Lenny leonard wrote:
There aren't many, but there have been a few who meet this criterion throughout history. But if that's what you guys are REALLY stuck on, fine. To close a 3:33-3:34 in 55 or 56 does not require great speed, which we will now define as being able to break 50 in the 400. To close off a few 60+ 400s in 52-53, you need to be a sub 50 guy, probably more like 48-49. So the point remains the same: a guy who picks up the pace ever so slightly off a fast pace looks like a great kicker in spite of not having great top end speed. That is strength cloaking itself as speed. Anyone who wants to drop a 52 off of 60s better have true, top end, from the blocks, speed. (Not literally from the blocks for those who are now going to tel me milers don't use blocks.) But to reiterate, there are a handful of guys who ran under 3:35 without having run in the 52s for 400.
A Racer wrote:Speed comes from strength only off a fast pace. Running a 56 to close a 3:33-3:34 is not something that requires great speed. A 53-54 second 400 runner can do this with proper endurance. Running a 52-53 off of a few 60+ second quarters requires speed.
3:34 - 56 = 2:38 through 1100m
That's 57.xx 400m pace.
No 53 second 400m runner on Earth is capable of running the equivalent of a 3:52 mile. Do you really believe this is a possibility?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!