Yeah I never understood Willis given he really took well to Warhurt training, yet excelled at the 800m. But then he was fairly average at longer distances. Quite an anomaly.
Yeah I never understood Willis given he really took well to Warhurt training, yet excelled at the 800m. But then he was fairly average at longer distances. Quite an anomaly.
formerD1 wrote:
Yeah I never understood Willis given he really took well to Warhurt training, yet excelled at the 800m. But then he was fairly average at longer distances. Quite an anomaly.
He's a pure miler. I wouldn't say he excelled at 800m.
Like Herb Elliott.
formerD1 wrote:
Yeah I never understood Willis given he really took well to Warhurt training, yet excelled at the 800m. But then he was fairly average at longer distances. Quite an anomaly.
Brannen and Sullivan are also similar. Warhurst's training just isn't the greatest for developing 800m potential. Not surprisingly his top guys stagnate or improve at an incredibly slow rate.
A gentlemen stated he went from 3:52 to 3:42 1500 metres which is equal to a 3:59+ mile. To run sub-4 mile one needs to be in sub-52 400 metre condition. Any disagreements? Are there any men out there, sub-4 milers (or sub-3:42.2 1500 metre men) whom were not also sub 53 400 metre men?
Our paths do seem very similar.
All of my serious 1500m training came after college.
I was not obsessed with my diet and that's one thing I could have done better.
I never thought I had talent because I was slow initially and improved after hard work.
I couldn't break 60 in the 400 in 10th grade but ran 50.2 in 12th grade.
My HS 800 time was 2:02.2. and worked that down to 1:49.7 in 4 years of college.
My first 1500m race was college sophomore year in 4:05, then 3:54 junior and 3:52 senior. The following year I ran 4 races, all PRs: 3:49.7, 3:48.4, 3:44.0 and then 3:42.9.
Then I put in 3 more years of hard training and only knocked it down to 3:42.1.
The 800 PR never got better but my distance strength improved.
But looking back, I realize I likely did have more talent than most, I guess.
I responded better than others to the same training.
One last thing - everyone has the ability to run faster that whatever their lifetime PR winds up being.
But some are better at coming close to their individual limits.
War Hurts wrote:
formerD1 wrote:Yeah I never understood Willis given he really took well to Warhurt training, yet excelled at the 800m. But then he was fairly average at longer distances. Quite an anomaly.
Brannen and Sullivan are also similar. Warhurst's training just isn't the greatest for developing 800m potential. Not surprisingly his top guys stagnate or improve at an incredibly slow rate.
If a runner is a low mileage, distance oriented guy with some exceptional 800m talent. A 1:50 guy on 30 to 40 miles a week say. This runner, if he has a 4:10 mile, can get down to sub 4 with a good coach and an increase in mileage, longer intensity intervals etc.
Your 4:10 miler in high school who has achieved his results through 3 or 4 years of 70 plus miles in a structured track program may not have the ability to get to sub 4.
I think it's closer to 50 second 400 meter condition to be honest. 53 seconds for a 400m is really pretty unremarkable.
formerD1 wrote:
I think it's closer to 50 second 400 meter condition to be honest. 53 seconds for a 400m is really pretty unremarkable.
The first guy to run sub four was only a 52 guy.
How They Train lists these PBs for Roger Bannister:
mile 3:58.8
1500m 3:43.8
3/4 mile 2:52.9t
880y 1:50.7
660y 1:20.2
440y 51.0
52-53 would be fast enough for some though
Brendan Foster was another guy who could only manage 52 if that.
toro wrote:
One last thing - everyone has the ability to run faster than whatever their lifetime PR winds up being.
But some are better at coming close to their individual limits.
I have enjoyed reading your insights, but that statement cannot be logically true because by that definition anyone can be infinitely fast. If I've run 3:58 I have the ability to run 3:57, if I have run that I have the ability to run 3:56...it continues down the line.
Your current PR is also your lifetime PR, and if you can always beat your current PR you have the ability to be infinitely fast.
responding to Toro: I'm a fan of thoroughbred horse racing. Let's side aside the discuss of abuse to horses. Horses are in such stress racing the mile (or so) horses often are bleeding from the mouth & nostrils at the finish. Most of us COULD go somewhat faster than our PB
ironside wrote:
responding to Toro: I'm a fan of thoroughbred horse racing. Let's side aside the discuss of abuse to horses. Horses are in such stress racing the mile (or so) horses often are bleeding from the mouth & nostrils at the finish. Most of us COULD go somewhat faster than our PB
That's not entirely from effort though. Most racehorses apparently have a hereditary defect in their circulatory system that predisposes them to bleeding. Horses actually rarely bleed visibly, even in non Lasix legal areas.
Humans actually apparently also bleed a bit but it never makes it up out of the lungs.
When John Colter ran away from the Blackfoot he did actually bleed profusely from his nostrils and mouth but he was running for his life.
LM wrote:
toro wrote:One last thing - everyone has the ability to run faster than whatever their lifetime PR winds up being.
But some are better at coming close to their individual limits.
I have enjoyed reading your insights, but that statement cannot be logically true because by that definition anyone can be infinitely fast. If I've run 3:58 I have the ability to run 3:57, if I have run that I have the ability to run 3:56...it continues down the line.
Your current PR is also your lifetime PR, and if you can always beat your current PR you have the ability to be infinitely fast.
That's assuming you can always beat it by the same margin though. I think what he means is if your natural limit happens 4:00.000 for example you'll never run 4:00.000. With great training you might run 4:10 or even 4:05 but there's always a tiny gap between real and ideal.
alternate view wrote:
LM wrote:I have enjoyed reading your insights, but that statement cannot be logically true because by that definition anyone can be infinitely fast. If I've run 3:58 I have the ability to run 3:57, if I have run that I have the ability to run 3:56...it continues down the line.
Your current PR is also your lifetime PR, and if you can always beat your current PR you have the ability to be infinitely fast.
That's assuming you can always beat it by the same margin though. I think what he means is if your natural limit happens 4:00.000 for example you'll never run 4:00.000. With great training you might run 4:10 or even 4:05 but there's always a tiny gap between real and ideal.
Right. It depends how you measure. There is an infinite number of numbers between 3:58 and 3:57, so you can always come up with a number that is faster than your sub-3:58 PR and yet slower than exactly 3:57.
gdm wrote:
alternate view wrote:That's assuming you can always beat it by the same margin though. I think what he means is if your natural limit happens 4:00.000 for example you'll never run 4:00.000. With great training you might run 4:10 or even 4:05 but there's always a tiny gap between real and ideal.
Right. It depends how you measure. There is an infinite number of numbers between 3:58 and 3:57, so you can always come up with a number that is faster than your sub-3:58 PR and yet slower than exactly 3:57.
Not in the world of FAT
1. Desire to succeed.
2. Belief in oneself.
3. Work ethics.
Cool story Rocky Balboa.
Everyone running 4:05 miles are busting their butts and doing everything and making huge sacrifices in order to run faster. They either don't got the talent, or they met the wrong coach.
The Way We Were wrote:
1. Desire to succeed.
2. Belief in oneself.
3. Work ethics.
A 4:10 miler doesn't have these things?
The way we aren't wrote:
The Way We Were wrote:1. Desire to succeed.
2. Belief in oneself.
3. Work ethics.
A 4:10 miler doesn't have these things?
Of course, a 4:10 miler has those things. But a 3:59 miler has more of each. Remember the OP wrote "genetics aside." So the difference has to come from how hard each has worked.