You never ran over 1200m, so how do you know?
You never ran over 1200m, so how do you know?
Funny!
Now I know where I've seen Jeilan's form before--none other than the great Carl Lewis!
The leg action, in general.
The entire action on part of the long jump approach.
Nice.
Sprint Geezer wrote:
Funny!
You Canova and monron are funny as hell.
Euro runner wrote:I can see your argument. But do you not think that there exceptions to this rule? For example I am sure that you remember Juha Vaatainen who was a sprinter; 10.8 secs for 100m and 48 secs for 400m before moving up in distance. While he was not Usain Bolt, he did manage to eventually win the European champs for 10000m in 1971 beating Bedford and others.
as canova pointed out, he was nowhere close to 48 ( or 49 ) in '71
from an ole post :
Vaatainen has said later that his real limits were close 13:10/27:10 in that summer. He has even published his training from that 70-71 season
"he is likely pretty accurate with his 5k prediction but his 10k is way off
13'10/27'10 is a kenyan type of ability & these guys don't usually have the 400 speed he showed in '71
here are his pbs :
200 m: 22.1 (1967)
400 m: 48.9 (1967)
800 m: 1:48.4 (1967)
1500 m: 3:43.7 (1968)
Mile: 4:04.6 (1966)
3000 m: 7:53.4 (1972)
2 Miles: 8:33.0 (1971)
5000 m: 13:28.4 (1972)
10,000 m: 27:52.78 (1971)
now, he finished that 10k in ~ 53s
13'10/27'10 -> 56.0 , 1'55.9 , 3'44.0 , 7'43.0
we know immediately this isn't his profile as the 400 time is way too slow ( he ran a 53 last lap ) - it's the profile of some top one-paced metronome kenyan from the 'mid-90s
the lines of fit that work better for him are ( nearest 0.25s for 400/800 ) :
50.75 / 1'48.25 -> 3'34.5 , 7'34.3 , 13'08.1 , 27'40.6
51.00 / 1'48.50 -> 3'34.5 , 7'33.4 , 13'05.6 , 27'32.4
it woud appear all the mileage he did from late '60s wouda definitely slowed his 400 ability, but interestingly, his 800 ability may have been little changed as speed-loss & endurance-gain may have had similar effect
he obviously was capable of breaking the 3k - 10k wrs in '71, but his 5k looks to have been his better potential distance & it indicates very capable of sub-13'10, but his 10k, i think was 27'30+ & not the claimed 27'10"
Renato Canova wrote:I want to give you some data (not opinions) about all my athletes able running under 27' :
Nicholas Kemboi (26'30"03) able to finish last 600m in Bruxelles 2003 in 1'23", almost beating Haile (26'29"87), could run in about 51"5
Ahmed Hassan (26'38" in the same race) NEVER could run faster than 53"5 / 54"
Imane Merga (26'48" this year) able to finish in 53"5 in 5000m last year, can run 400m near 51", not faster
Moses Mosop (26'49") finished last lap in WCh 2005 (bronze medal) faster than Kenenisa and Sileshi (53"4 for him, but was only 5th at the bell). He NEVER can run near 52"
John Korir (26'52") had a speed not better than 54"
Mark Bett (26'52") could run about 51"
Wilson Kiprop (last year winning Kenyan Champs in altitude in 27'26" and the African Champs in 27'32" woth last lap in 55"6, that could easy run under 27' at sea level) became the WCh of HM and NEVER could run under 53"
nice to see some data
the "generic" line of fit i have been using for ~ 26'30 guys ( with "no" speed ) is ~ :
53.0 / 1'50.6 -> 3'35.2 , 4'51.7 , 7'27.7 , 12'47.3 , 26'32.1
to
52.5 / 1'49.8 -> 3'34.1 , 4'50.4 , 7'26.1 , 12'45.6 , 26'31.2
again, we disagree about kemboi only
i don't know he he couda gone 51.5 ( to me, he is one of 2 lines above range )
51.5 / 1'48.2 -> 3'31.8 ! , 4'47.7 , 7'23.0 !!! , 12'42.2 !!! , 26'29.4
it doesn't seem feasible as 51.5 & he fits the hassan/kiprop mould much more
When we speak about ladies, we remember last 400m of Defar and Dibaba in the IAAF final of some year ago (56"5 / 56"6). How much do you think was their potentiality in a 400m race ? Not better than 54"5
no chance 54.5
55.7 / 1'58.1 -> 3'52.9 !! , 5'17.4 , 8'10.8 , 14'08.9 , 29'41.5
high-55 looks better
Try to understand that a Dibaba able running 53" can easy run the WR of 1500m. Wang Jungxia ran 3'51"9 in 1500m and 2:24 in Marathon, and 8'06" in 3000, and 29'30" with the second half in 14'26", and NEVER could run 400m faster than 55"5 (this was what Dong Li, the WCh in 1500 in 1997, now wife of the head coach of Spain Miguel Landa, explained me when we spoke about the Chinese period of Ma Juren)
that's what was expected :
55.6 / 1'57.4 -> 3'50.7 , 5'14.0 , 8'04.6 , 13'56.2 , 29'09.9
or
55.5 / 1'57.3 -> 3'50.7 , 5'14.1 , 8'05.1 , 13'57.3 , 29'13.2
or
55.4 / 1'57.1 -> 3'50.3 , 5'13.6 , 8'04.2 , 13'56.0 , 29'10.7
( her 3'51.9 was a championship race with lot of uneveness & shouda been lot quicker )
the shit is this line of fit BS
I also believe in most of what Canova says except for the straight foot speed part. You can train distance runners to move their feet quicker.(Of course their speed is limited by the # of fast twitch fibers). This is a neural exercise if you keep it under 50m.
Hamstring injuries occur due to fatigue, so the distance runner must do this training with very good rests (usually walk back rests and gradual accelerations). One of the reasons distance runners get injured during full out sprinting is that they are not accustomed to this activity. That is why it should be a component of the program year around.
After a good warmup and some light stretching, first introduce accelerations, telling the athlete to run 60 metres accelerating until they are at 90% on first 3 to 100% on the last 3. Later, near the more specific portion of the year - increase to flying start 40s full out, increasing the reps slightly. They will not get injured if they warmup properly and they continue year around.
Dave Moorcroft used to do this year around. In 20 years, I've never had a distance runner injured doing this. It serves as a leg speed, plyometrics and flexibility workout 2 or 3 times a week.
Renato Canova wrote:
.
I want to say an anecdote. The Italian Alberto Cova won the first edition of WCH (1983, Helsinki) in 10000m with a last lap of 53.2. We were curious to see his real speed, and with his coach Giorgio Rondelli we bet about his time in a local competition of 400m one week after his victory. His result was... 52"8 !
Covas last lap in Helsinki was more like 53,9 or 54, not 53,2.
Even if it was 54.0 ... the statement Mr. Canova wants to point out is clear. These athletes can run last lap in 10k race very close to their best 400 time in only 400m race. And this is only possible if you come at 9600 relatively fresh (without big accumulation of lactate). So Endurance is the key of running fast last lap.
Luka Ljubiè wrote:
Even if it was 54.0 ... the statement Mr. Canova wants to point out is clear. These athletes can run last lap in 10k race very close to their best 400 time in only 400m race. And this is only possible if you come at 9600 relatively fresh (without big accumulation of lactate). So Endurance is the key of running fast last lap.
Can you tell us more about your training?
U0po wrote:
Luka Ljubiè wrote:Even if it was 54.0 ... the statement Mr. Canova wants to point out is clear. These athletes can run last lap in 10k race very close to their best 400 time in only 400m race. And this is only possible if you come at 9600 relatively fresh (without big accumulation of lactate). So Endurance is the key of running fast last lap.
Can you tell us more about your training?
This guy ran out the room fast as hell.
HI Coach Canova,Sorry, I was responding to the poster who put up their PRs, and not responding at all to Jeilan and Farah's splits which are of course crazy good, so I agree with you. I should have been more clear who I whose jaw I was busting. It was silly of them to put up their PRs when those had nothing to do with the discussion so I teased him a bit.
Renato Canova wrote:
Sorry, you are completely wrong. Yes, the final lap of Jeilan was 52.7, since the final lap of Mo Farah was 53.17.
But these are the final 400m of AEROBIC ANIMALS, so nothing to do with your calculation.
Kiwi Smack wrote:
HI Coach Canova,
Sorry, I was responding to the poster who put up their PRs, and not responding at all to Jeilan and Farah's splits which are of course crazy good, so I agree with you. I should have been more clear who I whose jaw I was busting. It was silly of them to put up their PRs when those had nothing to do with the discussion so I teased him a bit.
Renato Canova wrote:Sorry, you are completely wrong. Yes, the final lap of Jeilan was 52.7, since the final lap of Mo Farah was 53.17.
But these are the final 400m of AEROBIC ANIMALS, so nothing to do with your calculation.
Stop kissing Canove ass for advice. You guys need to go out and start training hard like the aficans.
Coach12345 wrote:
I also believe in most of what Canova says except for the straight foot speed part. You can train distance runners to move their feet quicker.(Of course their speed is limited by the # of fast twitch fibers). This is a neural exercise if you keep it under 50m.
Hamstring injuries occur due to fatigue, so the distance runner must do this training with very good rests (usually walk back rests and gradual accelerations). One of the reasons distance runners get injured during full out sprinting is that they are not accustomed to this activity. That is why it should be a component of the program year around.
After a good warmup and some light stretching, first introduce accelerations, telling the athlete to run 60 metres accelerating until they are at 90% on first 3 to 100% on the last 3. Later, near the more specific portion of the year - increase to flying start 40s full out, increasing the reps slightly. They will not get injured if they warmup properly and they continue year around.
Dave Moorcroft used to do this year around. In 20 years, I've never had a distance runner injured doing this. It serves as a leg speed, plyometrics and flexibility workout 2 or 3 times a week.
I agree. But I also think that it is high speed endurance that causes the hamstring problems in distance runners. But these hamstring problems ususally aren't actually injuries, just muscle spasms, even though they can feel very painful. Any good PT can advise on this. However there are so many quacks out there, chiropractors etc, who are only too willing to exploit people for these coordiantion problems.
I also think that maintaining basic endurance helps prevent these issues. So dropping the mileage to increase speed is not always a good thing.
J.O. wrote:
Coach12345 wrote:I also believe in most of what Canova says except for the straight foot speed part. You can train distance runners to move their feet quicker.(Of course their speed is limited by the # of fast twitch fibers). This is a neural exercise if you keep it under 50m.
Hamstring injuries occur due to fatigue, so the distance runner must do this training with very good rests (usually walk back rests and gradual accelerations). One of the reasons distance runners get injured during full out sprinting is that they are not accustomed to this activity. That is why it should be a component of the program year around.
After a good warmup and some light stretching, first introduce accelerations, telling the athlete to run 60 metres accelerating until they are at 90% on first 3 to 100% on the last 3. Later, near the more specific portion of the year - increase to flying start 40s full out, increasing the reps slightly. They will not get injured if they warmup properly and they continue year around.
Dave Moorcroft used to do this year around. In 20 years, I've never had a distance runner injured doing this. It serves as a leg speed, plyometrics and flexibility workout 2 or 3 times a week.
I agree. But I also think that it is high speed endurance that causes the hamstring problems in distance runners. But these hamstring problems ususally aren't actually injuries, just muscle spasms, even though they can feel very painful. Any good PT can advise on this. However there are so many quacks out there, chiropractors etc, who are only too willing to exploit people for these coordiantion problems.
I also think that maintaining basic endurance helps prevent these issues. So dropping the mileage to increase speed is not always a good thing.
What is your background on running the 400 meters?? All we have on here, is 5/10k runners with no leg speed.
Slower is faster wrote:
curiousasas wrote:Can you elaborate more on the difference between aerobic speed endurance as opposed to speed endurance with the lactic system?
Canova what are some of your guys speed workouts?
There seems to be some contradiction with what you are saying regarding Silas Kiplagat's 400m ability. You mention he NEVER ran faster than 54.5 for 400m, but then mentions 49 sec!?
I think even 49 sec is a very conservative estimate.
What I don't understand that here we have Kiplagat, a 3:29 runner with supposed 49sec 400 ability and 28 min 10000m ability. And we have Coe, with sub 46 sec 400 ability and having run 20:59 for 7.5km on the road (close to 28 min pace)??
It would appear that Kiplagat has slightly better endurance, but Coe's speed is significantly faster. To me that means that either Kiplagat is capable of much faster over 400m or that Coe's 1500m best should have been quite a bit faster?
Kiwi Smack wrote:
HI Coach Canova,
Sorry, I was responding to the poster who put up their PRs, and not responding at all to Jeilan and Farah's splits which are of course crazy good, so I agree with you. I should have been more clear who I whose jaw I was busting. It was silly of them to put up their PRs when those had nothing to do with the discussion so I teased him a bit.
Renato Canova wrote:Sorry, you are completely wrong. Yes, the final lap of Jeilan was 52.7, since the final lap of Mo Farah was 53.17.
But these are the final 400m of AEROBIC ANIMALS, so nothing to do with your calculation.
It's about what we can run, not about what we can post.
Confused! wrote:
Slower is faster wrote:Canova what are some of your guys speed workouts?
There seems to be some contradiction with what you are saying regarding Silas Kiplagat's 400m ability. You mention he NEVER ran faster than 54.5 for 400m, but then mentions 49 sec!?
I think even 49 sec is a very conservative estimate.
What I don't understand that here we have Kiplagat, a 3:29 runner with supposed 49sec 400 ability and 28 min 10000m ability. And we have Coe, with sub 46 sec 400 ability and having run 20:59 for 7.5km on the road (close to 28 min pace)??
It would appear that Kiplagat has slightly better endurance, but Coe's speed is significantly faster. To me that means that either Kiplagat is capable of much faster over 400m or that Coe's 1500m best should have been quite a bit faster?
He is too conservative on the guys speed!
Sprint Geezer wrote:
All that being said, Jeilan's kick in the last 400m of the 10,000m was the closest thing I have ever seen to an actual "sprint" from any distance runner in a competitive race, ever. Look at his form on the back straight, and near the end of the turn--nice! ALMOST sprinting! If you look very closely, you can see him have short bursts of actual, serious speed--in this youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ShIWjs8FToit happens at around 15-second intervals, at around :15, :30, and :45--his torso leans just a bit further forward, his head comes forward and down just a bit, his stride rate quickens, and ......
EXCELLENT! Freeze the frame at :50, and you will see a form that I haven't seen from any other distance runner, ever (admittedly I haven't seen every single race ever run). It is VERY close to that of a 100m sprinter. The way he finished this race, no other distance runner that I have ever seen could have kept pace with him over that last 50m, maybe even 100m.
You've gotten very carried away with your form analysis. Geb and Bekele have excellent sprinting form have finished as fast/faster. Of course it was a great last lap for Jeilan, but not close to being unprecedented. (and by the way, it was 52.8 at best. That last lap from Farah's crossing of the line with 400 to go to Jeilan's crossing of the finish line was 53.1. Jeilan gave up .3 at most at the line. Maybe .2) Geb has finished a WC in 25.1 last 200.
Anyway, great last lap by Jeilan, but his sprinting form was not unprecedented for a distance runner at all. He was just really good and fast. You always get carried away with your analysis. I think you more excited about what YOU think YOU "discovered" while making an analysis than the race or athlete itself.