43.47 to win the WC final, with Merritt second in 43.65 ... are you kidding me?

sprinthard wrote:

. If a sub 43 is so easy, why hasn't anyone gone for the millions of dollars that would be bestowed upon them done it?

Who is offering "millions of dollars" for a sub 43?

Flo'da boy wrote:

Has the track been resurfaced since 2008? I guess there were some pretty remarkable times then too though...

Yes. It's a harder sprinters' track now, conducive to fast sprint times. Not so good for distance runners though.

Otk wrote:

sprinthard wrote:

. If a sub 43 is so easy, why hasn't anyone gone for the millions of dollars that would be bestowed upon them done it?

Who is offering "millions of dollars" for a sub 43?

Nike, for starters.

You may be right about this.

ventolin^3 wrote:

the "real" story shoud be lashawn's incredible 43.65 off no serious speedwork this year !!!

he probably wouda run 43.2/43.3 if he'd had uninterrupted training this past year

if anyone is going to break the wr, it is going to be lashawn next year

ventolin^3 wrote:

Peter Andersson wrote:Personally I think Michael Johnson's 43:18 is one of the weaker records, Usain Bolt would already have gone 42:xx if he'd gone up in distance after London

no

this old-wives tale needs burying

people forget that butch demolished the wr from 43.86 to 43.29 !!!

an extra-ordinary break-thru !!!

butch's wr was so good that mj "only" breaking it by 0.11s made it look like he wasn't as good a 400 runner as 19.32

in fact, mj's 43.18 was fractionally better than his 19.32

imo : 43.18

= 19.34 basic

19.32 had some wind pushing it out to slower than this

Johnson only ran 19:32 once - second best was 19:66 I think.

In addition to 43:18 he ran sub 43:50 several times, after working his PB down from 44 by 0,1 or 0,2 every now and then. There has been several since then who should have been able to lower 43:18, especially Wariner, one or two more years of injury free training on him it would have been sub 43 already. Also, if either Bolt, Gatlin, Gay or even Frankie Frederiks had done the 200-400 combo instead of the 100-200 I think we'd seen several sub 43 times already.

And just imagine what Rudisha could have done had he been a 400 specialist instead...

Several?? Name them.

Flo'da boy wrote:

Has the track been resurfaced since 2008? I guess there were some pretty remarkable times then too though...

Yes, it was resurfaced in May this year!

There is an article on it on the IAAF website saying that it is the fastest track mondo have produced and that it will produce fast times.

This is some of the funniest stuff I've seen on here in a long time

can someone please explain to me what exactly happened to Wayde after a hard 1 lap on the track? I don't care how hard you tried, no one in that good of shape is passing out from "exhaustion" after a 400. I'll give the marathoners and even the 10k guys and gals a break, but no one else. He was on something.

As a side note - god, Flotrack has gotten so freaking annoying. All of their tweets have all caps, meme's, !!!, or just general hyperbole. They only reason I still follow them on twitter is because they are the only ones who quick updates on live track events. Otherwise, their terrible. Just look at this tweet:

https://twitter.com/FloTrack/status/636880303978491904

end rant

This site has amazed me for years now

43.18 weaker of the records LOL

Everyone has their opinions on how fast someone SHOULDA COULDA have fun given certain circumstances......42 point SMH

nawtyxes wrote:

43.18 weaker of the records LOL

Weaker is of course a compareable term here. But yes, compared to the men's 100, 200, 800, 1500, mile, 3000 flat, two miles and 5000 I'd say the 400 record is the weekest, the one that should have gone down by now.

What's your pick?

Also, just look at what happened in the women's 400 today. A former 200 meters (and 100 meters) specialist who's still very good but obviously beyond her prime since she's moving up - crushed the rest of the field and ran away with the title with a low 49. Count away those old Eastern Block times that we all know came from doping and she's not even that far of the clean world record, which I think is Cathy Freeman's 48:63.

Here's a thought, Tyson Gay should move up to the 400, he's not getting any real attention (i.e real prize money etc) at all now as at best even on a good day playing third fiddle behind Bolt and Gatlin, and part from Merritt the American competition seems to have gone backwards, I'd say he can probably make that team easier than the 100/200 for Oly 2016.

Peter Andersson wrote:

nawtyxes wrote:

43.18 weaker of the records LOL

Weaker is of course a compareable term here. But yes, compared to the men's 100, 200, 800, 1500, mile, 3000 flat, two miles and 5000 I'd say the 400 record is the weekest, the one that should have gone down by now.

What's your pick?

And yet the men's 100m WR will fall again before the 400m WR will....

Otk wrote:

sprinthard wrote:

. If a sub 43 is so easy, why hasn't anyone gone for the millions of dollars that would be bestowed upon them done it?

Who is offering "millions of dollars" for a sub 43?

I think he meant that with a world record (assuming we are talking about a WR here), you get money for it, prize mmoney, endorsements, invites to big meets, et cetera. It eventually amounts to millions as a result of the WR.

clueless

he cruised that 19.66wr knowing no serious competition at meet

marsh not in '92-semi shape

mj just happy to get thru trials without injury

it was a 19.66-cruise

best of 43.39

his wr was big 0.21s slice off his pb

nonsense

he already ran 43.98 off primary 200 training in '92

he was only interested in 200 gold in '92 but gastroenteritis in games, fading in semi to oblivion

he spent next 4y running 400 off just 200 training & still got it down to 43.39 !!!

nonsense

only one who shouda done it was quincey in '92 when looking capable of 43-flat/low in semi

fatigue got him in in final but 43.50 wasn't bad

no

he already looked past expectations at 43.45

there was no more meat to come-off that bone

utter drivel

can't you think ???

mj had 19.32 & ran 43.18

how the fuuck was frankie at 19.68 going to beat 43.18 ???

probably ~ 44.75 in london

i have no doubt he couda gone 44-flat if he had trained full-time for 400 from '07/'08, meaning some serious weights, which seem lacking in kenya

looking at this meet, 43-high woudn't look impossible if he's trained for it & done some serious weights, meaning move to 1st world camp

canova has said the kenyans woud have 3'25 guys if training in top western camps with all the weight-training/speed-coaches available

Ever heard of peaking?

So glad to see my man Merritt back in tip top shape. Too bad he couldn't pull off the win, but glad to see him PR. I miss the Jeremy Wariner rivalry.

Merritt running 43.65 is one thing--he'd done nothing near that this year but he had a new coach and was coming back from injury and he's done close to that quite a few times. But you had Makwala and Niekerke as well as Rusheen of Jamaica and Al-Masrahi(?) of Saudi Arabia all running ridiculous times where the improvement curve was off the charts, where they ran nothing under 45 prior to this year for some or last year for others. But it's not weight training that is doing it. Rudisha wouldn't need weight training--he'd need a lot of sprinting work, but that'd put him in the mid to high 44s.

it's great

wouda been helluva lot better than 43.65 if fit thru-out year

screw any coach

he had big injury

no speed !!!

clueless

he wasn't wrecked by injuries back then

clueless

superb coached guys

what part of a guy like souleiman running intrinsic 1'41.5 you not comprehend ?

clueless

45.00 is no barrier for elites

rubbish

where is "doper" winner ???

utterly clueless

he'd need huge amount of weights

fetch current

nonsense

he was likely 44-high in london

how inept are you ???