Since the 1960s the 400m really has not advanced anywhere near rate of the 100m, 200m, 800m, 1500m etc etc. I suspect there were just as many sub 45 guys 30 years ago as there are today., although I admit that I did not look that up. Crucify me if I am completely wrong.
Do you agree that the 400m has basically stalled? Shouldn't the WR be low 42 by now? Why isn't there a bunch of sub 44 guys?
Discuss.
What does "basically" mean to you?
Essentially. In reality. In fact.
Exhibit A:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/400_metres
What other event has top 25 from an average of so long ago? Do the EPO years of 5k/10k even make this kind of comparison?
Because most people with the raw speed to challenge the WR would run the short sprints.
Brian Gates wrote:
Because most people with the raw speed to challenge the WR would run the short sprints.
Why?
The same reason the 200 meters was stalled for years and why in boxing nobody wants to fight at 200 pounds. The money is in 100 meters or in boxing the open heavyweight division. When Kenteris won in 2000 it was the slowest winning time since 80', the weather conditions weren't much different than the 100 final. Talent follows money that's why US shot putters play the O line in the NFL or are D-Tackles like Michael Carter.
It's probably a self-limiting event. After ATP-CP power is gone it depends on acid-producing glycolysis which puts a wall at around 40 seconds. The faster you go, the faster you produce acid so that you tie up even earlier.
That's why there's nobody that can get out in 20.5 and bring it back around in +2. The fastest 400 runners get out in 21.xx on mainly efficiency. Through years of rote they learn to float. Every tenth faster requires so much extra power, for various reasons, that it doesn't work at 20 second pace.
I've never seen a coherent theory about how the body "clears lactate" or "buffers" acid or otherwise deals with rigging, and I think there's no such thing. Whatever you call how the body handles acidosis, I think there's a solid ceiling to it that all elites have long since reached, and their gains are a matter of finding ways to produce less acid in the first place. Which is much harder to do at 20 point than 21 point. All those people who think Bolt could do sub 43 are wrong, he'd have trouble getting to sub 44.
no, the best 100m runners don't have the stamina to run the 400m sub 44. Essentially two different pools of recruitment.
What is your timeframe? The 1960's, or the last 30 years?Take away the Mexico City performances at altitude, and the 400m doesn't seem to stand out statistically, compared to short and middle distance events up to 1500m (your original question).The 5K/10K likely has more to do with the depth of East Africans, rather than the temporal coincidence of EPO availability. The short and middle distances did not have the same radical shift in the profile of its participants as the distance events.
Skuj wrote:
Exhibit A:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/400_metresWhat other event has top 25 from an average of so long ago? Do the EPO years of 5k/10k even make this kind of comparison?
Skuj wrote:
Why?
Because the short sprints are where the glory is. The 100m champ is the fastest man alive; the best 400m runner is just the best 400m runner.
Tell Usain that...
Please ban lpd! wrote:
Tell Usain that...
IQ of a yam.
Brian Gates wrote:
Skuj wrote:Why?
Because the short sprints are where the glory is. The 100m champ is the fastest man alive; the best 400m runner is just the best 400m runner.
This is the fact.
And now the fastest guys are being lost to sports with more money, like the NFL in the US.
And the 400 m record is already pretty darn fast. Not all WRs are equal.
Mauna Kea wrote:
Indeed the money argument doesn't much sense.
You said it.
Try to keep up.
Skuj wrote:
Brian Gates wrote:Because most people with the raw speed to challenge the WR would run the short sprints.
Why?
More money. More prestige. More ladies.
Why has the WR for the 400 m levelled off? A good question. Maybe some of the reason someone posted about limiting of ATP-CP and the inevitable rigging up is a factor.
I wonder if Bolt could ever get close to a new WR
The "money" argument is wrong because it is actually the 200m that has improved the most since the 60's. The 100m, 400m, 800m, and 1500m have all improved the same, about 4%.
Interesting. However, it is likely that the improvement in the sprinting events is aided by dope. (goed zo).
Mauna Kea wrote:
Steve Martin wrote:You must be new here. The OP is far from the brightest bulb on this message board.
Anyone who says "try to keep up" is probably one of SMJO's many handles, i.e. one of the dullest bulbs on this message board. Indeed the money argument doesn't much sense.
SMJO? Who dat?