The obsession with Sydney is really strange. You talk about doubling and I invite you to go and look at the schedule again it was literally impossible she would have run 7/8 races with no recovery time.
No, the 400 and 400h double at the 2024 Olympics was not "literally impossible" as you put it.
And it would have been 6 races not 7 or 8. And the first round of the 400 as well as the first 2 rounds of the 400h would have been jogs for Sydney because the competition in those 3 rounds isn't very good. So in reality it would have been only 3 challenging races, the semi and final of the 400 and the 400h final. Not easy but certainly not "literally impossible."
The REAL reason that Sydney didn't do the 400 and 400h double is because Bobby Kersee realized that Sydney wasn't in good enough shape to win the 400 gold.
If Sydney didn't run the 400 flat but broke the 400h world record he knew lots of people would call her one of the greatest runners of all time. But if Sydney won 400h gold and 400 bronze then lots of people would look at her differently. They would say "She's number one in the 400h because the top 400 flat runners don't bother to run the 400h. But she lost the 400 flat so she's not actually that fast." And that's something that Kersee didn't want people to say.
So I understand why Kersee didn't want Sydney to run the 400 flat at the 2024 Olympics. If Kersee thinks Sydney is in good enough shape in the 400 flat to win gold in 2028 then there's a good chance she'll run the 400 at the Los Angeles Olympics.
Here is what attempting the 400-400h double would have required of Sydney:
August 4: 400h heat
August 5: 400 heat
August 6: 400h semi
August 7: 400 semi
August 8: 400h final
August 9: 400 final
It would have been foolish to attempt such a crazy double because she would have been compromised for both finals. I could see going for the double if the heats of the 400 started after the 400h final, which is how it is for people attempting the 100-200 double or the track distance doubles. She certainly was in "good enough shape" to contend for 400 gold, as evidenced by her running the fastest 4x400m relay split in over 40 years. But attempting the 400-400h double with the way the schedule was set up would have been a terrible decision.
I think your post raises some really good points and questions about what makes an Olympic or, more broadly, a global championship performance special. The criteria that I've considered include (in no particular order):
World Athletics point value
Margin of victory (as a measure of dominance over one's contemporaries, not as a measure of the most thrilling contest)
Quality of competition
Percentage that the new WR is better than the #2 performer in history (personally, I think it's more meaningful to look at how much better a WR holder is than the #2 person, not by how much an existing WR holder broke their own record)
Expectations and pressure going into the event (generally, heavier is the head that wears the crown, but there can also be unique circumstances in which a longtime great like El G is looking to get the one thing missing from his resume)
Breaking a significant barrier
Shock factor
How an individual weights each of those criteria will determine their opinion.
I love this post. This is how humans should approach these questions. Instead of just "going with our gut" all the time, it is nice to see someone trying to actually set up a set of criteria. Too bad we don't do this for all out important decisions.
Thank you! One criterion I forgot that we could consider is the difficulty of the event itself. The 400m hurdles is one of the toughest events in the sport because athletes running that event have to deal with the rigor mortis that comes from racing a 400 while also needing to maintain their concentration on their hurdling technique and managing their steps in between hurdles. It's much more difficult than just running an all-out 200. I believe that's why more elite 400m sprinters don't even bother to attempt it.
On top of the inherent physical and mental difficulty of the 400m hurdles, we can consider what's required from a physical and mental standpoint to go into an Olympic final with not only the intent to defeat a fellow all-timer, but to also go out with the mindset of breaking what was already an insane world record. Then think about how hard it is to continue going all out in that event without having any of your competitors in sight to push you to the finish. That is what Seb Coe was getting at when he spoke about the "strength of character, physically and mentally" to do what Sydney and Rudisha did.
Coe had a good discussion about this topic with Sanya Richards-Ross and Greg Rutherford on the World Athletics podcast a few months ago. He also told a fun story about Rudisha's world record performance in London. It starts at around the 11:33 mark in the following video. I highly recommend.
he's a mid-distance guy who unsurprisingly sees "strength of character" in running his endurance events well. and at 1500 there's been a lot of olympic upset races.
No, the 400 and 400h double at the 2024 Olympics was not "literally impossible" as you put it.
And it would have been 6 races not 7 or 8. And the first round of the 400 as well as the first 2 rounds of the 400h would have been jogs for Sydney because the competition in those 3 rounds isn't very good. So in reality it would have been only 3 challenging races, the semi and final of the 400 and the 400h final. Not easy but certainly not "literally impossible."
The REAL reason that Sydney didn't do the 400 and 400h double is because Bobby Kersee realized that Sydney wasn't in good enough shape to win the 400 gold.
If Sydney didn't run the 400 flat but broke the 400h world record he knew lots of people would call her one of the greatest runners of all time. But if Sydney won 400h gold and 400 bronze then lots of people would look at her differently. They would say "She's number one in the 400h because the top 400 flat runners don't bother to run the 400h. But she lost the 400 flat so she's not actually that fast." And that's something that Kersee didn't want people to say.
So I understand why Kersee didn't want Sydney to run the 400 flat at the 2024 Olympics. If Kersee thinks Sydney is in good enough shape in the 400 flat to win gold in 2028 then there's a good chance she'll run the 400 at the Los Angeles Olympics.
Here is what attempting the 400-400h double would have required of Sydney:
August 4: 400h heat
August 5: 400 heat
August 6: 400h semi
August 7: 400 semi
August 8: 400h final
August 9: 400 final
It would have been foolish to attempt such a crazy double because she would have been compromised for both finals. I could see going for the double if the heats of the 400 started after the 400h final, which is how it is for people attempting the 100-200 double or the track distance doubles. She certainly was in "good enough shape" to contend for 400 gold, as evidenced by her running the fastest 4x400m relay split in over 40 years. But attempting the 400-400h double with the way the schedule was set up would have been a terrible decision.
As I have already said the first 3 days are a jog for Sydney. The first 2 rounds of a women's 400h and the first round of a women's 400 are NOT competitive. Lots of weak athletes in those 3 races. (If you disagree it simply means you haven't bothered to do the research and look up the times run on those 3 days.)
Day 4 - 400 semi Sydney could run 1 second slower than her PR and qualify for the final. So that's not hard.
Day 5 - Sydney is head and shoulders above everyone else in the 400h. She could run 1 second slower than her PR and still win gold.
Day 6 - 400 Final. Even a well rested Sydney wouldn't have beaten Paulino. So whether Sydney doubled or not, Sydney wouldn't have won the gold because she wasn't in good enough shape.
Here is what attempting the 400-400h double would have required of Sydney:
August 4: 400h heat
August 5: 400 heat
August 6: 400h semi
August 7: 400 semi
August 8: 400h final
August 9: 400 final
It would have been foolish to attempt such a crazy double because she would have been compromised for both finals. I could see going for the double if the heats of the 400 started after the 400h final, which is how it is for people attempting the 100-200 double or the track distance doubles. She certainly was in "good enough shape" to contend for 400 gold, as evidenced by her running the fastest 4x400m relay split in over 40 years. But attempting the 400-400h double with the way the schedule was set up would have been a terrible decision.
As I have already said the first 3 days are a jog for Sydney. The first 2 rounds of a women's 400h and the first round of a women's 400 are NOT competitive. Lots of weak athletes in those 3 races. (If you disagree it simply means you haven't bothered to do the research and look up the times run on those 3 days.)
Day 4 - 400 semi Sydney could run 1 second slower than her PR and qualify for the final. So that's not hard.
Day 5 - Sydney is head and shoulders above everyone else in the 400h. She could run 1 second slower than her PR and still win gold.
Day 6 - 400 Final. Even a well rested Sydney wouldn't have beaten Paulino. So whether Sydney doubled or not, Sydney wouldn't have won the gold because she wasn't in good enough shape.
LOL. Tell Nickisha Pryce (48.57 PB in July) that qualifying for the Olympic 400m final was not hard.
Bol was expected to run the hurdles in around 51 flat; she only ran 52.15 because she died trying to keep up with Sydney's WR pace. Sydney had to run hard to beat Bol.
Running a 47.71 leg showed that Sydney was in "good enough shape" to challenge Paulino if she was fresh. Again, that was the fastest relay leg in 40 years. But no chance of her challenging Paulino on the last day of that schedule.
arguably many more throughout history but these come into mind immediately
A few points:
The "weak event" is the most challenging event in t&f besides the pole vault. Sydney (and Femke) has proven she could both easily focus on the open 400 and succeed but her dominance and athleticism will not be matched in this generation in any event.
Bolts 100 WR was amazing. ...However his showboating 10 meters before he got to the line diminished it's greatness, not because the taunting element but by the fact he could've gone sub 9.5 with that run. He spent the rest of his career chasing that great performance but never broke that barrier which he certainly could have if he just ran through the line instead of pulling up in celebration. Someday his WR may fall but if he didnt pull up, that record could stay intact.
The 400m Hurdles is NOT the most challenging event in t&f and it objectively the WEAKEST historically in performances. You can’t give her credit for performances she never did in the superior event: The 400m.
Running a 47.71 leg showed that Sydney was in "good enough shape" to challenge Paulino if she was fresh. Again, that was the fastest relay leg in 40 years.
Don't confuse a fast relay split with a fast 400. They are not the same thing. Ask Allyson Felix.
The "weak event" is the most challenging event in t&f besides the pole vault.
The 400m Hurdles is NOT the most challenging event in t&f and it objectively the WEAKEST historically in performances. You can’t give her credit for performances she never did in the superior event: The 400m.
It depends what someone means by "challenging." The 400h is challenging to run, but not challenging to medal in. Anna Cockrell got a silver medal in the 400h and she probably wouldn't have even made the Olympic final in the 400.
The 400m Hurdles is NOT the most challenging event in t&f and it objectively the WEAKEST historically in performances. You can’t give her credit for performances she never did in the superior event: The 400m.
It depends what someone means by "challenging." The 400h is challenging to run, but not challenging to medal in. Anna Cockrell got a silver medal in the 400h and she probably wouldn't have even made the Olympic final in the 400.
That is what precisely makes it less challenging to run. Fewer competition.
Coe has always been very respectful to all his rivals as GOAT, both 800 and 1500.
He's said that he is still astonished that Snell managed to run 1:44.3 on grass and ranks it as one of the best ever. This despite Snell once admitting that he didn't like Coe very much and was pleased when Crammy started to beat him.
This is very true, in fact, I would rank snell above Coe for overall greatness as an athlete.
Running a 47.71 leg showed that Sydney was in "good enough shape" to challenge Paulino if she was fresh. Again, that was the fastest relay leg in 40 years.
Don't confuse a fast relay split with a fast 400. They are not the same thing. Ask Allyson Felix.
Allyson Felix proved that fast 4x400m relay splits translate to 400m success in global championship competition when she won two Olympic medals in the 400 and three world championship medals in that event, including gold in 2015.
The 400m Hurdles is NOT the most challenging event in t&f and it objectively the WEAKEST historically in performances. You can’t give her credit for performances she never did in the superior event: The 400m.
It depends what someone means by "challenging." The 400h is challenging to run, but not challenging to medal in. Anna Cockrell got a silver medal in the 400h and she probably wouldn't have even made the Olympic final in the 400.
Your mistake is judging the quality of a 400m hurdler by what they can do in a different event. That's not the correct way to judge a hurdler. Seriously, just pause and think about whether it makes sense to do that. The correct way to judge a hurdler is to look at . . . (wait for it) . . . what they can do in the hurdles!
Being a great 400m hurdler requires 3 things:
400m ability
hurdling technique
step pattern management
It's the combination of skills that makes it challenging to run, and by extension, a challenging event to medal in. If it was easy, more people would do it.
If you want to compare the quality of the 400 and 400h finalists, look at their World Athletics PB point values in their actual event. The 400h field was stronger.
It depends what someone means by "challenging." The 400h is challenging to run, but not challenging to medal in. Anna Cockrell got a silver medal in the 400h and she probably wouldn't have even made the Olympic final in the 400.
Your mistake is judging the quality of a 400m hurdler by what they can do in a different event. That's not the correct way to judge a hurdler. Seriously, just pause and think about whether it makes sense to do that. The correct way to judge a hurdler is to look at . . . (wait for it) . . . what they can do in the hurdles!
Being a great 400m hurdler requires 3 things:
400m ability
hurdling technique
step pattern management
It's the combination of skills that makes it challenging to run, and by extension, a challenging event to medal in. If it was easy, more people would do it.
If you want to compare the quality of the 400 and 400h finalists, look at their World Athletics PB point values in their actual event. The 400h field was stronger.
Just because you need this combination, doesn’t make it inherently the hardest to run. 400m ability is less important than hurdling technique and step pattern in the 400 Hurdles. You also need to focus on step pattern management in the 400m flat, just to a lesser extent. I’d say that the events are pretty similar in difficulty actually. More people run the 400m rather than the hurdles, making it more impressive to win and run fast in. The IAAF points are also skewed because it is the first time for womens 400 hurdles that there is an outlier talent. Other events on the Mens/Womens side has had much deeper history. I suspect that they will update the scoring tables to lower the scores Sydney is getting on these performances due to this. Perhaps in 2026. This isn’t to say it’s not a great win, but the OP is wrong in that Rudisha is the only other comparable performances.
Maybe he wasn't in the stadium when Bolt did his thing? Maybe he has a distance bias?
In a short form discussion, you can't go down the list of every great performance and parsing one thing does not take away for another. I think Coe view Syd's performance similar to Kathy Freeman's 400m victory in the 2000 Olympics in terms of winning under tremendous pressure and expectations. Syd not won when she was expected to win but won by a large margin and set a world record.
Your mistake is judging the quality of a 400m hurdler by what they can do in a different event. That's not the correct way to judge a hurdler. Seriously, just pause and think about whether it makes sense to do that. The correct way to judge a hurdler is to look at . . . (wait for it) . . . what they can do in the hurdles!
Being a great 400m hurdler requires 3 things:
400m ability
hurdling technique
step pattern management
It's the combination of skills that makes it challenging to run, and by extension, a challenging event to medal in. If it was easy, more people would do it.
If you want to compare the quality of the 400 and 400h finalists, look at their World Athletics PB point values in their actual event. The 400h field was stronger.
Just because you need this combination, doesn’t make it inherently the hardest to run. 400m ability is less important than hurdling technique and step pattern in the 400 Hurdles. You also need to focus on step pattern management in the 400m flat, just to a lesser extent. I’d say that the events are pretty similar in difficulty actually. More people run the 400m rather than the hurdles, making it more impressive to win and run fast in. The IAAF points are also skewed because it is the first time for womens 400 hurdles that there is an outlier talent. Other events on the Mens/Womens side has had much deeper history. I suspect that they will update the scoring tables to lower the scores Sydney is getting on these performances due to this. Perhaps in 2026. This isn’t to say it’s not a great win, but the OP is wrong in that Rudisha is the only other comparable performances.
To be clear, I never said it was the hardest; I said it was one of the toughest events. I think it's fair to say that.
As for its history, the women's 400m hurdles became an Olympic event the same year the women's marathon did, 1984. That's more than enough time for the records in both those events to be significant, and I don't see anyone on this site trying to diminish Ruth Chepngetich's record (other than the PED accusations).
Now I want to dive into some data to show just how special Sydney's WR is. Here's a list I've shared before in other threads. It's a ranking of the percentage that the women's WR is better than the #2 performer's best time in Olympic track events:
400m hurdles: 1.1%
400m: 0.8%
100m hurdles: 0.7%
5,000m: 0.6%
100m: 0.5%
1500m: 0.4%
10,000m: 0.4%
200m: 0.3%
800m: 0.1%
Steeple: 0.0%
Here are the percentages for the men's world records:
100m: 1.1%
400m hurdles: 0.5%
10,000m: 0.4%
200m: 0.4%
400m: 0.3%
Steeple: 0.3%
800m: 0.2%
5,000m: 0.2%
1500m: 0.2%
110m hurdles: 0.1%
As you can see, Sydney and Bolt are head and shoulders above the rest. But, I've heard the criticism: "That's only because nobody else who's great has run the women's hurdles!" Well, one way we can debunk that myth (besides recognizing the greatness of Femke Bol and Dalilah Muhammad) is to look at women's track world records in comparison to their male counterparts. The general rule of thumb is that the men's world records are 10% better than the women's. Here's how they stack up, starting with the sprints and working up to distance:
100: 8.7% (men's WR is 8.7% better than the women's WR)
200: 10.1%
400: 9.6%
400h: 8.8%
800: 10.9%
1500: 10.1%
Steeple: 10.0%
5,000: 10.1%
10,000: 9.4%
The outliers are the 100 and the 400h. FloJo (RIP) and Sydney are the only women whose records are within 9% of the men's records.
But, skeptics might say: "That's only because the height of the hurdles for women is too low compared to the men!" Well, if that was the correct explanation, then we would expect the top 10 women on the all-time list to be similarly around 9% slower than the top 10 men, as Sydney is to Karsten. Here's that list:
#1 woman (Sydney) is 8.8% slower than the #1 man (Karsten)
#2 woman is 9.4% slower than the #2 man
#3 woman is 10.3% slower than the #3 man
#4 woman is 9.8% slower than the #4 man
#5 woman is 10.2% slower than the #5 man
#6 woman is 10.2% slower than the #6 man
#7 woman is 10.2% slower than the #7 man
#8 woman is 10.2% slower than the #8 man
#9 woman is 10.2% slower than the #9 man
#10 woman is 10.1% slower than the #10 man
Welp, there goes the theory that the women's hurdles height is too low!
Maybe now people are thinking, "That's pretty impressive, but I still think all the best long sprinting athletes are doing the flat 400!" We can test that theory by looking at how much slower the best hurdlers run the 400 while hurdling than the best 400 flat runners have run the 400 without anything obstructing their lap. Here is how it looks for men:
Karsten's WR in the 400h is 6.3% slower than the men's WR in the 400 flat.
The #2 guy's 400h time is 6.5% slower than the #2 guy's time in the 400.
The #3 guy's 400h time is 6.5% slower than the #3 guy's time in the 400.
The #4 guy's 400h time is 7.2% slower than the #4guy's time in the 400.
The #5 guy's 400h time is 7.5% slower than the #5 guy's time in the 400.
The #6 guy's 400h time is 7.6% slower than the #6 guy's time in the 400.
The #7 guy's 400h time is 7.6% slower than the #7guy's time in the 400.
The #8 guy's 400h time is 7.6% slower than the #8 guy's time in the 400.
The #9 guy's 400h time is 7.6% slower than the #9 guy's time in the 400.
The #10 guy's 400h time is 7.5% slower than the #10 guy's time in the 400.
How do the women compare?
Sydney's WR in the 400h is 5.5% slower than the women's WR in the 400 flat.
The #2 gal's 400h time is 5.8% slower than the #2 gal's time in the 400.
The #3 gal's 400h time is 6.7% slower than the #3 gal's time in the 400.
The #4 gal's 400h time is 7.1% slower than the #4 gal's time in the 400.
The #5 gal's 400h time is 7.7% slower than the #5 gal's time in the 400.
The #6 gal's 400h time is 7.8% slower than the #6 gal's time in the 400.
The #7 gal's 400h time is 7.7% slower than the #7 gal's time in the 400.
The #8 gal's 400h time is 7.3% slower than the #8 gal's time in the 400.
The #9 gal's 400h time is 7.4% slower than the #9 gal's time in the 400.
The #10 gal's 400h time is 7.4% slower than the #10 gal's time in the 400.
Once again, Sydney is the outlier!
Summary: All the data above show that Sydney is exceptional as a track athlete. Her 400h WR is tied with Bolt's 100m WR for having the largest percentage difference better than the #2 performer in their events. Sydney and FloJo are the only women to be within 9% of the men's world record in their events. Among the top 10 400m hurdlers on the all-time list, Sydney is the only woman to be within 9% of the corresponding male hurdler. And, when comparing the top 10 400m hurdles time for men and women to the top 10 400m times, Sydney are Femke are the only hurdlers whose hurdling time is within 6% of what the best sprinters can do in the 400 without hurdles.
Coe is justified when he say's Sydney's 400h performance is one of the best Olympic performances he's seen.
In a short form discussion, you can't go down the list of every great performance and parsing one thing does not take away for another. I think Coe view Syd's performance similar to Kathy Freeman's 400m victory in the 2000 Olympics in terms of winning under tremendous pressure and expectations. Syd not won when she was expected to win but won by a large margin and set a world record.
Agreed. I think it was fairly clear when Coe said, "one performance [in-person] in an Olympic stadium to rival that just in terms of strength of character, physically and mentally." He didn't say "greatest," "most special," "most magical," or "most historic" Olympic run ever. Part of me also wants to remove Bolt's 2008 because his 100m WR was fresh, as just 3.5 months before, his PB was still 10.03, so I don't remember what the expectations were for Bolt back then, but it was not anywhere near the pressure Sydney and Rudisha faced.
In his annual year end call with the media, Coe said he'd only seen one Olympic run equal to Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone's 50.37 Olympic win. And it was...
"Sydney McLaughlin this year was outstanding. I’ve only seen one performance [in-person] in an Olympic stadium to rival that just in terms of strength of character, physically and mentally, and that was David Rudisha in London winning gun-to-tape,' said Coe.
Do you agree or disagree?
I don't see how he doesn't also include Bolt 2008. There is a LOT more pressure in a 100m than a 400h. And Bolt set WRs in both the 100 and 200. Bolt is clearly above Sydney in my mind. Plus I ding Sydney for not doubling or at least also running the mixed 4 x 400.
In terms of other Olympic races, Coe raved about Herb Elliott in the 1960 1500 which he didn't see.
"If you look at 1500 meters, then for me, the definitive all-time 1500 meters win was Herb Elliott in 1960 in Rome," Coe said.
In that race, Elliott, the 22-year-old Australian, ran 3:35.6 to break his own world record and win gold by 2.8 seconds over France's Michel Jazy.
Jonathan Gault's article on his talk with Coe is here
I agree that Bolt's 2008 performances should be on the list, but not for the reasons you gave.
First, I don't think Bolt had more pressure on him in the 100m final in 2008 than Sydney had in the 400h this year. Prior to the Beijing Olympics, Bolt wasn't yet a household name, and track fans primarily regarded him as a 200m sprinter. Yes, he had broken the world record in the 100m earlier that year, however, he lost his final 100m race before the Olympics to Asafa Powell in which he "only" ran 9.89. There were legit questions about his start. Tyson Gay was the reigning world champion and coming off a wind-aided 9.68 at the US Olympic Trials; he was dealing with an injury, but he was expected to contend with Bolt and Powell for the win if healthy. Point being: Bolt was not the overwhelming favorite, and he wasn't an established big star like he is now.
Sydney, on the other hand, went into Paris as the defending Olympic Champ and one of the faces of the Olympics. She was the overwhelming favorite, she was the established big star, and she had the added pressure of being expected to break her own already-insane world record.
Second, Coe's comment appears to be about a single performance, not a double or a triple. So, although I think you should be giving Sydney credit for running the fastest women's 4x400m relay leg in over 40 years, what she did or didn't do beyond breaking the WR in the 400m hurdles isn't relevant to the question of which single Olympic performance is the best.
I agree, and would add that there is a pain component to this - Bolt needed to hold form yes, but it’s like he had to gut things out like Radusha did. The spectre of tolerating pain is why I love distance races (and why no one is highlighting races where someone just out sprinted their rivals down the straight).
I agree that Bolt's 2008 performances should be on the list, but not for the reasons you gave.
First, I don't think Bolt had more pressure on him in the 100m final in 2008 than Sydney had in the 400h this year. Prior to the Beijing Olympics, Bolt wasn't yet a household name, and track fans primarily regarded him as a 200m sprinter. Yes, he had broken the world record in the 100m earlier that year, however, he lost his final 100m race before the Olympics to Asafa Powell in which he "only" ran 9.89. There were legit questions about his start. Tyson Gay was the reigning world champion and coming off a wind-aided 9.68 at the US Olympic Trials; he was dealing with an injury, but he was expected to contend with Bolt and Powell for the win if healthy. Point being: Bolt was not the overwhelming favorite, and he wasn't an established big star like he is now.
Sydney, on the other hand, went into Paris as the defending Olympic Champ and one of the faces of the Olympics. She was the overwhelming favorite, she was the established big star, and she had the added pressure of being expected to break her own already-insane world record.
Second, Coe's comment appears to be about a single performance, not a double or a triple. So, although I think you should be giving Sydney credit for running the fastest women's 4x400m relay leg in over 40 years, what she did or didn't do beyond breaking the WR in the 400m hurdles isn't relevant to the question of which single Olympic performance is the best.
I agree, and would add that there is a pain component to this - Bolt needed to hold form yes, but it’s like he had to gut things out like Radusha did. The spectre of tolerating pain is why I love distance races (and why no one is highlighting races where someone just out sprinted their rivals down the straight).
I agree, and would add that there is a pain component to this - Bolt needed to hold form yes, but it’s *not* like he had to gut things out like Radusha did. The spectre of tolerating pain is why I love distance races (and why no one is highlighting races where someone just out sprinted their rivals down the straight).
Just because you need this combination, doesn’t make it inherently the hardest to run. 400m ability is less important than hurdling technique and step pattern in the 400 Hurdles. You also need to focus on step pattern management in the 400m flat, just to a lesser extent. I’d say that the events are pretty similar in difficulty actually. More people run the 400m rather than the hurdles, making it more impressive to win and run fast in. The IAAF points are also skewed because it is the first time for womens 400 hurdles that there is an outlier talent. Other events on the Mens/Womens side has had much deeper history. I suspect that they will update the scoring tables to lower the scores Sydney is getting on these performances due to this. Perhaps in 2026. This isn’t to say it’s not a great win, but the OP is wrong in that Rudisha is the only other comparable performances.
To be clear, I never said it was the hardest; I said it was one of the toughest events. I think it's fair to say that.
As for its history, the women's 400m hurdles became an Olympic event the same year the women's marathon did, 1984. That's more than enough time for the records in both those events to be significant, and I don't see anyone on this site trying to diminish Ruth Chepngetich's record (other than the PED accusations).
Now I want to dive into some data to show just how special Sydney's WR is. Here's a list I've shared before in other threads. It's a ranking of the percentage that the women's WR is better than the #2 performer's best time in Olympic track events:
400m hurdles: 1.1%
400m: 0.8%
100m hurdles: 0.7%
5,000m: 0.6%
100m: 0.5%
1500m: 0.4%
10,000m: 0.4%
200m: 0.3%
800m: 0.1%
Steeple: 0.0%
Here are the percentages for the men's world records:
100m: 1.1%
400m hurdles: 0.5%
10,000m: 0.4%
200m: 0.4%
400m: 0.3%
Steeple: 0.3%
800m: 0.2%
5,000m: 0.2%
1500m: 0.2%
110m hurdles: 0.1%
As you can see, Sydney and Bolt are head and shoulders above the rest. But, I've heard the criticism: "That's only because nobody else who's great has run the women's hurdles!" Well, one way we can debunk that myth (besides recognizing the greatness of Femke Bol and Dalilah Muhammad) is to look at women's track world records in comparison to their male counterparts. The general rule of thumb is that the men's world records are 10% better than the women's. Here's how they stack up, starting with the sprints and working up to distance:
100: 8.7% (men's WR is 8.7% better than the women's WR)
200: 10.1%
400: 9.6%
400h: 8.8%
800: 10.9%
1500: 10.1%
Steeple: 10.0%
5,000: 10.1%
10,000: 9.4%
The outliers are the 100 and the 400h. FloJo (RIP) and Sydney are the only women whose records are within 9% of the men's records.
But, skeptics might say: "That's only because the height of the hurdles for women is too low compared to the men!" Well, if that was the correct explanation, then we would expect the top 10 women on the all-time list to be similarly around 9% slower than the top 10 men, as Sydney is to Karsten. Here's that list:
#1 woman (Sydney) is 8.8% slower than the #1 man (Karsten)
#2 woman is 9.4% slower than the #2 man
#3 woman is 10.3% slower than the #3 man
#4 woman is 9.8% slower than the #4 man
#5 woman is 10.2% slower than the #5 man
#6 woman is 10.2% slower than the #6 man
#7 woman is 10.2% slower than the #7 man
#8 woman is 10.2% slower than the #8 man
#9 woman is 10.2% slower than the #9 man
#10 woman is 10.1% slower than the #10 man
Welp, there goes the theory that the women's hurdles height is too low!
Maybe now people are thinking, "That's pretty impressive, but I still think all the best long sprinting athletes are doing the flat 400!" We can test that theory by looking at how much slower the best hurdlers run the 400 while hurdling than the best 400 flat runners have run the 400 without anything obstructing their lap. Here is how it looks for men:
Karsten's WR in the 400h is 6.3% slower than the men's WR in the 400 flat.
The #2 guy's 400h time is 6.5% slower than the #2 guy's time in the 400.
The #3 guy's 400h time is 6.5% slower than the #3 guy's time in the 400.
The #4 guy's 400h time is 7.2% slower than the #4guy's time in the 400.
The #5 guy's 400h time is 7.5% slower than the #5 guy's time in the 400.
The #6 guy's 400h time is 7.6% slower than the #6 guy's time in the 400.
The #7 guy's 400h time is 7.6% slower than the #7guy's time in the 400.
The #8 guy's 400h time is 7.6% slower than the #8 guy's time in the 400.
The #9 guy's 400h time is 7.6% slower than the #9 guy's time in the 400.
The #10 guy's 400h time is 7.5% slower than the #10 guy's time in the 400.
How do the women compare?
Sydney's WR in the 400h is 5.5% slower than the women's WR in the 400 flat.
The #2 gal's 400h time is 5.8% slower than the #2 gal's time in the 400.
The #3 gal's 400h time is 6.7% slower than the #3 gal's time in the 400.
The #4 gal's 400h time is 7.1% slower than the #4 gal's time in the 400.
The #5 gal's 400h time is 7.7% slower than the #5 gal's time in the 400.
The #6 gal's 400h time is 7.8% slower than the #6 gal's time in the 400.
The #7 gal's 400h time is 7.7% slower than the #7 gal's time in the 400.
The #8 gal's 400h time is 7.3% slower than the #8 gal's time in the 400.
The #9 gal's 400h time is 7.4% slower than the #9 gal's time in the 400.
The #10 gal's 400h time is 7.4% slower than the #10 gal's time in the 400.
Once again, Sydney is the outlier!
Summary: All the data above show that Sydney is exceptional as a track athlete. Her 400h WR is tied with Bolt's 100m WR for having the largest percentage difference better than the #2 performer in their events. Sydney and FloJo are the only women to be within 9% of the men's world record in their events. Among the top 10 400m hurdlers on the all-time list, Sydney is the only woman to be within 9% of the corresponding male hurdler. And, when comparing the top 10 400m hurdles time for men and women to the top 10 400m times, Sydney are Femke are the only hurdlers whose hurdling time is within 6% of what the best sprinters can do in the 400 without hurdles.
Coe is justified when he say's Sydney's 400h performance is one of the best Olympic performances he's seen.
Not a good analysis. Try recalculating this but before Sydney or Muhammad joined the event. You will see that it was a weak event historically. Sydney is a great talent, but her competition is weaker relative to other events, because the event is weak. Simple really. Let’s see her win a 400 against Paulinho or win any sort of diamond league outside of the 400 hurdles. She obviously took the event to the next level, but her olympic performance is not as great as bolt, johnson, WVN, or warholm.