Is there a good way to decide whether you're a better 100m or 400m runner?
I have good explosiveness, but my top end speed doesn't seem to be spectacular.
I'm wondering if I work on my speed endurance whether I will be a good 400 runner. Well, good for a white guy.
if you can run a good 100m time, you're a 100m runner. if not, then you're not a 100m runner.
What are your 100m, 200m, and 400m times. What are you most competitive in? If you can break 12 in the 100m with no training that's pretty damn good. If you can go say...52-55 in the 400m with no training that too is pretty good.
Alan
I understand what you're saying.
It's not a bad time, but I'm just starting out. I'd rather put my time and effort in something I can excel at, rather than putting it in one event to find out later on I am better suited at another one.
Is there a way to tell at this stage which one I am better suited for?
Thanks! That's the kind of advice I was looking for.
Not to be racist, but it depends on your skin color. Those not of African descent have no shot in the 100, but do have a chance to compete in the 400.
googlerific wrote:
Not to be racist, but it depends on your skin color. Those not of African descent have no shot in the 100, but do have a chance to compete in the 400.
I know. That's why I said, "good for a white guy." :)
Runningart2004 wrote:
What are your 100m, 200m, and 400m times. What are you most competitive in? If you can break 12 in the 100m with no training that's pretty damn good. If you can go say...52-55 in the 400m with no training that too is pretty good.
Alan
hey that's exactly my case and im a 8k/10k xc runner. off of xc training, i can run 11.xx(100m), 54:xx(400m), 27:50(8k). what do you think my primary event should be?
You can run a 400 much, much, much faster if you are sub12 in the 100.
According to your prs, you have better top speed, and endurance than I do, but I can run a 50.x for the 400. (btw, I'm a 1500 runner, so dont knock my 400 time)
If you can run 4 fast 100 meters in a row then you are suited for both events.
That is being racist, skin color has nothing to do with it
Any progress you can make in the 100 will be of use later if you decide to switch to the 400. So if you're early in your running career, I would say train for the 100 and 200, and save the 400 for later when you know more about what's going on with your own body.
While skin colour itself does not affect sprinting speed, the fact remains that just about every top 100m runner in the world is black, and no white man has ever broken 10 seconds.
As the genetic traits associated with superior sprinting speed are most common in black people, then skin colour does seem to be a pretty good indicator of potential in the 100m. In the 400, this is obviously less important (but most top 400m runners are black).
I have the same question. My 100 time is around 12.5, I started running couple of months ago. I think training for 100m is easier then for middle distances, with short sprints and plyos and that stuff instead of long runs/long intervals. But you need the talent if you want to become a good sprinter right, or can you also do it by training hard?
listen what are your goals. If you want to be and average high school runner run the 100. You will never be great at it. If you have any hopes of being really good run at least the 800. 12.5 isnt very fast no matter how much youve trained. Id say you could run 11.4 one day if youre lucky and your training goes really well. If you train years for the mile you never know you could run 4:10. There is no chance you will run the equivalent of that in the 100.