Is the arbitrary line really 29 sec for a 200m give enough information to if someone has decent speed or not? Would this be a near 100% effort and still count? I'm just curious to know if this is what it would take to run near 4:40 in the mile or better.
no one ever ran 4:40 off of 29 sec 200 speed
Nope, not even close. I would say closer to 4:55-5:00. That's only if you have good endurance.
Sage Canaday replied and even told me that he only had 27 high speed. He ran a 3:55 1500. He didnt break 57 in a 400. So yes, you can run 4:40 off 29 speed. It will take some good endurance, though. Still 29 is weak. Work on your speed.
In the old days it was always stated that Al Salazar's best 400 was 57. He may have actually been slightly faster but you wouldn't know it to watch him run, so that number is very close to true. Any time he got into a sprint finish with someone he had almost no ability at all to react. He ran 13:11 off that, and 7:43 for 3000.
Lydiard said if you can't run under 25 seconds for 200m with little training you have no chance to become a world class 800m runner.
I've heard that about Salazar as well, although I just really cannot believe it.
This is sort of a silly question - it is stated as if this is some kind of agreed upon standard, but it is not something that I have ever really heard.
I do think :29 is adequate speed to run 4:40 though, for what it is worth. I am definitely an endurance guy, but always thought I had pretty good speed for a good D3 5k runner. At this more advanced point in my running career, I am guessing it would be really hard for me to break :28, although I should be able to break :29, and I am very confident that I could break 4:40.
Again, anecdotal evidence of one random guy's experience isn't really useful for purposes of establishing a rule of thumb, but I still think it is an adequate degree of speed (but you should be thinking about moving up to the longer distances over time).
Ghost of Arthur Lydiard uncle wrote:
Lydiard said if you can't run under 25 seconds for 200m with little training you have no chance to become a world class 800m runner.
What he meant was, if you can run under 25 for 200 (male) then the 800 is not going to be your best distance.
But then again a world class distance runner with 26 second speed can run under 1.50
RejectJogger wrote:
Sage Canaday replied and even told me that he only had 27 high speed. He ran a 3:55 1500. He didnt break 57 in a 400..
No way could you run 3:55 if you fastest is 57
57+ 4 x 2 gives best at 800m of 2:02
So 61 seconds per lap.
No way can you hold almost double the distance at 62.7 pace
RejectJogger wrote:
Sage Canaday replied and even told me that he only had 27 high speed. He ran a 3:55 1500. He didnt break 57 in a 400. So yes, you can run 4:40 off 29 speed. It will take some good endurance, though. Still 29 is weak. Work on your speed.
I am sure Sage could break 57 when he was in 3:55 shape. He said he only really ran the 400 when he was in high school.
Not speedy wrote:
Is the arbitrary line really 29 sec for a 200m give enough information to if someone has decent speed or not? Would this be a near 100% effort and still count? I'm just curious to know if this is what it would take to run near 4:40 in the mile or better.
A 29 for a 200 is slow. I could get down to 26 and still consider it slow. 23-25 I would consider fast for a distance runner. The mile however depending on your training you could probably run a 33 and still have enough speed to run 4:40.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
RejectJogger wrote:
Sage Canaday replied and even told me that he only had 27 high speed. He ran a 3:55 1500. He didnt break 57 in a 400..
No way could you run 3:55 if you fastest is 57
57+ 4 x 2 gives best at 800m of 2:02
So 61 seconds per lap.
No way can you hold almost double the distance at 62.7 pace
This is Sage Canaday we're discussing here. He's a slow twitcher, an ultra runner who isn't afraid of shorter races. You post a lot here, you should have figured out some of this out by now.
Let it Rupp wrote:
Nope, not even close. I would say closer to 4:55-5:00. That's only if you have good endurance.
Confirmed. I'm a 29 second (maybe high-28 on a very good day) 200m guy I and I've never run better than 4:58. Can break 16:50 most days, so reasonable endurance making up for terrible speed.
... I'd add that the "defining line" for speed wouldn't be a 29 second 200. That's more like the defining line for lack of speed.
I actually don't think that those numbers prove anything with respect to your relative strengths (speed versus endurance). If you were to plug the 4:58 into most calculators, it would be significantly faster than 16:50.
No one can tell you that being able to or not being able to run 28 means you can break 4:40. All I can say, is that it is not prohibitively slow for that purpose.
Smoove wrote:
I've heard that about Salazar as well, although I just really cannot believe it.
I don't know that 57 is the best Salazar COULD have ever done for 400, but he sure wasn't fast, and that was always the number he said was his best. He was an extreme slow twitch runner and he did both a lot of miles and a lot of speedwork.
Arthurian Legend wrote:
Ghost of Arthur Lydiard uncle wrote:
Lydiard said if you can't run under 25 seconds for 200m with little training you have no chance to become a world class 800m runner.
What he meant was, if you can run under 25 for 200 (male) then the 800 is not going to be your best distance.
So he meant the opposite of what he said?
Smoove wrote:
I actually don't think that those numbers prove anything with respect to your relative strengths (speed versus endurance). If you were to plug the 4:58 into most calculators, it would be significantly faster than 16:50.
I should have made a caveat that I was a 16:36 guy when I did that mile. Currently, I'm lucky to break 16:50, and if I raced a mile, likely wouldn't run a 4:58. Sorry for the confusion. Not thinking yet this morning.
Ghost of Arthur Lydiard uncle wrote:
Lydiard said if you can't run under 25 seconds for 200m with little training you have no chance to become a world class 800m runner.
Not controversial whatsoever.
I would say that it is possible to run that.
Best 400 was a relay 56 high
Best 800 1:57
Best 1500 3:49
For the 800 I was going out close to my top 400 speed and closing in 60 point, The 1500 was similar going out around 1:59-2:01.