Todd Williams ran 3:42 for 1500 meters. I'm guessing he would say he couldn't break 53.0 for 400 meters out of blocks.
Todd Williams ran 3:42 for 1500 meters. I'm guessing he would say he couldn't break 53.0 for 400 meters out of blocks.
So the first time Komen runs fast quarters, he bangs out 4 in 52 off 3 min. rest. Sounds like sub 50 400m ability/potential to me.
When you say good milers, I assume you meant world class as in 3:55 or better. Perhaps there is an outlier or 2 somewhere such as a Ray Flynn or Pre, but as I said previously, most of the top guys where also very good at the half, which definitely requires sprint speed no matter how great your endurance is. Steve Scott was a 48 quarter miler and he considered his lack of sprint speed his greatest liability. I can't imagine any of the guys who broke 3:50 not being able to run a sub-50 quarter. I would suspect most of them were 'capable' of running a 47x. That does not necessarily mean that they could just jump on a track and run a 47 from scratch, they would have to be training to run a fast 800 and/or get in a few sprint workouts and perhaps run a 400m in an actual race.
Every year I watch several high school milers at the Penn Relays run sub-50 splits on 4x4s and they can't come close to running a sub-4 mile. If you are a 4:10 miler, there is at least a 50/50 chance that you are also your high school's best quarter miler. In fact, I have seen some great H.S. 2-milers run run sub-50 relay splits.
Webb and Wheating are examples of milers we consider to have very good sprint speed (47x), but on the world class level, their sprint speed is about average. Btw, a lot of milers started out as sprinter, most of them got involved in t&f becasue someone told them they were fast.
Aussiemiler wrote:
So the first time Komen runs fast quarters, he bangs out 4 in 52 off 3 min. rest. Sounds like sub 50 400m ability/potential to me.
You're totally missing the forest.
Again, if Komen had run a 48/400, he would definitely NOT have run 7:20 and 12:39.
Training for the 400m is anti-productive for good middle & long distance results. Komen ran his best by not running any faster than 52 for 400m.
Correct. Komen just had to do some race pace reps,and let the EPO take care of the endurance.
TrackCoach wrote:
When you say good milers, I assume you meant world class as in 3:55 or better. Perhaps there is an outlier or 2 somewhere such as a Ray Flynn or Pre, but as I said previously, most of the top guys where also very good at the half, which definitely requires sprint speed no matter how great your endurance is. Steve Scott was a 48 quarter miler and he considered his lack of sprint speed his greatest liability. I can't imagine any of the guys who broke 3:50 not being able to run a sub-50 quarter. I would suspect most of them were 'capable' of running a 47x. That does not necessarily mean that they could just jump on a track and run a 47 from scratch, they would have to be training to run a fast 800 and/or get in a few sprint workouts and perhaps run a 400m in an actual race.
Every year I watch several high school milers at the Penn Relays run sub-50 splits on 4x4s and they can't come close to running a sub-4 mile. If you are a 4:10 miler, there is at least a 50/50 chance that you are also your high school's best quarter miler. In fact, I have seen some great H.S. 2-milers run run sub-50 relay splits.
Webb and Wheating are examples of milers we consider to have very good sprint speed (47x), but on the world class level, their sprint speed is about average. Btw, a lot of milers started out as sprinter, most of them got involved in t&f becasue someone told them they were fast.
There is a difference between turn of speed (a kick) and the ability to run a fast 400m. I would suggest more sub 3:52 Milers than not, wouldn't be capable of breaking 48 seconds for a 400m flat, even at the peak of the season with some specific speed work.
From relay splits and other training details, we have some of the all time greats like Ovett, Cram, Aouita, EL G, etc, barely able to run 47 something in relay splits. These are guys known for either their great turn of pace (Ovett & Aouita) or their ability to wind it up from 400m out. If they can barely run sub 48, then I doubt those in the 3:48-3:52 range would be capable of 47 something.
Just because Ovett & Webb ran 47.** in their late teens, it doesn't follow that they were as fast a few years later when running their best times for 1500m. They had probably lost some speed in order to increase endurance capabilities.
TrackCoach wrote:
Steve Scott was a 48 quarter miler and he considered his lack of sprint speed his greatest liability.
Scott is a good example. He ran 48 something for 400m? and his mile was almost the same as Daniel Komen's. But Komen ran 7:20 and 12:39, times that Scott could only dream of. What was Scott's fastest 5000m, 13:20 or 30? That's quite a dropoff from the mile. Thus Komen could not run anywhere close to the speed of Scott for 400m.
If Scott ran several 15 mile days per week, then why did he not have strength? Why didn't he lose more speed?
Aussiemiler wrote:
So the first time Komen runs fast quarters, he bangs out 4 in 52 off 3 min. rest. Sounds like sub 50 400m ability/potential to me.
Not for someone with 7:20 strength. 3 mins rest = almost full recovery.
From200mTo8k wrote:
If Scott ran several 15 mile days per week, then why did he not have strength? Why didn't he lose more speed?
He did, he just regained much of it by the time big races rolled around. Scott followed a semi-Lydiard style of training which involved a lot of off-season mileage leading into hard intervals and speedwork as competition season approached. Unfortunately, he was prone to overtraining and in 1984 and later he never approached his 1:45 800 speed of '82 and '83. In retrospect he believes he would have benefited from more rest and sets of 100s with full recovery.
J.R. wrote:
Scott is a good example. He ran 48 something for 400m?
I believe that in 1982 and 1983, when he was capable of running 1:45/3:47 and finishing slow races quickly, he was capable of 48-high or 49-low, but in years thereafter he lost a good deal of his speed and struggled to run 1:47xx for 800.
miling-realist wrote:
Sorry to disappoint all those who think that jogging 100 miles per week will result in a fast mile time, but you are going to need talent and speed work.
No sh!t Sherlock. There is reason why Japan is good at the marathon. And, not so much at the 800m-5000m. I have no speed at all. But I can run at a very long distance close to my max. Why? Because of mileage. If you have no talent/natural speed. You will have to put in extra work and move up in distance early on. You can't turn a workhorse into a thoroughbred. But if you're a workhorse, you better put in the work.
malmo wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Webb ran 47 in high school. No doubt he could have run 46.xx in his 3:30 days.
I highly doubt it. You clearly havn't been around many runners.
The only one I can think of who probably could have hit 46-point is Ryun. Of those who could break 50, I'd say there's a very hard ceiling at 48-flat.
correct 99%
in practice, few milers go under 49. and agreed that 48 flat and under is super rare.
however, any guy, absolutely any guy that goes 143 low or better, be sure that with a month of focus, they'll break 48..
at peak.
but again in practice, the 1500 guy never, ever, focuses on a 400.
so right you are, in practice, you don't get the sub 48.
add ovett to the list of guys who could run 46x, though his training killed this kind of abiliby.
for ovett has 21mid 200m to his credit, which makes sub 48 not only possible, but impossible not to achieve,
given the strenth of this guy.