My first year of track--sophomore year--I ran a 53 point open 400. I was a miler/2 miler in high school junior and senior years, with PRs of 4:33 and 10:02. Should I have been a 400 runner? I'm gonna be a freshman in college this year, and am thinking about focusing more on 400/800 in track. Thoughts?
Good distance runners close in 53. Many can run 47-49 for 400m. Seems to me that you're not even fast enough to be a good distance runner. Maybe the racewalk is your event? But who knows, maybe even the best racewalkers have good 400m speed
well, your best mile/2 mile times are better than your best 400, but as you suggest that was done when you were new to the sport.
Do you have potential to do better at 400? I don't know. Did you not run any 400s or 800s your JR and SR years? If not, I guess it's fair to assume you would come down say 2 seconds such that by SR year you would have run 51 or maybe 50 (to assume greater improvement than that would likely be assuming too much unless you were still not fully grown as a SO or something).
What he said here:
Good distance runners close in 53. Many can run 47-49 for 400m.
The rest is not worth the space it takes to read.
While the 53 as a soph is okay - not an indication of permanent residence in the 400. And your applying for the woulda coulda should club. 800 might be something - but given the very limited info you posted about your running - hard/impossible to prognosticate.
I ran some 4x800 legs, pretty much all between 2:00 and 2:05. My 800 PR is 1:59 (high). It always seemed to me that I should have gone faster in the higher distances because the 53 felt very easy. I never really ran a 400 after sophomore year, save a relay or two. But maybe 400/800 is actually the way to go in college? I'll be running for a D3 school.
in truth, if I just give you a 51 as an assumed 400 time, it sounds like your performances in the 4 distances suggest roughly equal potential 51 = 1:59 = 4:33 = 10:02. Maybe just slightly better at the two longer distances, particulary the mile, but it also sounds like you raced at that more often. As a result, it's hard to tell you what to do. Maybe just play it by ear and base it on where you can add more value to your new college team (e.g., if they need another leg for the 4X8 vs. more needing someone to run the distance races). Also, your likelihood to improve often depends on training partners. If the school has great Xcountry but lousy 400/800m runners, then you probably won't be pushed enough in workouts to beat your old boundaries (or vice-versa if they lack good distance runners instead).
It does sound like you would be better at 800m compared to anything above 1500. You might want to focus on the 800/1500 or choose between one of the two.
The best indicator of a race performance is a race. If you want to explore the 400 then explore it. The only one who will really care is you. IMO you have the rest of your life to run great distance races but a small window to run shorter events optimally. I'd devote a couple of months to a year to the 400 and see how fast you can go.
Homie, every distance guy who posts on Letsrun claims to have 53 400 meter speed.
joalturn wrote:
The best indicator of a race performance is a race. If you want to explore the 400 then explore it. The only one who will really care is you. IMO you have the rest of your life to run great distance races but a small window to run shorter events optimally. I'd devote a couple of months to a year to the 400 and see how fast you can go.
joalt is right about this. Once you're out of school, you'll never again be able to optimize your 400m/800m. Sure you might find some open track meet, but that's not the same while in distance there are countless opportunities to run and train for 5K.
I ran 55 seconds on a dirt track with high top Keds. Hey, it was he 60's.
Focus on the 800-1500 (or mile)
53 is good not that good.
According to McMillan
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/index.php/calcUsage/calculate
A typical 10:02 3200 could run 58, and a 4:33 1600 could run 56. That's pretty accurate for high school runners. It also says the distance runners capable of 53 are the ones doing about 1:56, 4:17 and 9:10.
Compared to that - 53, 1:56, 4:17 and 9:10, your times get slower every time the distance increases, even though the 53 was the one with the least training.
Yes, you should have stuck with 400/800.
Bad Wiggins wrote:
According to McMillan
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/index.php/calcUsage/calculateA typical 10:02 3200 could run 58, and a 4:33 1600 could run 56. That's pretty accurate for high school runners. It also says the distance runners capable of 53 are the ones doing about 1:56, 4:17 and 9:10.
Compared to that - 53, 1:56, 4:17 and 9:10, your times get slower every time the distance increases, even though the 53 was the one with the least training.
Yes, you should have stuck with 400/800.
This is correct, the ones saying that his 4:33/10:02 are equal/better than his 53 are way off. In HS I could only run a low 59 in a solo TT, and I ran 2:07/4:35/9:37 (granted, I never ran the 400 at the end of the season, and focused on the 3200 my sr. year)
I can't believe people take the McMillan calculator at face value. 10:02 is a lot more impressive than 58.
I think OP should run the 800 simply because it's an event that requires well balanced fitness.
Uhh ... I ran 53 in HS and was a miler - 10k kinda guy in college. Maybe it is all relative, but in the area where I grew up, if a guy couldn't break 50 ... he wasn't a 400m runner.
Hitmonlee wrote: 10:02 is a lot more impressive than 58.
58's not supposed to be impressive, it's an estimate of what the average 10 minute 2-miler can do, and it's generally correct, whether you trust the calculator or not.
53 as a sophomore is more impressive than 10 minutes as a senior.
Don't think so. You're just a well-rounded distance guy. I can run a 53 off of no training almost any given day of the week (I'm 17) and I ran 51.5/1:59 off of two weeks of training. My 1600 PR this year was only 4:40. My coach labeled me as a 400/800 guy but I also had a 5K PR of 16:43 with 10 days of training for that. I think I could have easily been an 800/1500m runner with more specialized training, but at the given moment that's what it seemed. Try the 800/1500 combo... but a 53 point when running 4:33/10:02 doesn't lend enough evidence to name you a 400/800 person.
Best event bro wrote:
Don't think so. You're just a well-rounded distance guy. I can run a 53 off of no training almost any given day of the week (I'm 17) and I ran 51.5/1:59 off of two weeks of training. My 1600 PR this year was only 4:40. My coach labeled me as a 400/800 guy but I also had a 5K PR of 16:43 with 10 days of training for that. I think I could have easily been an 800/1500m runner with more specialized training, but at the given moment that's what it seemed. Try the 800/1500 combo... but a 53 point when running 4:33/10:02 doesn't lend enough evidence to name you a 400/800 person.
Why do all of your PRs come with between no training and two weeks of training? You need to learn how to progress steadily throughout the season to reach your potential.
Talk to your college coach/coaches about it.
To me the important question is not how little training you did to run 53 but how much training it took to run 4:33/10:02.
Bad Wiggins wrote:
According to McMillan
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/index.php/calcUsage/calculateA typical 10:02 3200 could run 58, and a 4:33 1600 could run 56. That's pretty accurate for high school runners. It also says the distance runners capable of 53 are the ones doing about 1:56, 4:17 and 9:10.
Compared to that - 53, 1:56, 4:17 and 9:10, your times get slower every time the distance increases, even though the 53 was the one with the least training.
Yes, you should have stuck with 400/800.
McMillan is way off then. A kid that runs a 58 would not even place in an Freshman indoor meet, while a 10:02 would put you in the seeded heat of most HS Varsity meets.
As far as compring 53 and 1:56/4:17/9:10???? Are you serious? A 53 won't get you in the top 30 in an early season HS meet in Alaska, while a 1:56/4:17/9:10 would be enough to win the state championship most years in many states and would win you 90% of HS races that are not state championship level. C'mon now. Use some common sense.