argument to make.
“He is not the type of guy able to run a 800 at the same level as his 400 even with a lot of training.”
i think i have established the following:
1. there is a relationship between the 400h and 800
2. karsten warholm is not a 200/400 runner.
therefore, i argue the opposite. he would be good at the 800, and would be even better if he specialized in it.
As if adding hurdles and runnind an event that lasts 3sec more was making a big difference. The 400 and 400h are similar event. Not the the 400h and 800.
Wariner still ran 45 the same year he ran 1:53. He could probobly do a bit better at the 800 but still far from world class.
I did not say he was as good in the 200 as in the 400 but that he was more a 200/400 guy than a 400/800 guy which is easily proven by his PBs in the 100 and 200 (10.49/20.91) compared to his PBs in the 1000 and 1500 (2:45/4:44).
You have established nothing.
“As if adding hurdles and runnind an event that lasts 3sec more was making a big difference.“
oh my goodness, have you done the 400h or trained with someone who does the 400h or talked to a coach who does the 400h or gotten involved in the 400h in literally any way? i beg you, go talk to any coach or athlete at the collegiate or pro level. they will tell you that the 800 and 400h are strongly related in terms of training.
“Wariner still ran 45 the same year he ran 1:53. He could probobly do a bit better at the 800 but still far from world class.“
race was at the beginning of the season + 43.4 and 45.5 are worlds apart. maybe he couldn’t have been world class but there’s no way that 800 he ran was anywhere near his potential
“he was more a 200/400 guy than a 400/800 guy which is easily proven by his PBs in the 100 and 200 (10.49/20.91) compared to his PBs in the 1000 and 1500 (2:45/4:44).”
ignoring the fact that his pbs in each of those events were set at very different times in his athletic career, his 1500 and 1000 prs were set at the end of a decathlon. that says literally nothing about his 800 capability.
As if adding hurdles and runnind an event that lasts 3sec more was making a big difference. The 400 and 400h are similar event. Not the the 400h and 800.
Wariner still ran 45 the same year he ran 1:53. He could probobly do a bit better at the 800 but still far from world class.
I did not say he was as good in the 200 as in the 400 but that he was more a 200/400 guy than a 400/800 guy which is easily proven by his PBs in the 100 and 200 (10.49/20.91) compared to his PBs in the 1000 and 1500 (2:45/4:44).
You have established nothing.
“As if adding hurdles and runnind an event that lasts 3sec more was making a big difference.“
oh my goodness, have you done the 400h or trained with someone who does the 400h or talked to a coach who does the 400h or gotten involved in the 400h in literally any way? i beg you, go talk to any coach or athlete at the collegiate or pro level. they will tell you that the 800 and 400h are strongly related in terms of training.
“Wariner still ran 45 the same year he ran 1:53. He could probobly do a bit better at the 800 but still far from world class.“
race was at the beginning of the season + 43.4 and 45.5 are worlds apart. maybe he couldn’t have been world class but there’s no way that 800 he ran was anywhere near his potential
“he was more a 200/400 guy than a 400/800 guy which is easily proven by his PBs in the 100 and 200 (10.49/20.91) compared to his PBs in the 1000 and 1500 (2:45/4:44).”
ignoring the fact that his pbs in each of those events were set at very different times in his athletic career, his 1500 and 1000 prs were set at the end of a decathlon. that says literally nothing about his 800 capability.
The 400h and the 800 are so similar that no one doubles in them at international level - which is what athletes will often do for similar events.
The 400h is the longest anaerobic event, while the 800 at twice the distance is the shortest aerobic event - for fast guys. The most common double in the event has been with the 1500. Very few top 800 runners have been top 400 runners - the last was Juantorena in '76, and before him runners like Mal Whitfield and Arthur Wint in the '50's. The 800 doesn't simply require speed but crucially endurance - which is why it is a middle distance race and not a long sprint - particularly with the dramatic improvement that has taken place since the '60's in endurance training. It doesn't matter if Warholm or any other hurdler can beat 1.50 - very unlikely - they still get creamed by the 1:45-46 guy with phenomenal endurance.
