400h - WARHOLM 46.87

Halviking wrote:

400h - WARHOLM 46.87

What's his best 400 again all out ?

I'll have to look it up.

The 400 male WR is a very weak WR.

If Van Niekerk trained to run the 400 Hurdles I'm sure he would be the WR in the upper 45 second range. Something like 45.89.

The problem with the 400 hurdles is you have typically a bunch of mediocre 400 meter dash all out runners running it. And if you're good in the 400 and you run below 43.53 then you stick with the 400 all out and not the hurdles.

And that's usually because of the injury potential with the hurdles. So yeah this is good but it's not really impressive because Youngs record is a weak WR.

And I meant the male 400 meter hurdles record not the regular 400. For some reason when I type fast on this site the words don't type in correctly.

Every male WR is a weak record. If Warholm trained to run the 200 he could go 18.99.

Van Nierkerk would likely not go under 50 seconds for the 400H. Not enough athleticism.

You need to be a 41 second 400 runner to be assured to be able to run the 400H under 47.

gordanshumway wrote:

Typical American wrote:

hur durr, everyone better than me is doping!

REEEEEEE

I think you meant to say, he is white, so he must be clean. If he was African or Jamaican, this site would be trashing him.

It's not even that.

It's just nobody that has ever been good in the 400 open has ever switched over to the 400 Hurdles.

By good I mean below 43.84. So yeah i'll say below 43.84 in the open 400 not 43.53. The male 400 hurdles set by Young is officially the weakest WR in track and field right now.

And I just did some more calculations I now think Van Nierkerk or however you spell that has potential to do 45.65 in the hurdles if he specifically trained for it.

46.8s aren't really impressive to me. Maybe to you it is though. I don't know.

Plus he still has a tenth of a second to go. So I don't even think he lowers it anymore and I don't even think he gets under 46.78.

Plus, I did some more calculations and it looks like Bolts 9.58 is the weakest of the track records.

If Jakob had any interest I think he would go down to 9.14. I think anything above 9.40 is slow. I'm not impressed by anything 9.7, or 19.2 or above. Definitely not in a 42 400m. That event is so weak right now. I do think its the weakest one.

I think Jim Walmsley might be able to go sub 43 with specific training.

you're better in 3 fringe events and that more than outweighs 6 real ones. why?

Sure, the record is so weak that is why it has become the longest standing men's track record of all...

It's the same nonsense as with steeple. It might still be true for the women's events, but in men's steeple and 400h there is sufficient quality and depth, especially when looking at a decade or three that it's ridiculous to claim that these records are weak because "the best" are not even running the event. (The best at 400m flat simply will not necessarily the best in the hurdle event.) It is also seriously underestimating the difficulty of hurdle events compared to the flat, usually from people who have never even tried a hurdling workout.

Paul West wrote:

Plus, I did some more calculations and it looks like Bolts 9.58 is the weakest of the track records.

If Jakob had any interest I think he would go down to 9.14. I think anything above 9.40 is slow. I'm not impressed by anything 9.7, or 19.2 or above. Definitely not in a 42 400m. That event is so weak right now. I do think its the weakest one.

I think Jim Walmsley might be able to go sub 43 with specific training.

xD

mr. nice guy wrote:

you're better in 3 fringe events and that more than outweighs 6 real ones. why?

What ever you want to tell me...

I have a hard math question for you: What effect on any decathlon rancing would it have, if we increase the javelin points constantly by 1000 points?

matt_london_413 wrote:

Halviking wrote:

400h - WARHOLM 46.87

What's his best 400 again all out ?

I'll have to look it up.

The 400 male WR is a very weak WR.

If Van Niekerk trained to run the 400 Hurdles I'm sure he would be the WR in the upper 45 second range. Something like 45.89.

The problem with the 400 hurdles is you have typically a bunch of mediocre 400 meter dash all out runners running it. And if you're good in the 400 and you run below 43.53 then you stick with the 400 all out and not the hurdles.

And that's usually because of the injury potential with the hurdles. So yeah this is good but it's not really impressive because Youngs record is a weak WR.

I think that is a somewhat correct, however over simplified explanation. By the same logic 400m runners run 400m because they are not fast enough 200m runners, and 200m specialists are to "slow" to cut it at 100m. Warholm eventually saw that he wouldn't ever be a good enough in decathlon due to his weak throwing arm (or lack of technique?). He chose 400mh specifically due to the technical element and that he was simply not a good enough 400m runner to ever win a gold in a world cup/Olympic event. 400mh, pre Warholm/Benjamin/Samba did not have a lot of competition and no athlete ever really came close to breaking the 47 second barrier since Bryan Bronson in 1998.

Now however, we have the three out of the four best athletes ever in terms of PBs, and they may not even be in their prime yet. All of the three have the capacity to break the current world record and lower it significantly. The rest of the field behind the trio is however a long way away to be able to challenge any of the three. This I think is likely to change in the next few years. 400mh is easily one of the most enjoyable events to watch these days (especially post Covid-19), and it will make young athletes more likely to try and to choose the same length but with hurdles in the future.

Let's not forget, there is a great deal of money involved for the top athletes in any track event, and the more exciting and competitive the event, the more money the different venues and sponsors will throw at you. Having 400mh not as a fringe event, but as a main event as its turning into, will also help attract young and talanted athletes.

When it comes to breaking the world record, I am tempted to say it's a matter of when at this point, but it's certainly not a guarantee. To simply, breaking a WR in a "non-technical" flat out running events, depends on the athlete being in peek form and that the track is on the faster side and that the weather conditions are close to optimal. 400mh has the same elements as 400 flat, but with the hurdles included. We saw in Stockholm how easy and likely it is to hit a hurdle and loose a bit of speed and possibly also focus. To hit a hurdle and stumble a bit is more likely the more tired you are and the closer you are to your max. That's why its difficult to break even the current world record, let alone lower it sub 46.50.

Jo72 wrote:

Sure, the record is so weak that is why it has become the longest standing men's track record of all...

It's not a "weak" record, but also not as strong as any other men's running record.

Fair enough. But one reason for this is also that it is a more difficult event with many parameters that can go a bit wrong, like hitting a hurdle. So one does not get the depth of 100m or 400m flat. (But then no field event has the depth of most flat track events and some have strong long-standing records.) Like in decathlon this does not mean that it should be easier to break records. It's just that the filter comes earlier with fewer athletes even getting to decent performances at all.

Records at end of 83 season and (absolut) improvement until today:

100m: 9.93A (0.35)

200m: 19.72A (0.53)

400m: 43.86A (0.83)

800m: 1:41.73 (0.82)

1500m: 3:30.77 (4.77)

5000m: 13:00.41 (35.06)

10000m: 27:22.47 (1:04.94)

Marathon: 2:08:18 (6:39)

110mH: 12.93 (0.13)

400mH: 47.02 (0.24)

3000mSt: 8:05.4 (11.7)

The relative improvement of the 400mH record is by far the smallest (the 1000m would be even much smaller). For sure this is no proof in any way (for example, I selectively choose the season after Moses' last record).

I've added the number of improvements:

100m: 9.93A (0.35) (12 + 4 ties)

200m: 19.72A (0.53) (4)

400m: 43.86A (0.83) (3)

800m: 1:41.73 (0.82) (5 + 1 tie)

1500m: 3:30.77 (4.77) (5)

5000m: 13:00.41 (35.06) (10)

10000m: 27:22.47 (1:04.94) (12)

Marathon: 2:08:18 (6:39) (13)

110mH: 12.93 (0.13) (5)

400mH: 47.02 (0.24) (1)

3000mSt: 8:05.4 (11.7) (7)

The relative improvement of the 400mH record is by far the smallest (the 1000m would be even much smaller). For sure this is no proof in any way (for example, I selectively choose the season after Moses' last record).[/quote]

By these stats one can as well argue that the 400m hurdles and 800m were exceptionally strong records in the early 80s. Or that they were helped less by methods that became available later on.

mr. nice guy wrote:

you're better in 3 fringe events and that more than outweighs 6 real ones. why?

Has any 400 hurdler ever done a below 43.99 in the open 400 meter dash?

I might have to up my 43.84 statement and make it 43.99 or whatever is the fastest 400 open performance by a 400 hurdler.

Who has the info on this? So far I know for a fact that no 400 meter hurdler has gone below 43.66 in the 400 open.

Which verifies my statement to a degree that 400 hurdlers are a weaker version of 400 open runners.

I just want to see how right i'm on this.

Has any 400 open runner been able to run under 47 for the 400H?

Goes to show you that the 400 open runners are a weaker version of 400 hurdlers.

How does that question make any sense to you? Of course 400m hurdlers are slower over 400m than 400m runners....