Why don't the pros want to run the flat 400?

This is a nice post, and really funny to think about. If I had to say, it’d be because it seems like the 400 is a sort of boring/1-note event for each of those athletes. I think a few years ago there was something to really be proven in the 400, but since 2019 we’ve been on a bit of a downswing. With all of the other events having big challenges to take on( talks of worlds records and rivalries) the 400 wouldn’t have the same return in terms of validation. Even this year we saw that with Athing Mu and Fred Kerley who looked as the 400 as sort of a gimmick compared to their main event.

I know Miller uibo wanted win the 200m because she already has a 400m gold.

Kerley has a foot injury, I guess running the 400m might be more stressful.

The hurdlers and Mu probably thought they'd be giving away a free Gold or silver if they dropped down to the 400m.

Thanks for the info and perspective.

Just having a hard time wrapping my head around how the 400 turned into a B-tier event. But yeah, maybe these are just down years for the event and it will rebound.

Allyson Felix is great, and I'm happy for her that she won a bronze, but no way is she the 3rd best 400 runner in the world. The 3 hurdles medalists and Mu would probably all beat her.

I thought I remember the 4 x400 back in the 90's always being 4 people who actually competed in the open 400... But I guess Angelo Taylor was on some relays in the 00's so maybe that's been changing for a while.

I can see Mu and probably McLaughlin beating felix but not Muhammad and Bol, they are likley 49 High runners.

For those running the 400 hurdles instead of the flat 400 (Warholm, Benjamin, Syd, Muhammad) it could be because there is/was perceived to be less competition in the hurdles, they have had a realistic shot at setting a WR (3 of 4 did set a 400H record and the other broke the old WR), plus they still get selected to be on 4x400 relay teams.

For those competing in something similar to another event but with an additional skill element added (100m with hurdles, 400m with hurdles, long jump with hop and step ...) the added skill element takes time to master. Once they have invested that time, there is reluctance to squander the time and effort developed by switching to another event where that skill is not used.

The added skill element makes it harder for and less likely that a young relatively novice newcomer will suddenly come out of nowhere to challenge the top people.

No disrespect to those competing in events with additional skill elements, as those skill events are super competitive.

All the answers you're getting are great, logical explanations for the drop off in the popularity of the 400. I just want to say that I'm as surprised as you are by what used to be a hallmark event which was behind only the 100 and the marathon in prestige suddenly dropping away into also-ran status.

I know relay splits don't always tell the whole story, but here they are from the 4x4 final:

Felix 49.38 (2nd leg)

Muhammad 48.94 (3rd leg)

Mu 48.32 (anchor)

Bol 48.97 (anchor)

Also, in looking at differences between flat 400 and 400 hurdles times, it seems that the difference is usually in the 2.0-3.0 second range for pros. Obviously there is a lot of variation depending on the hurdling efficiency of the athlete, plus there isn't necessarily good data across the board to go by since 400 hurdlers don't always have strong 400 open PRs.

But based on all that, I was figuring Muhammad and Bol for at least 49-mid-ish.

This is why it would be fun as hell to have those open 400 races that Jon Gault dreamed about in his recent article! :-)

It's also interesting that we saw such incredible 400 hurdles times in the Olympics, which lots of people at least partially attributed to the supershoes and fast track, but we didn't really see that in the open 400...

Shamier Little probably had a better chance of making the team and medaling in the 400 than in the hurdle event.

need for speed wrote:

Shamier Little probably had a better chance of making the team and medaling in the 400 than in the hurdle event.

Yep. It doesn't make much sense. It's like a mass exodus from the 400.

400 no bueno wrote:

It's also interesting that we saw such incredible 400 hurdles times in the Olympics, which lots of people at least partially attributed to the supershoes and fast track, but we didn't really see that in the open 400...

Maybe on the men's side, but 48.36 is historic. None of the hurdlers or Mu were matching that in my opinion.

Considering that Muhammad surprisingly had the second best relay leg, I don't see her as being beaten by Felix currently. McLaughlin was well back.

A few things, although I do agree that I’d like to see studs return to the 400. It’s a historically premier event and great to watch. I’d rather be the 400 champ than 200 champ.

Many good points made above, one that wasn’t is that the 400 is harder than the 100 and 200 — Kerley even jokingly (but seriously) made that point at some time this summer.

It’s odd that the current top 400 hurdlers are so clearly word class at the flat 400 when compared to the 100h/110h. The high hurdle races require such a specific skill that they’ve created their own class of runner.

That most definitely isn’t the case for the steeple — it’s the one event that people move to when they aren’t actual contenders in flat events, which makes it a less impactful medal/Olympic event. Not sure how to change that.

The 400 is the PREMIERE event in athletics. One lap. One time around the track.

It's long enough to be engaging without cheesy boring suspense build-up. It's short enough that nobody gets bored watching it. It's short enough, and in lanes, to prevent it from turning into a slow paced "tactical" joke. There are no gimmicks like hurdles.

Reaction time doesn't spoil the question of who is fastest. You don't win or lose by being quick out of the blocks, only by being the fastest runner.

It's the event almost everyone has competed at, even if on a B relay leg. So you know exactly how you compare.

And the 4x400 relay is by far the most watchable event, the one that a crowd gets excited and yells at.

It's weird how this has evolved. The 200 used to be the ugly step-sister of the sprints - not as glamorous as the 100, but not the test of speed endurance that the 400 is. On the men's side, it's a bit surprising that more don't go for it as the WR is probably more achievable than either the 100 or 200. It could just be that, as Michael Johnson says, the 400 is just really hard. It's not just smashing yourself like the 100, you need to judge your pace while still riding the limit of your anaerobic capacity. Whatever the reason, I hope we see the 400 reclaim its status, the 200 really is a meh event

The 200m in my opinion is the best event, and my favorite to run, but I think the 400m will heat up soon with fred kerley moving back to the 400m and targeting 42, hopefully wayde can return to form eventuallys. Zambrano also looks very promising.

paris2024hawk wrote:

I can see Mu and probably McLaughlin beating felix but not Muhammad and Bol, they are likley 49 High runners.

4x4 splits in Tokyo suggest otherwise. Muhammed and Mu were both about 48.5. They both likely have Felix edged in the open 400 on that day. Mclaughlin actually only opened with a 50 low. I dont think it was her best race, I'm sure she could be in mid 49.

No guesses on Bol, you could be right or wrong on that, I dont have any relevant info to add, though.

Nah Muhammad was 48.9

Athletes make the event famous, not the other way around. The 100m and 200m are the glory events right now because they have become super famous because of Bolt

Just think of it the 400m hurdles were languishing in obscurity but the rise of Karsten Warholm and Sydney McLaughlin have made them must watch races.

The 100m was always the glory race long before bolt, it determines the fastest man in the world.