Easy Answer - He had a huge aerobic base and was conditioned to run near his top speed and still be aerobic most of the way. There are a lot of college sprinters that can run 46 sec. for 400 but cannot run 1:44 (52 sec. per lap) for the 800. The reason is they do not have aerobic conditioning. You need speed for the 800 but aerobic conditioning is what make champions.
ventolin^3 wrote:
clearly you are an idiot with little clue about peak performance
i'm talking about what cram couda run in his oslo form for 400 - mile
for tergat, it is simple
on his 10k wr day, his line of fit was prelim
~ 53.3 / 1'50.9 -> 3'35.3 , 4'51.5 , 7'26.7 , 12'44.2 , 26'22.2
the vid of his 12'49 is on youtube - he ran a poor race chasing komen/geb when he shouda backed off & run his own race & been a 2 or 3s faster, instead of dying in last coupla laps when he was on for 12'46 but faded to his 12'49
What you is very easy. You do the calculation. As your fictional equatio doesn´t the real result - that are most of the cases - what you do ?
YOU GOT A YOUR INVENTIVE EXCUSE THE WAY YOU JUSTIFY THAT YOUR CALCULATION IS PRECISE, ACCURATE CALCULATION, IT`S THE REALITY THAT FAILS SOME HOW.
This is the basic justification that a mathematic analphabet knows. When the runner gets the estimate result, it´s because the calculation is well built with rich variables. When the runner don´t, he did a poor result ther´s at least one excuse, one rational justification why he didn´t. It´s what you do with Steve every time he didn´t.
Steve didn´t that estimate performance BECAUSE....Well, it´s Steve human failure, but he could done.
Tergat it´s not your mathematics that fails, it´s "he ran a poor race chasing komen/geb when he shouda backed off & run his own race & been a 2 or 3s faster, instead of dying in last coupla laps when he was on for 12'46 but faded to his 12'49". Bla...bla...bla...Always an excuse, not to justify the reaso why your formla fails, but to justify the human reason why the runner is not in agreement with your silly formula.
I advice you to review your silly calculation the way you equate and include the human failure. When you will be able to do so, i will say you did something smart, but for the moment you just do something silly.
Happily the level of trainig methodology of a few the Let´s Run readers is superior to your formula.
This is funny. It´s not you rated mathematics, your human failure, it´s the runner failure !
You are not as idiot as i´m. You are nothing but just an hypothesis, is what you are.
curiousrunner wrote:
could he go faster than 48.5 while he was training for the 800/1500? please give your input and back up your claims with evidence
If it´s speed and/or endurance, if he did 49 or 46 talent whatever, the factual reason why he did what is did and didn´t what he didn´t (as he didn´t 46s 400m) is this one training.
This is the training reality and not ventolin fictional fomula.
How Steve Cram trains ? (starts on page 9)
http://www.britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/2003spring.pdfsub3over40 wrote:
Easy Answer - He had a huge aerobic base and was conditioned to run near his top speed and still be aerobic most of the way. There are a lot of college sprinters that can run 46 sec. for 400 but cannot run 1:44 (52 sec. per lap) for the 800. The reason is they do not have aerobic conditioning. You need speed for the 800 but aerobic conditioning is what make champions.
^This.^
could you show where he said he could only run a 48?
My calculator indicates that with this thread Ventolin has put in his peak a-hole Letsrun career performance. Though he will be laughed at by the 10,000 people who ultimately read this thread, he actually could've been laughed at by a maximum of 10,143 people if all the dials on the Ventolin a-hole calculator were turned to 11.
he never ran track workouts, jogged 100mpw ,and had no girlfriend
In the mid 1980's I lived in Boulder, CO and there were always world class runners around. One day I was at the track getting ready for a workout and I see this guy running fast 200's. As I got closer I realized it was Steve Cram. I timed a few of his 200's and he was running very relaxed 23's. I am pretty confident he could run much faster than 49.1 for a 400.
Former boulderite wrote:
In the mid 1980's I lived in Boulder, CO and there were always world class runners around. One day I was at the track getting ready for a workout and I see this guy running fast 200's. As I got closer I realized it was Steve Cram. I timed a few of his 200's and he was running very relaxed 23's. I am pretty confident he could run much faster than 49.1 for a 400.
Then why he said he wasn´t fast enough to run under 48?
Didn't Jim Ryun once run a 440 leg of the mile relay in 46 point? Am I mis-informed? Am I correct in thinking Cram could probably run a faster 400 than Ryun?
Interesting that both Cram and Ryun rank near the top of all time but both had to settle for Olympic Silver.
Antonio Cabral wrote:What you is very easy. You do the calculation. As your fictional equatio doesn´t the real result - that are most of the cases - what you do ?
no
i've tried it a few hundred times on elite athletes & i can't find any exception
the one i did question was paula whose 8'22/30'01 indicated 4-flat speed but she only had listed 4'05pb & everyone reckoned that was right as she is supposed to have "no speed"
then i read her book & she states she did a 4'01tt around millenium
exception was not an exception
YOU GOT A YOUR INVENTIVE EXCUSE THE WAY YOU JUSTIFY THAT YOUR CALCULATION IS PRECISE, ACCURATE CALCULATION, IT`S THE REALITY THAT FAILS SOME HOW
excuse ?
you are obviously too stoopid to ascertain what is an athlete's flat out ability in even-paced race
do you seriously believe morceli was only worth 13'03 ???
go watch the race or read about it & see what is wrong with prediction of ~ 12'55 that day
This is the basic justification that a mathematic analphabet knows. When the runner gets the estimate result, it´s because the calculation is well built with rich variables. When the runner don´t, he did a poor result ther´s at least one excuse, one rational justification why he didn´t. It´s what you do with Steve every time he didn´t
what is this drivel ???
all i've said he was worth 1'42.5 at his peak & that indicates mid-46 speed
if you looked at the 400pbs of 1'42 - 1'43 guys, the majority have listed pb of 46 - 47
cram is likely one of these
Steve didn´t that estimate performance BECAUSE....Well, it´s Steve human failure, but he could done
do you have any info on any 400tt he did just before oslo ?
if so, post it, if not, then don't waste my time
Tergat it´s not your mathematics that fails, it´s "he ran a poor race chasing komen/geb when he shouda backed off & run his own race & been a 2 or 3s faster, instead of dying in last coupla laps when he was on for 12'46 but faded to his 12'49". Bla...bla...bla...Always an excuse, not to justify the reaso why your formla fails, but to justify the human reason why the runner is not in agreement with your silly formula
idiot
go watch it
he was going at 12'45/12'46 pace at 3k & made odd surge to catch komen & was still at 12'46 pace at 4 - 4.2k but then faded badly to 12'49
anyone with more than a peabrain couda deduced he went at too extravagant a pace & wouda been better served going out slower
& btw, impress us & tell us about 400s tergat may have done in training to dispute predicted ~ 53s speed
I advice you to review your silly calculation the way you equate and include the human failure. When you will be able to do so, i will say you did something smart, but for the moment you just do something silly
utter gibberish
Happily the level of trainig methodology of a few the Let´s Run readers is superior to your formula
moron
i have never mentioned anything about coaching to anyone - it's of no interest to me
This is funny. It´s not you rated mathematics, your human failure, it´s the runner failure !
idiot
go read about paula in her book
i thought formula was wrong predicting 4'00, with listed 4'05pb, but she states 4'01tt
i'll take that as a "corrected" runner failure
His coach and training partners have said in the past he could run .50sec 400s all day long with a .60sec rest interval. I think that pretty well explains the 1:42.
cfgvhjb wrote:
Former boulderite wrote:In the mid 1980's I lived in Boulder, CO and there were always world class runners around. One day I was at the track getting ready for a workout and I see this guy running fast 200's. As I got closer I realized it was Steve Cram. I timed a few of his 200's and he was running very relaxed 23's. I am pretty confident he could run much faster than 49.1 for a 400.
Then why he said he wasn´t fast enough to run under 48?
Well first of all, there is a big difference between 49.1 and 48. Also, many runners will underestimate themselves, especially if they may be trying to prove a point. Most middle distance runners don't really know what their best 400 would be since they don't run it, or if they do it is after another event.
sub3over40 wrote:
Easy Answer - He had a huge aerobic base and was conditioned to run near his top speed and still be aerobic most of the way. There are a lot of college sprinters that can run 46 sec. for 400 but cannot run 1:44 (52 sec. per lap) for the 800. The reason is they do not have aerobic conditioning. You need speed for the 800 but aerobic conditioning is what make champions.
The above is the only sensible answer on this whole thread topic.
The bloke was aerobically strong enough to place highly in some top UK cross country championships.
ventolin^3 wrote:
deanouk wrote:How can you be so sure that Cram was worth 1:42.5 on the day he broke the Mile WR?easy
it's observational experience
knowing when a guy is at his absolute peak
learn
He continued running at a very high level for the rest of the season, and I'm sure he'd have trained specifically to be at a (800) peak to face Cruz in the top meet of the year, Zurich
no
he trained for '85 for 1500
he was 1500 champ & that was his wr goal
whatever 800 training he did, it was secondary to 1500 training & clearly an afterthought
What you don't take into consideration is that Cram was given pretty much the perfect race in Zurich. Not only did he run very even splits (51.2, 51.7), which was the way he ran his best 800 races, but he was drafted for almost 300m of the 2nd lap by Cruz. So he had a perfect pace maker and object to aim for right in front of him!
idiot
you've watched but learnt nothing
how many times does your peabrain have to be told that cram didn't look to be chasing a time that day but the scalp
he shadowed cruz like a rabid dog, completely ignoring the wabbit leading by 6m ahead in 50.6, continuing only with his total focus on cruz's back
if he'd wanted a tt that day, he wouda ignored cruz & gone thru in 50.7 stuck to wabbit
get it into your numbskull, his 1'42.8 was incidental to beating cruz - not the time goal
You've always based an athlete's "potential" for their fastest 800m based on the fact that they invariably run the entire 2nd lap solo with no drafting. If other top 800 guys had a pace maker drafting them to 700m, then their times would be quicker by about 0.5-0.7.
If Cram was left alone at the bell, no doubt his final time would have drifted out to 1:43 low. So your claim he could have run 1:42.5 in Oslo is somewhat flawed. Unless you mean he has Cruz pacing him to 700m in a slightly faster even paced race?
idiot
cram was chasing win, not time
he was nowhere in the shape of his 3'46.3
he was running butt-end of season after 3 wrs & 2nd fastest ever 1k
all he wished for that day was cruz - be it 1'44 or the 1'42 he got
that was a match-race - get it into your numbskull
I'm pretty sure Cram was at his limit with 1:42.8 that day, and I think I remember him saying so himself at the time. He had the enormous benefit (not afforded the likes of Coe, Kip or Rudisha in their 1:41 and 1:42 low runs) of having an ideal pace for him with an ideal rabbit (Cruz) and ideal drafting to the home straight.
drivel
he said the peak day of his life was oslo
at least 1'42.5 that day - & with solo last 400
Well your so called "observations" are clearly skewed by ensuring the drivel you spout backs up any comments made by yourself advocating your "calculator".
I have seen practically all of Cram's races and have the vast majority of articles and interviews written on him since 1981. There is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to support your claim he could run 400m in 46.5, as you claim on this thread. Moreover, there is much to suggest he was a 47.high/48 man in his peak year of 1985.
You suggest he would have run 1:42.5 with a solo last lap off a 50.7 first 400m. Well please find me ONE example of an 800m race in which he ran sub 51.0 on the first lap? The only one was in the 4 x 800m WR he ran in 1982, when he covered the first lap in 50.7 off a rolling start, and ended up with 1:44.5.
In his 3 fastest ever 800m he went through 400m in 51 and bits.
1985- 1:42.88 - 51.2/51.7 (drafted to 700m by Cruz)
1986- 1:43.22 - 51.7/51.5 (led up to 600m by Peter Elliott)
1986- 1:43.19 - 51.6/51.6 (paced/drafted to 600m by Darren Clarke)
Here are some extracts from an interview with Mel Watman and published in Athletics Weekly over 2 weeks (5.10.85 & 12.10.85): -
WATMAN:- Referring to his Zurich win over Cruz. "Were you running close to your limits that night?"
CRAM: - I THINK SO. I'm never really going to set the world alight at 800m.... The day after I got back from Moscow (European Cup 1500m) I had a very good session of 150s and knew the speed was there so I went to Zurich feeling very confident.....I knew Cruz would be going out in his usual way and I was just determined to HANG ON TO HIM and if I could get past him in the last 200m fair enough. If I couldn't I would just be looking for quite a fast time"
So, contrary to what you say, Cram was not willing to go too fast, but rather use Cruz to drag him to a fast time!
Later on in the 2nd part of the interview, WATMAN asks Cram "Can you isolate one particular performance of which you could say 'That is my best work yet'?
CRAM responds with several races, but finishes with,...."Or when I ran a 47.6 relay leg in China last year;..."
WATMAN: - "On the subject of your basic speed you once said, many years ago before you had even broken 1:48 for 800, that 'There's no way I can ever run 47 secs for 400 like Seb and Steve...' How have you managed to improve in that area?
CRAM: - "Obviously I've worked a lot on speed, but I haven't done any weights or real speed technique. I think strength has a lot to do with it.....Because I've filled out a little bit and I've got a lot more strength, what speed I have I'm able to maintain over a longer distance. The most pleasing thing for me this year has been my actual sprinting speed. Even in training I've been running low 23s for 200 with a couple of yards rolling start, which isn't fantastic but is pretty good fom me, AND I'VE RUN A 48.1 400TIME TRIAL THIS YEAR."
So he cites a 47.6 (worth about 48.3) relay as one of his most pleasing runs, and he states that he ran a 48.1 tt in 1985, his best season. As I suggested in an earlier post, with top runners around him in a couple of 400 races in mid summer he could possibly have got down to 47.5 in an open 400m.
There is no way he was ever going to run a 46.5 when he ran that Mile WR, just like anything approaching 1:42.5 would only be achieved in a similar race to the one in Zurich; i.e being drafted through a 51 first lap and then up to 600/700m in the same fashion Cruz did in Zurich.
Look. One of the main reasons I come to this sport it´s because ther´s no speculation. Run is WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET. The runner that did 1:42.1 pb it´s because he never did 1:42.0 or faster and he did once faster than 1:42.2 and that´s all.
The man that wins the run it´s the man that wins, and zecond place is second place, be a local run or the olympics. ther´s no null matches like in other sports, like in football/soccer. Ther´s no speculative points of consideration like in gymnastics. All you got to do is run and the analysis is done by the chrono and by the place classification.
There, once in a while, it happens that some folks likme you are one, arrives on thios sport with a new formula, with a new creative invention that is mathematics applied to hypothetical and fictional reality, not facts. You don´t use calculations from the reality, from facts, you use calculation to get to performances the runner IN FACT didn´t, only in your equation he did. Steve Cram never did faster than 49 in competition but youwith you fctional formula you get a fictional 400m Cram pb he never did. If this isn´t fiction there what´s fiction and what´s the reality ?
I see... you say exceptions aren´t exceptions, what are then ? That are the rule.
You guys have proved your point. Step back now. Ventolin has nothing but speculation.
You guys are kind of arguing against a guy who is approaching athletics like religion.
I'm surprised he hasn't come up with some formula predicting performance of the offspring of various world class runners, should they mate.
It's all speculative fantasy.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda...didn't.
the 800 meter is a sprint. he sprinted the whole time, just like any other 800 runner
Red from Oaxaca wrote:
Didn't Jim Ryun once run a 440 leg of the mile relay in 46 point? Am I mis-informed? Am I correct in thinking Cram could probably run a faster 400 than Ryun?
Interesting that both Cram and Ryun rank near the top of all time but both had to settle for Olympic Silver.
46.9 440y on a cinder track after running a 3:58 mile. And no, you are incorrect in thinking Cram could run a faster 400 than Ryun. Jim ran the last lap of a 1500 in Dusseldorf in 1967 in 49 high. No one has done that since. Jim had blazing speed.
The calculations are interesting and that is all. What the heck is the problem with that?