HOW COULD STEVE CRAM RUN 1:42 WITH ONLY 49.1 400m SPEED?

Mitty--

I know you don't seriously expect Ventolin to understand what a real hypothesis is, or what ex post facto means, or what confidence intervals are.

Sorry, what part of my earlier post are you saying No to, actually?

The, "E,g. Coe: - in 84 in the lead up to LA he did "20 x 200m, the first 10 with 25 secs recovery, the second 10 with 35 to 40 secs recovery. The times were mainly around 26 secs, but the last one was 22.5, against a personal best ever of 21.7"

(P.93, "Coming Back")."

The session you quoted from "Better training for Distance Runners" is no doubt true as well, but it is a different session to the one I quoted, which is from Coe himself.

If your "NO" is referring to Cram's session quoted from another poster, then fair enough. I said it didn't sound "impossible" based on what Coe has done. Perhaps there was some embellishment in the recovery times or perhaps they were 25/26 rather than 24.

And I still don't see you the information I quoted from Coe's book "is rubbish, even if it's true,.." ??

Surely if it is true, it can't also be rubbish!?

good analysis, to a point.

by comparison we have john walker who could do 22 low or flat, 144.9 and 332. 200/800/1500

in comparison-cram has ? 142 329

based on similar athletes aerobic and anaerobic ability, you just have to give ?=cram 22 flat.

infact walkers anaerobic ability was underdeveloped and substantially inferior to cram.

Just because someone has run faster over 800m (Cram to Walker) doesn't mean that they are faster over 200m, or even equivalent. El G has never proved that he could run 22sec and he ran significantly faster at 1500m/mile than both Cram or Walker. It depends upon how you train YOUR best abilities. Cram didn't train to run faster 200's, perhaps he should have, but that's a different argument. Just like all the people who claim that El G must have been able to run a better 800m (or Lagat or even Ngeny for that matter) than he did, so must have similar speed to Coe, etc. Not necessarily, and again for some it may not be required depending upon how they adapt to training.

Who says that Walker's anaerobic ability was less developed? Both had injury problems which likely curtailed speed work - Walker because of Achilles troubles and Cram because of Compartment Syndrome. Now I don't really know if Cram had this speed or not (neither do you), but I don't presume that he must necessarily have had it based on his racing results. Perhaps the program that Cram was on suited him so well, that faster speed wasn't required. In fact one could argue that El G learned from Cram in trying to kick from even farther out (600-800m) than did Cram (300-500m) who did this as a response to the faster guys like Ovett and Coe, who had proved their speed in open 400m races (Ovett as a Junior).

Right. And when we look the pb´s at 3k of El Guerrouj (7.23,09) and Coe (7.57, although was capable to run a lot faster, but not close to Hicham), there´s no questin who had better aerobic power. Hicham was not as fast than Coe, although there´s are rumours that he has run 1.43/800 in training (with rabbits).

runners doped in those days. doping was legal then.

I was also living in Boulder in the mid-80s, and found Cram on CU's outdoor track one day in May, 86. He was pacing a hotshot Colorado high schooler named John Luff, and everyone was saying how this would be a sub-4.

I don't recall the time, but it was either 4:07 or 4:11, and Cram literally ran the last 100 backwards, talking John to the finish.

One can be in incredible shape but if his race strategy is poor he won't perform his best. In a race like the 800 you cannot make many mistakes and win. To some degree all international races have some luck involved as you must run the race with the right tactics.

ventolin^3 wrote:

Pinned x wrote:I would like to know what ventolin's calculator says about one's 800/1500 time with only 49.1 speed.

it is simple detective work

you put in mumbers & use your experience to get a decent line

now, i'm sure cram was peak in oslo & ~ 1'42.5 that day ( better than on his 1'42.8 day )

1'42.5 with

49.0 -> 2'10.0 , 3'19.9 , 3'35.4

clearly nonsense

48.0 -> 2'10.8 , 3'23.3 , 3'39.4

still that 400 is too slow

47.0 -> 2'11.6 , 3'26.7 , 3'43.5

still too slow a 400, as he wasn't 3'26 potential

46.6 -> 2'11.9 , 3'28.0 , 3'45.1

that one is pretty good, but maybe fraction too fast for 1500/mile

46.5 -> 2'12.0 , 3'28.4 , 3'45.5

my pick

46.4 -> 2'12.1 , 3'28.7 , 3'45.9

the 400 is now too quick as mile is too slow - he was much better than 3'45.9 intrinsic in his 3'46.3

It looks like you are simply fitting a curve using something like a cubic spline. This is generally somewhat arbitrary and sensitive to assumptions.

I did many 10x200m training with Steve I recall struggling to get anywhere near him on the last 3 or 4. I was those in about 27 so he was running them in about 24 - 25 with Sharpy. Recovery was a brisk jog across the centre of the field to the start - about 100m .

6x200m were obviously faster but I felt that the recovery was about 1 minute.

Cram was easily a 47 point 400m runner. Maybe faster on a relay split

One hell of a roll.

easily a 47 point runner wrote:

Cram was easily a 47 point 400m runner. Maybe faster on a relay split

As stated in the thread 8 years ago, Cram stated in an interview with Mel Watman in AW at end of 1985 season. his best 400m tt in training was 48.1, presumably from a standing start, and he ran some rolling 23secs 200m. This was given as indication of his improved speed.

I would say in peak form of 85 or 86, in a competitive environment he might just go under 48 flat. I think anything below 47 high is unlikely, if he couldn't break 23 flat for a 200m.