McDougal, why no kick?

There is a matter of physiology people seem to be ignoring here. At what percentage one runs vs. their max has less to do with training than percentage of slow twitch fibers in many cases. Most elites, even marathoners these days, have a decent amount of fast twitch A fibers and even some fast twitch B. These "b" fibers especially will prevent running close to 400 meter top speed. A slug, however, may have close to 100% slow twitch fibers and therefore with a nominal amount of training be able to run at a very high percent of max speed for a 5k. It's the way fibers work. I personally have run 14:34 and 29:41 with a best 400 of 58.3. These people are rare but plentiful enough that no blanket rule should be made to exclude them. As to the original poster's question, 12x400 in around 60 is not a great kickers workout. I coached a high school kid who could do twenty in 64 or ten in 60 with 60 seconds rest but had very little kick compared to his peers. (4:10 milers). When you're talking about 13:30 something guys who can close in 56, all the sixties in the world won't help you unless you're running them from 3-4 laps out.

it just seems like u need to have speed to run 12 x 400 at 59 with 90s rest.

and potential, your kid, 10 x 400 at 60 w/ 60s rest = 4:10 mile ?? maybe he just wasn't racing up to his fitness level and thats why he didnt have a kick, maybe

If I just counted my open PR in the 400, my PR would be 58.4. Pretty slow considering I run 4:20's, 9:30's, 15:00's. If that was the only time I had ever run it (my freshman year of high school) I too could claim that I "couldn't break 58" but could achieve all that in the distances.

But I've also ran the 1600 relay several times and split 52's and 53's.

You workhorses who claim to not have any speed but run fast 5k's and 10k's need to actually race a 400 before you tell me a sub-15 minute 5K runner couldn't hit a 55. That is like someone saying they can break 2:20 in the marathon, but their 5K PR is 20 minutes (set during a training 15 mile training run).

im not sure if the point is getting across to some people. while training for a certain discipline, say 5k for example, at a point where my fitness is good enough to run 14:50, AT THAT MOMENT IN TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THAT SPECIFIC DISTANCE I COULD PROBABLY NOT RUN A QUARTER FASTER THAN 55 SECONDS. i would say the same is true for a good number of people. this has more to do with mileage being running, muscle fibers recruited, and specific aerobic training, rather than actual physical capability. that being said, if i cut the mileage in a third, dropped the long intervals, and focused purely on leg turnover, of course i could run faster than 55. i think most, including Bob Kennedy, McDougs, and all the other examples, would agree.

OK, so much for the physiology lesson. Obviously wasted in the face of conjecture. For the record, I personally have raced the 400 for time and never broke 58, even when my coach had me running 80 meter flat out repeats with tons of rest in between. As for the 4:10 guy, sure he was running to his best, he just was physiologicallly predisposed to not running with pure speed so our counter was to train him to be able to run close to max speed for as long as possible. I seriously doubt any of the people arguing this case have spent much time in the upper echelons of the sport because there are a bunch of us out there with slow twitch fibers. Here's another one that will blow your mind. A affects a slow twitch runner less to go out at hard speeds than the faster runner even though the pace is closer to that runner's best. For instance this 4:10 miler could handle a 60 opener better than another 4:10 runner with a faster 400 because the faster the pace, the more the fast twitch fibers are engaged, so while the ST runner hasd few fibers to engage, the FT runner will start firing and dying once those fibers have been recruited. So in this case, a 50 second 400 runner is more hurt by a 60 second first lap than a 54 second runner. Mathematically this makes no sense to you; physiologically, it is predetermined.

go look up his interview with the brojos from a few years ago, i believe he said that his 400m pr was 54, yet he was able to run 4:00xx ( i believe) in addition to his ridiculous prs in the 5, 10, 15 and half

Ritzenhein's "PR" is also 54 in the 400, but he closed his senior FL race in 2:00.

nope, that was a lot of exaggeration, neither his junior year victory or senior year-- not even close to 2 flat for the last 800....

junior year they ran pretty much 4:40s the whole way

and senior year he ran 4:33 2nd mile i believe, and broke away, and won by 20s over webb....

but he def. did not run 4:33--break away-- half mile alone, then 2 flat also alone, maybe 2:15 at best

Actually at Foot Locker his soph year he ran 2:00 his last 800 when he ran the 8:57 2 mile.

V6 wrote:

You workhorses who claim to not have any speed but run fast 5k's and 10k's need to actually race a 400 before you tell me a sub-15 minute 5K runner couldn't hit a 55. That is like someone saying they can break 2:20 in the marathon, but their 5K PR is 20 minutes (set during a training 15 mile training run).

Nice terrible, exaggerated analogy. You see, 2:20 happens to be much faster than 20-minute 5k pace. A 58-second quarter is much slower than 15-minute 5k pace.

yeaH RIGHT wrote:

Dont Rush me wrote:

Dave Bedford could run 13:45 x 2 without stopping and couldn't crack 55 with a running start.

I nominate this post for most ridiculous exaggerated lie of the year.

Great! Call Dave and ask him.

I am a little bit shocked that you would come to the defense of such a false comment or rumor. It is common knowledge that he is not that fast! If you really put it in context, he would have never had any "speed" problems with the way you guys are talking. HE NEVER FINISHED THAT FAST, PERIOD. Sigh, I can't believe I have stooped to providing evidence. I just think I am erked at such an outlandish myth of Dathan, that even grown men apparently believe.

FOOTLOCKER 1999 OUTDOOR 9:01.79

1 Ritzenhein, Datham 01 Rockford, MI 9:01.79

2 Mueller, Jason 99 Shelby, OH 9:05.32

3 Jefferson, John 01 Delray Beach, FL 9:14.24

4 Jefferson, Sean 01 Delray Beach, FL 9:16.27

5 Morales, Ben 00 Hollister, CA 9:16.35

6 Yoder, Phillip 99 Kendallville, IN 9:16.41

They deleted the summary, but if I remember correctly, he closed in 2:08. And you do know, that at this time, his 1600 PR was 4:14?

FOOTLOCKER FINALS 1999 14:29

http://www.dyestat.com/9xc/us/fl/speck-finals.html

4:37, 9:22, but I guess it is possible in reality world, to slow the cross country to tactical in the last mile. He runs the next 3:07 at 5 minute pace (everyone does actually), then runs the last half mile in 4 minute pace (with the others only finishing in 2:04, 2:05 etc)

I can run under 15 min for a 5k, but there is absoulutely no way I have ever been fast enough to run a 55 second quarter. If I trained for the 400 the last 5 years or so I could probably do it, but when I was in sub 15 shape I'm pretty sure I could not break 57 flat to save my life. In fact if you offered my a large amount of money (going off my income - let's say $5 or more) to break 28 seconds in a 200 - I think your money would be safe. Anyone who has ever seen me run would agree.

I can't turn over my legs at all, they just don't go. My top speed is slow - some people are just like that. I'm sure everyone who can break 14 can run under 55 (maybe one or two exceptions), but I gurantee there are hundreds of people who can break 15 but can't break 55.

I don't know what the hell I was thinking of. And it wasn't 2:08 though, cuz Mueller closed in 2:08.

One of us needs to desperately check our facts.

In 2000, Ritzenhein won the FLO 2-mile in 8:48. He went through the mile in 4:30, was pretty much alone on lap 5-6 and ran through 6 at 6:46-7 (barely slowing), came through lap 7 in 7:44 (57-8 lap split) to lose all remaining competition before closing in 64 to make his last half 2:01, right around 2-flat (forgive me for the lost second).

No? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that "It is common knowledge he's not that fast," is good enough evidence.

well, now i def no that is incorrect because i was at that race in raleigh. they went out in 70 etc, and 4:30 correct, then ritz dropped it. neither of the laps were that fast, 7th or 8th. i don't there was a lap as fast as 61 the whole race.

his last 4 laps were combination of 64s and 65s. I am sorry, I am not really even arguing, I am telling you. Every race that I tell you he didn't do it, you guys come up with another one. It has never been done.

I believe his last 200m was only 33 and last lap a 65. But in any case, here is a picture of Ritz just AFTER passing the 400m to go mark. Notice the clock.

The first one is the mile, for mile split and point of reference of where the clock is.

http://www.dyestat.com/rivals/pics/2000061802200790.jpg

This is at the same spot, just past the line, notice the time. Sorry to bring down your hero. He is still great, just not a kicker.

http://www.dyestat.com/rivals/pics/2000061802210790.jpg

Summary of the Race:

"Still, the 64-65 pace that ensued could do no better than bring the lead group through the mile at 4:29. Logsdon took command through the end of the fifth lap, but Ritz then made his decisive move, spread-eagling his pursuers so quickly that even those who heavily favored the Rockford junior were stunned. He burned the last three laps in an unofficial 3:12.3, 4:17.5 for the last 1600."

So the write up has no mention of a 59 7th lap? Or why not mention that the 3:12.3 was actually 72-2:00?

How about this? You find any material detailing him running 2:00 or even 2:01 for any race. I will glady say Ritz has a deadly kick to appease you. But until then, just realize that you were mistaken. No hard feelings. Lets shake on it.

The write-up does say he made a decisive move and "spread-eagled" his competition.

If I remember what I read initially after the race (from a coach here on Letsrun I do believe), he slowed the 3rd 800 to 2:17 (ONLY 1 second slower per lap) before kicking home in 2:01.

Even with your pictures, my story still is right on how I remembered it being.

I could be wrong, but until then, just realize you don't know a thing better than I do by your pictures. No hard feelings. Let's shake on it.