Faster than ever wrote:
You don't believe it? You hardly follow the sport but provide a bunch of opinions. You didn't watch NAU race and you can't even find the results. This is becoming a trend regarding your posts.
Nice counter-attack, but it's still impossible for a guy with 60 second speed to run 62/62. If you ran distance, how close to your 400 pace were you able to run 800? Four seconds is about the smallest drop-off in speed, I've heard of.
poopityscoop wrote:
I ran 4:04 for the mile and 1:49 for 800 and could barely run under 50 seconds for 400m. Come to think of it, I never broke 50 for 400m lol So, i'd say around 53-54 mid for 400m. When I ran 1:49 I ran 26,28,28,27 for 200m splits so it's not really about pure speed so much if you can make up for it by being a little stronger aerobically.
Your post implies sub 50 or 50. is slow for the 400 in relation to the speed needed to run a fast mile. It isn't. 50 seconds is flying and obviously, the 1:49 speaks for itself. I'm surprised you did not have a few honest cracks @ sub 4 but maybe your focus was the 800? Either way, that type of speed is what is needed to excel in the speed-based event that is the mile.
By way of comparison, I ran 4:06 (in college) and only had 52 second 400 speed on my best day. I dabbled in the 800 but never got under 1:55. Needed more speed.
Why come here and call people liars? You say that you never heard of one but I just told you about one. You can look at the Wayzata PRs to see a bunch of guys who broke 4:20 with no speed. I hadn't thought about myself because I always considered myself as having speed. But come to think of it, I ran 52-1:49 which is only about 2.5 seconds slower each lap than my 400. So I guess I wasn't as speedy as I thought.
Ca$hclay wrote:
poopityscoop wrote:
I ran 4:04 for the mile and 1:49 for 800 and could barely run under 50 seconds for 400m. Come to think of it, I never broke 50 for 400m lol So, i'd say around 53-54 mid for 400m. When I ran 1:49 I ran 26,28,28,27 for 200m splits so it's not really about pure speed so much if you can make up for it by being a little stronger aerobically.
Your post implies sub 50 or 50. is slow for the 400 in relation to the speed needed to run a fast mile. It isn't. 50 seconds is flying and obviously, the 1:49 speaks for itself. I'm surprised you did not have a few honest cracks @ sub 4 but maybe your focus was the 800? Either way, that type of speed is what is needed to excel in the speed-based event that is the mile.
By way of comparison, I ran 4:06 (in college) and only had 52 second 400 speed on my best day. I dabbled in the 800 but never got under 1:55. Needed more speed.
A guy I ran against in HS, who was also competitive in XC, ran 52/1:53/4:04, so maybe you could have carved a couple of seconds off of your 800 PR.
Faster than ever wrote:
Why come here and call people liars? You say that you never heard of one but I just told you about one. You can look at the Wayzata PRs to see a bunch of guys who broke 4:20 with no speed. I hadn't thought about myself because I always considered myself as having speed. But come to think of it, I ran 52-1:49 which is only about 2.5 seconds slower each lap than my 400. So I guess I wasn't as speedy as I thought.
Wayzata is close to 4,000 students.
It's almost a conference in and of itself.
Faster than ever wrote:
Why come here and call people liars? You say that you never heard of one but I just told you about one. You can look at the Wayzata PRs to see a bunch of guys who broke 4:20 with no speed. I hadn't thought about myself because I always considered myself as having speed. But come to think of it, I ran 52-1:49 which is only about 2.5 seconds slower each lap than my 400. So I guess I wasn't as speedy as I thought.
I think your 52 PR was a little soft. The smallest differential I've ever heard of was Bill McChesney, who was said to have had 54/1:54 PRs in HS. He went on to run 3:56/13:14.
55 seconds