D3 blade runner runs 44.7 (relay) - Wins open 400 as well. How is this fair?

Predatorious wrote:

D2sprinter wrote:

Have you thought that maybe he worked really hard to run 46s? It's not like people with no legs can just throw on prosthetics and run great times. Your just mad someone with no legs has worked hard and run fasterthen 99% of people. He doesn't have a victim mentality, he's a go getter.

Stop being so PC. The guy doesn't have to fight fatigue in the same way that a runner with 'real legs' has to. Even the designers of prosthesis like this have stated such. Wait'll someone with legit 45 talent - before losing their legs - starts running in the 42s. Then we'll really hear screaming on one side and even sillier defenses.

This is correct. Just saw some blade runner on the Tx A&M 4x4 drops like a 45.2 split. Less lactic acid if there is no where for it to build up. Plus lighter legs. There is a reason why they excel at the 400 and not the 100.

You are talking about average High Schoolers running 45-49 seconds in the 400m. That is not what average High Schoolers run in the 400m. Average High Schoolers run 56-60 seconds.

So whether or not the advantages outweigh the disadvantages at the elite level is irrelevant when you have these young kids running 4-5 seconds faster than they would have without blades.

It's fine to run in them. I think its cool personally. But in the same race as people without them? Well now that is just effing stupid. It's something totally different. That video you guys are posting shows a dude that looks clearly quite chunky. He has no business destroying other kids his age. Get him in a race against other blade runners.

Willing to bet you didn't see "some blade runner on the Tx A&M 4x4" drop a 45.2. In fact, I'll bet my two good legs. Quite sure A&M doesn't have a blade runner on their roster. Must be using the Trump fact-checking team.

Oh yeah, this guy looks soooo ripped...

http://cdnak1.psbin.com/img/mw=815/cr=n/d=lbvin/p3httlut25vyhiku.jpg

ex-runner wrote:

Secondly, whilst he doesn't have fatigue in his lower leg, he also doesn't get to produce any force from his calves. He mostly runs by driving his leg down with his quads which isn't efficient.

Instead he gets fatigue-free rebound from the blades to replace what his calves did.

The big advantage is because the blades weigh much less than a lower leg, it is far less fatiguing to maintain high turnover.

Baby nats wrote:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VnSSrWB9sgs

Must admit, he looks the most unfit guy out there. Also looks kinda Galen Rupp-ish.

Question - does he run much faster on the straightaways than the bends?

Blade runners have a tendency to windmill their legs. This guy not as bad as Oscar in that dept. Any blade runners out there with zero windmilling of legs?

Do blade runners with some leg below the knee have an advantage over their brothers with only leg above the knee - I know, an awkward way of phrasing, but you know what I mean.

Why do we need Paralympics if these guys can compete WELL in open competition? I thought that was the whole point of Paralympics. Also remember when Paralympics was just for paralyzed people.

How soon till clydesdale (and athena) divisions in Paralympics.

Those yentas will crucify me on The View, but only raising valid (and reasonable) questions.

Rozay wrote:

If they're such an advantage, why is the WR for T44 only 45.07? Not even one sub 44 in the history of the classification but somehow it's an advantage when that wouldn't even place you in the top 5 at USAs, let alone D1 NCAAs.

How many competitive 400m runners are double amputees? 100? 500? Whatever the number, it is so impossibly small relative to able bodied athletes that comparing world records doesn't even make sense.

n ~= 0 wrote:

Rozay wrote:

If they're such an advantage, why is the WR for T44 only 45.07? Not even one sub 44 in the history of the classification but somehow it's an advantage when that wouldn't even place you in the top 5 at USAs, let alone D1 NCAAs.

How many competitive 400m runners are double amputees? 100? 500? Whatever the number, it is so impossibly small relative to able bodied athletes that comparing world records doesn't even make sense.

Took way too long for me to find this point being raised.

Bad Wigins wrote:

ex-runner wrote:

Secondly, whilst he doesn't have fatigue in his lower leg, he also doesn't get to produce any force from his calves. He mostly runs by driving his leg down with his quads which isn't efficient.

Instead he gets fatigue-free rebound from the blades to replace what his calves did.

The big advantage is because the blades weigh much less than a lower leg, it is far less fatiguing to maintain high turnover.

And the big disadvantage is they can't run faster than women in the 100m. They can't put power down and accelerate like able bodied athletes.

The world record for 100m is 10.9 and for 200m is 21.3. That's a significant disadvantage and the whole reason they negative split a 400

You have provide no point. You have stated that there is no advantage in the 100 and 200. Great. No one has contested that. The subject is the 400. As the distance goes up, the impact of fatigue is where the advage is clear. The blades do not break down. The power they return is the power they return with no drop. Does that mean they are at an advantage overall. No clue.

If I tear my achilles I can't get a newer upgraded model.

Let’s keep the subject clear wrote:

You have provide no point. You have stated that there is no advantage in the 100 and 200. Great. No one has contested that. The subject is the 400. As the distance goes up, the impact of fatigue is where the advage is clear. The blades do not break down. The power they return is the power they return with no drop. Does that mean they are at an advantage overall. No clue.

I mean if you can't see the relation between the 200m and the 400m then I can't really help you. Maybe you should ask WVN or Merritt why they bother racing the 200m next time.

How many elite 400m runners go out in 22/23 seconds? The fastest way to run the event is to go out hard and run a storming back straight. Blade runners can't do that and their second 200m is just on par with the second 200m run by guys with legs.

They lose tons of time over the first 200m and cannot make it back over the second 200m. The 400m T44 WR is abysmal and this kid we are talking about would get smoked in D1 or even D2.

The negative or even split business is simply because they can't physically go out fast. Ask Mike Norman to go out in 23s and he could cruise to a 46 if he wanted.

In fact nobody has the splits for Pistorious' 45.07 because they didn't take any, but it looked a lot more even and ordinary compares to the race where the controversy started, which was actually only run in 46.7 by Oscar but he closed in 22.5s or something. Which any top 400 guy could do with ease.

Let’s keep the subject clear wrote:

As the distance goes up, the impact of fatigue is where the advage is clear.

Maybe. The T44 ("blade runner") world records for 800 and 1500 are 2:03.16 and 4:33.46.

ex-runner wrote:

The world record on blades for 100m is something like 10.9 and for 200 it's 21.3 and 400 is 45.07.

These athletes cannot put power down to accelerate out of blocks like a sprinter with legs.

As the distance increases the advantages start to outweigh the disadvantages, but clearly 400m is not that distance or else we'd already have a guy running 42 on blades. Instead, Pistorious was far and away the best in the world and even he was simply an also ran at the Olympics, last in his semi.

Blade technology is continuing to improve... look at the pic posted above and tell me he looks anything like a 46 flat 400 runner? Even if you're not convinced he has an advantage at 400, what happens if he moves up to the 8?

Look at data wrote:

Let’s keep the subject clear wrote:

As the distance goes up, the impact of fatigue is where the advage is clear.

Maybe. The T44 ("blade runner") world records for 800 and 1500 are 2:03.16 and 4:33.46.

They don't have those events at the Paralympics or else those records would be much stronger

Watch the videos and compare his arm and leg tempo compared to the other runner near him. Your brain is pretty well trained to estimate his time if you watch much track. I put him at 55 seconds at best. He is slower but he is striding further.

ex-runner wrote:

How many elite 400m runners go out in 22/23 seconds? The fastest way to run the event is to go out hard and run a storming back straight. Blade runners can't do that and their second 200m is just on par with the second 200m run by guys with legs.

They lose tons of time over the first 200m and cannot make it back over the second 200m. The 400m T44 WR is abysmal and this kid we are talking about would get smoked in D1 or even D2.

The negative or even split business is simply because they can't physically go out fast. Ask Mike Norman to go out in 23s and he could cruise to a 46 if he wanted.

Are you suggesting T44 runners intentionally run their first 200 (or first 100) easier than able bodied runners, or do you think they also go out at ~95% of their 200m potential?

The runner up at DIII Nationals would have been top-20 in both the East and West regionals, and would have finished as an All-American at DII Nationals. Digby's time would have gotten him to DI Nationals out of the West region. Being top-40 in the country as a Sophomore is smoked? He dropped 2 full seconds off his PR in 1 year, if he drops another .75 over the next 2 years he's probably a DI All-American.

Could Mike Norman (or any able bodied athlete in the world) go out in 23.x and run a 46.0 while wearing a 20lb weight vest?

Hardloper wrote:

They don't have those events at the Paralympics or else those records would be much stronger

That’s not the argument at hand. The argument is that T44 athletes have an unfair advantage. It seems to me that if they did we’d be talking about more than two athletes over the last 12 years and in more than just one event.

As long as he doesnt murder his girlfriend, who cares?