The 1:40 barrier will fall just as soon as someone with 45.0 speed or better develops his endurance to an extremely high level. This is still highly unlikey because athletes with that kind of speed will almost always stick to 400m, and even when they do move up, they train as "sprinter" types and fail to maximize their aerobic capacity. So, while it is extremely unlikely, it is definitely possible.
If someone is going to break 1:40 then they will have to train like an 800 meter runner. None of this taking a sprinter and training him like a distance guy or taking a distance guy and training him like a sprinter. You have to train specifically for the 800. Of course it will take someone of freakish talents and the perfect mix of fast and slow twitch fibers. I think that the main reason the 800 record has barely come down since Coe is simply because people don't care about the 800 very much and the top talent trains for either the 400 or the 1500 because that is where the glory is.
Does anyone think that the case of Jarmila Kratochvilova is relevent? She held the 400m world record in the early 80s at 47.99. She was due to race a 400m race in the run up to the world championships but had some slight injury so she changed to the 800m because she thought that the lower speed would be less likely to aggravate the problem. In her first 800m she broke the world record in 1:53.28 which has stood ever since.
Im abit mis-informed on my knowledge of womens MD WRs, but recently upon talking to a fellow track fan about it, i recived the following response:
"Dont worry about the womens WR's mate, theres no doubt about it that they're all drugged up performances, that's why nobody ever gets near it"
Anyone got an opinion on this?
Perhaps you've never seen a picture of Kratochvilova, 'masculine' doesn't even begin to describe her.
Fact is that drug taking in the old Eastern Bloc is no longer the simply the subject of speculation, it is well documented.
remembering the 80s wrote:
Perhaps you've never seen a picture of Kratochvilova, 'masculine' doesn't even begin to describe her.
Fact is that drug taking in the old Eastern Bloc is no longer the simply the subject of speculation, it is well documented.
Yup....."remembering the 80's" answered your question Gav. I would say 90% of the women's WR's are dirty. Drugging women makes a bigger difference than drugging men (though OF COURSE drugging men makes a difference too)
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
Yup....."remembering the 80's" answered your question Gav. I would say 90% of the women's WR's are dirty. Drugging women makes a bigger difference than drugging men (though OF COURSE drugging men makes a difference too)
Could easily be confused for a man...
http://www.atleticaleggera.com/immagini/Krato.jpgi personally think that if a freak like El G put on some upper body mass, and trained for the 800 with some 1500 elements in there, he would run 1:40. the guy ran 1:44 for the second 800 of the Olympic final with 2 rounds before that in close proximity. i have to believe that he would be able to run a 1:41-2 flat out, fresh, when he is in 3:28ish shape. pack on the beef, adjust the training, and he would be there, i think.
I agree...but not really anyone else here
Being heavier doesn't make you stronger idiot. That is the most insane response yet. His extra "upper body mass" would make him slower. We are all morest dumberer now...
runnnnnnnner wrote:
If someone is going to break 1:40 then they will have to train like an 800 meter runner. None of this taking a sprinter and training him like a distance guy or taking a distance guy and training him like a sprinter. You have to train specifically for the 800. Of course it will take someone of freakish talents and the perfect mix of fast and slow twitch fibers. I think that the main reason the 800 record has barely come down since Coe is simply because people don't care about the 800 very much and the top talent trains for either the 400 or the 1500 because that is where the glory is.
hey speaking of glory whats up w/ your nickname... i'm the only one here allowed to have multiple 'n's
There have been a number of runners who seemed capable of breaking 1.40 just by watching them run. Paul Ereng moved up from the 4, looked easy at 1.43, but got injured. Both Billy Konchellah and Wilson Kipketer seemed to be on the verge, but each of them suffered from bouts of malaria during peak years. Cruz had the talent, but he also got injured after moving up after the L.A. Games in which he dominated both heats and finals with easy 1.44's. Coe was never really pushed in the 8 during his hey day, and by the time Cruz came along he was past his best. There are others I'm not mentioning, but it seems that staying healthy has been the biggest impediment to running sub 1.40.
Yo wrote:
The only reason you guys think Wariner is the one is beacuase he is white.
It has nothing to do with race, dumbass, it has to do with his body type. Who the hell runs a 400 that fast with that body type? His speed plus his body type alone indicate that he makes an excellent 800 meter candidate.
then why doesn't he run one then smarty pants huh.
God, you are stupid. He probably doesn't want to run one because he thinks it's gay. That's how Texas sprinters are (and some sprinters in general). They have some sort of weird phobia/neurosis about going around the track more than once.
kilo man wrote:
Being heavier doesn't make you stronger idiot. That is the most insane response yet. His extra "upper body mass" would make him slower. We are all morest dumberer now...
Well I personally dont see how a distance based runner is going to take down the record unless they develope a bit more muscle in the upper body to improve their speed. You don't see too many 45-46 sec 400 guys around that are rail thin, do you? Seb Coe wasn't "skinny" as mid-distance guys go, and he did pretty well for himself it seems. I'm not talking 10-15 pounds of man meat here, just a couple (5?)in the arms and shoulders. Muscle, in the right places and amount, only makes you faster. The 800 is too short of a race for the added weight to become a serious efficiency problem when compared to the added gain of speed.
the duke of kent wrote:
[quote]kilo man wrote:
You don't see too many 45-46 sec 400 guys around that are rail thin, do you? Seb Coe wasn't "skinny" as mid-distance guys go, and he did pretty well for himself it seems.
Jeremy Wariner??? He is quite thin, and he runs 44 flat.
And Seb Coe WAS fairly skinny. He did NOT have a big upper body at all. Sure, he had power in both his legs and arms (he worked with weights a lot), but he did not put on "meat" like you seem to be looking for.
One can be powerful and strong without having extra bulk. So I agree that a 1:40 800 runner will need power/explosive strength, and probably be well conditioned from some serious weight or plyo work. But lots of meat/muscle?? Not necessary.
lol...wait a minute yeah jeremy might look kinda thin compared to other sprinters, but i promise you hes bigger than most 800m guys.
also the guy was talking about El G, putting on SOME pounds in the upper body.
Honestly he may have a point, i cant really think of an 800m runner that is as thin as EL G , in the upper body.
But im not so sure EL G i think could have been pretty damn good in the 800, he did hit 1:44 splits in the 1500M
AND im guessing the second half of a 1500m is prety damn near all aerobic, with alot of lactic acid in your legs.
Madein_82 wrote:
lol...wait a minute yeah jeremy might look kinda thin compared to other sprinters, but i promise you hes bigger than most 800m guys.
And I promise you that there are plenty of milers near Wariner's size. Krummenacker is a similar size, Webb's upper body is probably MORE jacked than Wariner's, Peter Snell was as big as Wariner if not bigger, Ovett, Scott, and Walker all had similar upper bodies to Wariner's.
My point??? Wariner does not have a jacked upper body, therefore, it is not necessary to be jacked to be great at 400, and certainly not to be great at 800.
