Wariner 45.64

What distance?

If you don't know what Team England is, BAF maintains a training camp for UK sprinters in Los Angeles in the winter. I have gone up against Dwain Chambers, Devonish, and Christian Malcom...in Los Angeles...and more than once.

Wariner was badly affected in training by turf toe last year, but obviously 45+ in an Olympic year two months before the Olympic Trials isn't going to cut it for long.

I'm not willing to press the panic button just yet on Wariner, though I recognize a 45.6 as cause for concern. But more so, I think, than the 100 or 200, the 400 is a sprint which requires a little more 'rust-busting' and re-adjustment after an off-season, especially one as long as Wariner's; give him a couple more races, and you could see that time drop considerably (several tenths) with each race.

He's got a long way to go to get to Olympic-caliber times, for sure, but I think his 200 from a few weeks ago speaks at least to the positive direction of his training.

He also just ran 20.53 and split 44.58. He isn't exactly lighting the track up, but he has been doing some good early season running. It's early April for crying out loud.

d--

Nice to see Jeter running a 400!

IMHO she fades noticeably in the 200, but I think that she has amazing form in general.

I personally would like to see her hand it to Felix at trials, to see how Felix responds.

d, if people like Jeter are doing early-season 400's in training, why do they feel the need to do a race at the distance? To get an honest measure of their 400 endurance? If so, why would that matter to a 100 or 200 sprinter? Is there a definite correlation for short sprinters between, say, their 100 and their 400 time?

I want to see Spearmon run an early-season open 400.

I saw the race. He had to have been 22.high thru 200... very relaxed and just ahead of the mediocre collegiates... turned it on with 150 to go. I didnt think that he looked sluggish at all.

Maybe he didnt feel that good though. :shrugshoulders:

John Smith training...doing 400s right before comp.

A couple of years ago, I saw her running 400 two weeks in a row at UCLA. The second time, she ran down Lashinda Demus in the home stretch (close to 53 flat). The next week, she ran the fastest time in the world in the 100 at Mt. Sac, and later that year 10.64.

I would expect Jet to do another 100 next week at the Rafer Johnson/JJK meet at UCLA, then set the world on fire the next weekend at Mt. Sac.

Wariner's having "split" a "44.58" should be considered proof of why 400 splits aren't reliable.

His open 400 was over a second slower than his 400 split, which is a huge difference.

No more b.s. talk about flying 400's, or flying 100's by anybody, especially distance and middle distance guys, as being predictive of 100m from the blocks...

...from which Seb Coe couldn't break 12 seconds...

...from which Seb Coe couldn't break 12 seconds...

BS

And Wariner is making a mistake if he is trying to find a winning strategy in the last 100m. He needs to ramp it up through the 3 rd 100 and make some people uncomfortable. Then he can look for inspiration down the straight.

meanoldguy--

In case you don't know, which it seems you don't, the Seb Coe thing is now an old joke on letsrun.

I agree that Wariner shouldn't focus on the last 100, and that he SHOULD focus on the 3rd 300, like you said. Building a reasonable lead on the turn, he should be able to relax enough in the last 100 to avoid tying up, but stay fast enough to hold people off.

I don't think he's got what it takes in the last 100.

People should take a look at this before they make any claims about Wariner's early season shape:

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/248546-2012-Texas-Relays/video/626479-M-4x400-Invite-Warriner-anchors-4458-2012-Texas-Relays

I don't really care if this split is in the 45s (even though they have him at 44.58), what I care about is the way that he pulls away in the final 100 meters. He's definitely in pretty good early season form. Maybe not his best. But there's no way there should be a WTW headline that reads "Is Wariner done?"

I think this begs the question, who is in bigger trouble for the Olympics at this point. Webb or Wariner? A 45.6 is going to get blown out of the water in London, so I'd say Wariner is in bad shape.

"If you want to look thin, hang around fat people."

--Thornton Mellon

I think Wariner is in a WAY better position than Webb.

Webb is done. DONE. FINISHED!

Wariner still looks like he actually wants to win, whereas Webb just doesn't want to lose.

There is a critical difference.

Also relevant that Wariner's 200m (20.53) was pretty damn good for him, on par (or better than) his early season results at his peak. He's never shown a whole lot of talent over 200 making that a good result, his relay split also looked good, and I believe he has mentioned injuries as a cause of his struggles the last few years and that he's all healed up. Maybe he just had a rough day, methinks its easier to have a fluke bad race than a fluke good race and that he'll be fine this season.

I seriously doubt Wariner is a legit medal contender anymore. Other than the 4x4 that is. Sure he's still one the top 4 Americans. That's about it however.

I keep up with 4x4 splits. so many guys who didn't even run the 400 spliting 43.5ish. Larry Black, Roy Martin, John Regis to name a few. A 44.5split tells us nothing about where he really is, other than he is healthy.

Maybe you might want to start by listing all the people who have run sub-45 this year so far.

Nobody

Five years ago when he was on top, Wariner opened with sub-45 on the exact day of the year that Mt. Sac is being held on this year. Weather forecast right now is for about 80 degrees--perfect sprinting weather.

We'll see.

Manteo Mitchell at 45.25 already. Who?

The MonBRO Doctrine wrote:

He also just ran 20.53 and split 44.58. He isn't exactly lighting the track up, but he has been doing some good early season running. It's early April for crying out loud.

Spry, but......... Am I the only one who's notice that pointing to split times doesn't say anything? Has anybody else noticed that the split times are usually significantly faster than race times? Why do people always point to a split time to say something about a race time?