kdk wrote:
He runs the 800. He is arguably a sprinter.
Exactly. They often called it the 880 dash. Is a dash a sprint? This is much ado about nothing.
kdk wrote:
He runs the 800. He is arguably a sprinter.
Exactly. They often called it the 880 dash. Is a dash a sprint? This is much ado about nothing.
OK Wigins wrote:
kdk wrote:He runs the 800. He is arguably a sprinter.
Exactly. They often called it the 880 dash. Is a dash a sprint? This is much ado about nothing.
That's true, not a big deal. But it gives the OP and followers a reason to bash a female CEO. It makes them feel better about themselves.
OK Wigins wrote:
kdk wrote:He runs the 800. He is arguably a sprinter.
Exactly. They often called it the 880 dash. Is a dash a sprint? This is much ado about nothing.
They also called African Americans "coloreds" back then too.
what???????? wrote:
OK Wigins wrote:Exactly. They often called it the 880 dash. Is a dash a sprint? This is much ado about nothing.
They also called African Americans "coloreds" back then too.
And they continue to call morons such as yourself morons...
Tommy Gavin wrote:
TAA wrote:Hell calling the 400 a sprint is generous
You must have very little speed. Probably very little running ability at all if you don't think the 400 is a sprint.
That made no sense
OK Wigins wrote:
what???????? wrote:They also called African Americans "coloreds" back then too.
And they continue to call morons such as yourself morons...
Actually, the moron is this chick that thinks that because she is good for old ladies and has a blog that she is qualified to write about the sport. She is exactly what is wrong with bloggers that try to think they are journalists.
what???????? wrote:
OK Wigins wrote:I 110% disagree. I think she got the key points exactly right and her happening to call Symmonds a sprinter isn't the point. If you disagree with her basic argument, please elaborate; if not, please stfu.
And they continue to call morons such as yourself morons...
Actually, the moron is this chick that thinks that because she is good for old ladies and has a blog that she is qualified to write about the sport. She is exactly what is wrong with bloggers that try to think they are journalists.
TAA wrote:
Hell calling the 400 a sprint is generous
The 400 is a sprint. Ground contact is as fast and sometimes faster in the first half of a race than 100 and 200.
Knee lift should be high, and the start out of the blocks is critical.
The 800 is more like an extended sprint nowadays, with most 800 specialists having 45-46 second PR's for 400 making them 'Sprinters'.
1500m specialists should also be fast over 400, 48 seconds at least.
The trend of it taking faster and faster 400 times will just keep increasing in the 800 and 1500, to the point where 44-45 second guys will be common. You'll have to be able to sprint fast to be an elite middle distance and distance runner.
what???????? wrote:
They also called African Americans "coloreds" back then too.
The term actually applied to all colored people, including indians, hispanics, and asians.
Stop thinking the only people who were oppressed were the darkest.
aaskdjfhasldkjfahsd wrote:
and the start out of the blocks is critical.
Correct. The better 400 runners do not explode out of the blocks. They strive to have the first step as far forward of the start line as possible and build on that momentum into the second step. Gathering momentum steadily expending as little energy as possible early. The acceleration phase is designed to be longer than in the 100.
aaskdjfhasldkjfahsd wrote:
1500m specialists should also be fast over 400, 48 seconds at least.
Yeah but that doesn't make the 1500 a sprint. They can run a 3:30 without going sub-55 on any one lap. With the form they use at 55 pace, they're not really sprinting.
But an 800 meter elite has to go out at 49 or 50. That's a sprint any way you slice it.
nick's 400 is underestimated
i saw his 400pb on flotrack ( perhaps still there or on youtube ? )
it was in dublin which is invariably cold & windy & he ran it with a standing up start like he was running a 800 !!!
this was also close to london games, so i very much doubt he tapered to peak for a meaningless 400 in middle of nowhere athletics-wise so close to games
that ~ 47-mid woud almost certainly have been best part of 1s faster on a warm, 0 wind day fully utilising blocks & resting specifically for a 400 especially if he'd had a coupla goes at it under ideal circumstances
i'd bet good money he was in 46-mid shape in london '12, which is nothing to be sniffed at speed-wise for a 800 guy
i looked for nick's vid & haven't yet found it but found an article with him talking about that 400trust me, i hadn't seen it until after searching for the vid after my previous post :look at bottom :http://community.runnersworld.com/topic/ask-me-nick-symmonds-anything?page=6
Quick question coming from a quarter-miler. Whats your 400 PR? Younger....Older whenever?
"Thanks, I'm actually having a great time answering all these questions. I ran 47.4 in Dublin last year for 400m on a cool evening before the Olympics. I think that later in the summer in a faster venue I could maybe run 46.5"
found the vid :
not only a standing start ( no proper use of blocks to propel him ) but got sh!tty lane 1