Anyone ever know someone who has run impressive times in longer races but can't crack 60.0 for 400m? What about 59.0? Those types have always fascinated me.
Anyone ever know someone who has run impressive times in longer races but can't crack 60.0 for 400m? What about 59.0? Those types have always fascinated me.
4:12 in the full mile
I know a runner who two years ago in highschool certainly could not break 60 in the 400 or 2:07 in the 800 for that matter. Ran 9:15 as a senior and since then has run in the 14:20s for 5k and under 30:00 for 10k. Not sure if he can break 60 now but I doubt it and there is no way he can break 59. Definitely more extreme cases but this is the best example I know of.
Seth Hirsch ran 4:14, 8:52 and 14:39 in XC with a 3rd place finish at footlocker. Said in interviews in highschool that he had never ran faster than 59 but if he raced it that he would try to run 57. Very low top end speed.
Highschool junior
15:30 5k
9:38 3200
4:35 1600
Has a lot of endurance but bad speed
26:13, 4:22 1500, 15:35 5k
OlympicHopefull wrote:
4:12 in the full mile
Any 4:12 miler who isn't breaking 60 in the open 400m isn't because they can't, it's because they run the 400m like a p*ssy.
Had a camp counselor who ran 13:40 or so, his mile PR came from the last mile of a tactical 5k (4:19) and his 400 PR also came from that same race (61). He tried to run faster in the 400 but never got faster than 62. He believed his fastest possible 400 would have to be in a tactical distance race because the running start was more important than being tired.
I'm sure there are plenty of very good marathoners or even 10k runners who can't break 60 in the 400, but I don't ever really believe the pretty decent 1500/mile guys who claim they can't go sub 60.
I've known two pretty decent runners like this. The first ran at my high school and had prs of 4:2x in the 1600m and 9:36 in the 3200m at the time. The guy would consistently run in the 60-61 range in 4x400m as a double in duel meets, which pissed off our coach since he could also run the last two 400m repeats at the end of a hard workout just as fast, or go 28 in the 200m in similar situations. When we would point out that if he could run these times at the end of a workout in trainers then he should easily go sub 60, he would claim that being able to jog into the start was worth a couple seconds and that even after an all out race he could probably run within a second of his 400m best because his distance was so much better than his speed. He was also a real ass about being the fastest 3200m runner on our team, claimed his time in that race was equivalent to a sub 4:15 in the mile (our fastest 1600m runner had a 4:15 pr back then), and that he would beat us by even more if we raced a 5k. All of this even though he was only the 4th best guy on our cross team the previous season and never beat our two best 1600m guys in a 2 mile, even though they were really mid distance guys who only ran the race at duel meets for points.
The second was similar but much less of an ass. He ran sub 4 in the 1500m and sub 15 in the 5k but still insisted he couldn't run sub 60 in the 400. His workouts and races at other distances showed this was nonsense, but at least he wasn't a jerk like the first guy.
I think a lot of these types are on letsrun. A few months ago, some guy with prs of around 50 in the 400 and 4:15 in the mile started a thread asking how fast he could he could run a mile if he started off trying to hit a 400m pr and kept going after the first lap. A bunch of guys came on and claimed he could go out in 51, recover the next two laps in 80 and 70, and be fine to run at pr pace the last two laps. They were also claiming people with decent endurance could run an all out 400m, then be able to run within a second of their 400m prs after a 1 minute recovery. Both of these claims seem delusional.