Asbel Kiprop 48 for the 400 on the dirt track

How much difference would a dirt versus synthetic track make anyway? People have run 44.xx on dirt tracks.

And as far as altitude, Lee Evans ran 43.86 (making him still #7 all time) at the Mexico City Olympics.

A Skeptic wrote:People have run 44.xx on dirt tracks

i'm having a hard time remembering any

otis davis ran 44.9wr in '60 but auto for it was 45.07

wendell mottley ran 44.82wr when winning '66 commonwealth at kingston - that was probably a dirt track, but i'm not sure

other than those 2, i can't recall any 44s on dirt

just checked :

mottley's 400 was on dirt

here is a race from that meet : keino v clarke :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-90elrvZrg0

might be worth looking at asbel's actual figures this year :

1'44.74 / 3'31.76 ->47.85

now, obviously these weren't perfect races & i think a better representation is maybe

1'44.25 - 1'44.50 / 3'30.50 - 3'31.50

1'44.25 / 3'31.50 ->47.41

1'44.25 / 3'30.50 ->47.71

1'44.50 / 3'31.50 ->47.67

1'44.50 / 3'30.50 ->47.97

looking at those, gut feeling tells me that

~ 47.5/47.6

looks about right for his 400 currently

ventolin^3 wrote:

might be worth looking at asbel's actual figures this year :

1'44.74 / 3'31.76 ->47.85

now, obviously these weren't perfect races & i think a better representation is maybe

1'44.25 - 1'44.50 / 3'30.50 - 3'31.50

1'44.25 / 3'31.50 ->47.41

1'44.25 / 3'30.50 ->47.71

1'44.50 / 3'31.50 ->47.67

1'44.50 / 3'30.50 ->47.97

looking at those, gut feeling tells me that

~ 47.5/47.6

looks about right for his 400 currently

Well done.

I think you guys are saying the same thing but do not realize it

Stride length is the distance traveled between steps. It is NOT how far apart one can split their legs. I am 5ft 5 and have a longer stride than some people over 6ft tall. You wouldn't realize it by just looking at my legs while running because I don't split wide - but I push off the ground hard like a mofo though.

I am not sure if anyone mentioned this. I understand that this track is actually closer to 410 meters. According to Jake Robertson (see video interview) and various other sources I have read over the years. The track was built in the 1950s for the catholic school and I believe it was supposed to be a 440 yards. Anybody know what the deal is for sure?

I've been told both 410 and 415 meters on different occasions

Been there, done that, gave my tshirt away...I've spent more than a few hours on that track. In 2003, after spending 8 weeks in iten, I ran 10 x "400" on that dirt track (rutted, rough, uneven, loose in some spots) with 60 sec rest in 61 sec avg- best to not even bother with spikes. I was near all out over the last 2 to finish. 2 weeks later in London, I ran 57 sec avg for the same workout at iffley road. Was it the altitude? The track condition? I had been told that the track distance at iten was "close enough". I was initially frustrated with my sessions there, just because my projected split times were so blatantly askew. I learned to let go of that, and just run. Long runs in the surrounding countryside made it a pleasure to train. And yes, the sessions there with so many people are something to behold. It's amazing to see a culture that idolizes their athletics as much as we do our footballers or yanks do their basketball players. Really quite astounding.

Have any of you haters ever run at 8000ft? It's really not as easy as it sounds (especially at 8k ft) . A noticeable amount of oxygen is missing and maintaining "comfortable" effort is a much more of an issue an at sea level. While the atmospheric pressure may be lessened at that altitude...come on. Have some respect, that is impressive as hell.

A Skeptic wrote:

How much difference would a dirt versus synthetic track make anyway? People have run 44.xx on dirt tracks.

And as far as altitude, Lee Evans ran 43.86 (making him still #7 all time) at the Mexico City Olympics.

Roughly .5 seconds at Mexico City, slightly more here.

If this was 48.7 hand-timed it's 48.7-48.9 auto, +.5 seconds=49.2-49.4. Subtract anywhere from nothing to 1 second for the track surface and you get a best of 48.2.

Add in Crackhead Ventolin's Gibberish, and he is capable of 43.23 on Mondo with Obama chasing him while "fully erect" and threatening to ass-rape him until the GOP cuts a debt deal that includes massive tax increases.

Exactly. It would be less than correct to say that the length of one's legs is 100% irrelevant, but the amount (and direction) of force that the runner applies to the ground is the dominant factor by a lot. Most reasonably fit people, including slow ones, run with roughly the same stride frequency, virtually independent of height or (within reasonable limits) speed. A 12:55 5,000 meter runner may (or may not) have a slightly quicker cadence than a 15:55 5,000 meter runner, but it is a virtual certainty that the 12:55 guy will have a much longer stride, mostly if not entirely attributable to his having greater push-off power. I was looking for an old video of Khalid Khannouchi and Paul Tergat running together early in London the year when KK won, Tergat was 2nd, and Haile was 3rd. I couldn't find it, but I distinctly remembering that when they running together (thus at the same speed) Khannouchi appeared to have a slightly slower cadence (and thus longer stride) than Tergat, despite Khannouchi being about 8 inches shorter than Tergat. It's (almost) all about the power.

Yyakka wrote:

I think you guys are saying the same thing but do not realize it

Stride length is the distance traveled between steps. It is NOT how far apart one can split their legs. I am 5ft 5 and have a longer stride than some people over 6ft tall. You wouldn't realize it by just looking at my legs while running because I don't split wide - but I push off the ground hard like a mofo though.

time = 48.7?

track is 7-15m long? = -1 sec

altitude advantage? = +0.4 sec

if this is right,we are talking 48 flat on dirt.

on a synthetic track, the guy can go 47 flat peak at least.

I want to see what Google Earth would say for the measurement. I measured the track off of Kamariny Road and got less than a meter off of 400. With the possibility in measurement error, I would say that makes it very close to either a 400 meter track or 440 yard track. I'm not sure if this is the track that Kiprop raced on though. However, I'm fairly sure that it's the same track that Rojo was at.

And if someone else wants to double check, all I typed in was Iten, Kenya. The track I measured is southeast of where you automatically land.

I measured it with 50m soft measuring tape and got 399m. I know I didn't do a good job but would I have been 10m out?

How far from the kerb are you meant to measure? We were right at the kerb but probably deviated a small bit so I'd say 397-398m for right beside the kerb.

I doubt it's as long as everyone says out here, but maybe a small bit long. It's definitely slow (even compared to other dirt tracks) so that could give the impression it's long.

lol lol lol lol wrote:

A Skeptic wrote:

How much difference would a dirt versus synthetic track make anyway? People have run 44.xx on dirt tracks.

And as far as altitude, Lee Evans ran 43.86 (making him still #7 all time) at the Mexico City Olympics.

Roughly .5 seconds at Mexico City, slightly more here.

If this was 48.7 hand-timed it's 48.7-48.9 auto, +.5 seconds=49.2-49.4. Subtract anywhere from nothing to 1 second for the track surface and you get a best of 48.2.

I thought the altitude would be a slight advantage for 400m?

You've added 0.5, so I take it you believe it to be a disadvantage?

So when Lee Evans ran 43.86 in Mexico City, it was more like a 43.3 at sea level?

I'm a bit confused!

jrm's 400 calc gives it as 44.26 at sea-level, but he is a pure physicist ignoring the biological implications of hypoxia

( even 100m at altitude requires some aerobic component - hines 9.95 converts to 10.03, but he ran 10.03 at low-altitude that year at sacramento & he had to be peaked at mexico, so you gotta believe he was sub-10 basic winning gold - maybe he was even 9.95 basic that day - not a stretch when his predecessor bullet bob is accorded low/mid 9.8 on a '70s track on his 10.06 in '64 )

evans 43.86 was worth significantly better than 44.26 basic

the precise value needs some looking at O2-dissociation curve, etc

i'd hazard a guess that the hypoxia offset the less wind-resistance hugely

it's not an unreasonable proposition that his 43.86 wouda been more-or-less the same at sea-level, perhaps, even quicker !

I ran on this track a few months ago when I visited Lornah's training centre and was coached by and looked after by the team from The Kenya Experience (www.traininkenya.com) - No idea if the track is long or not but as a recreational/club runner it was certainly hard work but incredibly inspirational! Asbel - what a runner - tactically inept at times but what a talent"!!!

What the heck are you going on about?? You are not contradicting a thing I said.

a) I didn't say that overstriding was a good thing

b) I didn't say one could simply stretch their lead food out to effectively/efficiently create a long stride

c) I didn't say power wasn't more important than long legs in stride length

d) I didn't say one could instantly change stride length

e) I didn't say that one with long legs ALWAYS has a longer stride than one with short legs

I basically didn't say a thing you "corrected" me on. Did I? What did I say?

First I said that stride length is measured NOT from one foot's toe off to the other foot's touchdown (as you stated incorrectly), it is NOT only the flight phase. It is measured from one footfall to the next footfall. You were wrong about that. I corrected you. You came back with all sorts of unrelated facts and opinions. You might WANT stride length to be measured differently than it actually is, but wanting won't change reality.

Again, FLIGHT PHASE IS NOT STRIDE LENGTH. It may be how YOU count it, but it is not reality.

And there is no need to apologize since you are the one who is wrong. I went back and counted, SEVERAL times the video of Webb running 1:43. I counted his stride at between 212-222 at different points in the race. I have counted Rudisha at 180 - low 180's during the middle of many of his races. You are going on instinct and things you've heard. I am going on hard evidence.

Anything else you'd care to be wrong about?