The great 400m poll

Posted In: Polls

      • Avatar
        Participant
        aquamanbj on #15801

        the poll didn’t quite work how i wanted but please do elaborate

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Craig Pickering on #84132

        The way I see it (and I have no 400m experience whatsoever!) the 400m appears to be made up of two different athletes:

        1) Speed athletes – i.e. 200/400 runners
        2) Endurance athletes – i.e. 400/800 runners.

        Today, the 400m appears to be more dominated by the first type of athlete – we always see 400m runners doing 200m races early season to build speed. However, many people feel (from what I have read) that Jeremy Wariner would run a really good 800m, so he may be more in that camp, and he certainly has a compartively slow 200m PB compared to Michael Johnson and LeShawn Merrit, etc.

        In terms of nature vs nurture, and again this is based off me viewing 400m training, and not experience, it seems that the 400m appears to be an event where you can get quite far on having a lower level of natural ability, i.e you can train really hard and have good performances. This sounds slightly harsher than I mean it to be, but I hope you see the point I am trying to make.

        In terms of the key phase, I often hear commentators saying that MJ / JW made a massive impact in the 3rd sector, i.e. 200-300m. Is this true?

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #84133

        I agree fully with you…

        There are many 400m runners who “only” run in the 21’s and who run 46 low or sub 46’s.

        BUT

        If you wanna be one of the best (<45) you have to be able to run REALLY fast and have REALLY good speed end…

        i THINK our own Rooney, may be one of the slowest ever guys to run under 45 second…

        Am i right?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84134

        How about Andrew Steele. Sub 45 at the Olympics but he didn’t go quicker than 11.14 and 21.48 (bests of 10.69 and 21.11).

        Obviously 100m speed will be a limiting factor, but what makes a 400m runner is what he can do with his basic speed. I think its always better to come up to a 400 than down to a 400.

        In my opinion the 3rd hundred is the most crucial. Running a hard first 100 and coasting the 2nd hundred is easy enough and holding form/ giving what is left in the last is easy enough. Its the 3rd 100 that links everything together.

        It is possible to get ridiculously quick in the 400 without ever breaking 11. I know a guy who ran 46.0 but never broke 11.

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #84137

        POSSIBLE…yeah no doubt…

        It’s possible to run 9.69 in the 100m. But clearly very rare..

        Here’s another question…

        Whats the best predictor for 400m ability,

        100m time

        200m time

        800m time

        I’d say a toss up between 200 and 800

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84138

        I’d say the 200m without a doubt. Take the 200m best and a decent 400 runner should go through a second slower then 2 seconds on top of that for the 2nd 200.

        I have seen to much range in what people have done for 800 from their 400m time.

        A better question yet.

        How fast do you reckon someone could run 400m without breaking 12 seconds for a 100.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        flow on #84141

        its all nature, genetics whatever. you can bust youre ass off to get good endurance but just having a sufficiently long archillis tendon already eliminates half the pack, in terms of being elite… but than again thats the case in every sprint distance.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        johnstrang on #84142

        Its hard ever to vote nurture over nature for anything in track and field, but I think Jeremy Wariner proved last year that there is more too the race than being gifted. You need to be naturally gifted to be elite, but to win and dominate you need to know individually what your body has to develop to continue to drop times. Its hard to say whether you need more endurance or speed because what makes this event great is the cross between the two. That would very much depend on the individual.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84143

        How can you say its all nature when someone ran in the Olympic final who over 100m isn’t much quicker than 11.0?

      • Nick Newman
        Participant
        Nick Newman on #84144

        I watched first hand Bernard Lagat do a workout on a horrible flat indoor 200m track. He did about 8x 200m repeats with 30 seconds rest and ran them all in low 23’s. It was truly amazing…

        Do you people not think Lagat could break 22 seconds for a 200m outdoors? What does this prove?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        flow on #84145

        How can you say its all nature when someone ran in the Olympic final who over 100m isn’t much quicker than 11.0?

        does a naturally gifted 400m runner have to be fast over 100m?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84146

        It would suggest endurance reigns supreme!

        Then again I know personally a 1:46 800 runner who can’t break 48 and a guy who has done 46.3 yet running 1:51 for 800.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84147

        [quote author="Callam Mccabe" date="1243651376"]How can you say its all nature when someone ran in the Olympic final who over 100m isn’t much quicker than 11.0?

        does a naturally gifted 400m runner have to be fast over 100m?[/quote]

        Its different to the 100m a lot of people from other sports can do quick 100s.

        What are the chances that you can pluck an basketball/soccer/football player from their sport stick them in a 400 race and they would run something which would do justice to their 100m speed?

        I would agree that the 100m is highly nature but no so in the 400.

        Do a lot of people naturally have good lactic acid tolerance and are able to pace a 400m bang on?

        Obviously genetics plays a role in 400m runner but to say its all nature…

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84148

        If a person can run quick enough to make a Olympic final in the 400 but not be able to break 11 wouldn’t that suggest that in the 400m nurture over nature?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        flow on #84149

        mya, saying its “all” nature is exaggerated i guess, sry bout that. its more like nurturing the nature ; P
        if youre gifted you at least have the chance to become good when nurturing that gift. if you dont have the gift, i dont think youll be able to compensate by working harder. that works in less competitive sports, not in track, not in the sprints.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        flow on #84150

        If a person can run quick enough to make a Olympic final in the 400 but not be able to break 11 wouldn’t that suggest that in the 400m nurture over nature?

        but why? i dont get the relation…
        the example works for the speed endurance thing, but for the nature-nurture thing?
        60m specialists dont have to be great 100m runners either.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84151

        Yeah that’s a given, you need some degree of talent. The more towards elite a athlete becomes the more nature will play a role. Its possible to develop good 400m runners thought, less so in the 200 and even less in the 100. If you took a kid who can run maybe 11.5 he might not have it to break 11 but chances are you could mould him into a good 400m runner.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84152

        [quote author="Callam Mccabe" date="1243652802"]If a person can run quick enough to make a Olympic final in the 400 but not be able to break 11 wouldn’t that suggest that in the 400m nurture over nature?

        but why? i dont get the relation…
        the example works for the speed endurance thing, but for the nature-nurture thing?
        60m specialists dont have to be great 100m runners either.[/quote]

        The athlete isn’t talented enough/ lacks the genetics to break 11 but is still capable of making the Olympic final in the 400m sprint.

        Not that 11.0 is not talented just that at Olympic level it may be classed as slow.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        flow on #84153

        [quote author="Flow" date="1243653301"][quote author="Callam Mccabe" date="1243652802"]If a person can run quick enough to make a Olympic final in the 400 but not be able to break 11 wouldn’t that suggest that in the 400m nurture over nature?

        but why? i dont get the relation…
        the example works for the speed endurance thing, but for the nature-nurture thing?
        60m specialists dont have to be great 100m runners either.[/quote]

        The athlete isn’t talented enough/ lacks the genetics to break 11 but is still capable of making the Olympic final in the 400m sprint.

        Not that 11.0 is not talented just that at Olympic level it may be classed as slow.[/quote]

        slow for 100m runner, but hes a 400m runner so we shouldnt compare. ok its a given that most 400m runners would brake the 11, but it doesnt matter for the event and it doesnt say anything about the talant. its just like saying a sub 10 guy has a slow start compared to another sub 10 guy who has a slow finish. “slow”.

        i think in this thread we have started to talk about the talant portion beeing speed, and the nurture portion beeing “endurance”, fi endurance is the right word here.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        dan1990 on #84154

        I watched first hand Bernard Lagat do a workout on a horrible flat indoor 200m track. He did about 8x 200m repeats with 30 seconds rest and ran them all in low 23’s. It was truly amazing…

        Do you people not think Lagat could break 22 seconds for a 200m outdoors? What does this prove?

        wow…to be elite in distances under 1500m you need speed..top end speed which is not as trainable as acceleration..anybody know how fast 800m athletes can go in the 100m ..

      • Avatar
        Participant
        flow on #84155

        Yeah that’s a given, you need some degree of talent. The more towards elite a athlete becomes the more nature will play a role. Its possible to develop good 400m runners thought, less so in the 200 and even less in the 100. If you took a kid who can run maybe 11.5 he might not have it to break 11 but chances are you could mould him into a good 400m runner.

        thats just cause the competition is tighter around the shorter distances. if your kid is to slow for the 100, make him a 400 guy. or a hurdler.
        what would be “good” in youre example above?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84157

        I don’t think someone has to have all the right genetics to break 48 but they do break 11. There are a lot of things you can do to get someone quick over 400. I just feel that the nurture side plays a larger role in the 400 than in the 100 where it mostly nature.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Ian Cooley on #84160

        its all nature, genetics whatever. you can bust youre ass off to get good endurance but just having a sufficiently long archillis tendon already eliminates half the pack, in terms of being elite… but than again thats the case in every sprint distance.

        https://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00LMgTSeP15jU/610x.jpg

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84162

        What is the picture meant to suggest?

      • Avatar
        Participant
        dan1990 on #84163

        its all nature, genetics whatever. you can bust youre ass off to get good endurance but just having a sufficiently long archillis tendon already eliminates half the pack, in terms of being elite… but than again thats the case in every sprint distance.

        i think having a long achilles tendon gives a advantage but it is not neccesay to be elite..maurice greene didnt have a long achilles tendon most of the power comes from the hips glutes etc..asafa powell dosent have really high cut calves

        https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42068000/jpg/_42068876_powell416.jpg

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #84168

        What the hell are you talking about? Asafa doesn’t have a long achilles? Mo doesn’t have one that is long compared to the rest of the population? Sure… among elites… not as long. Compared to the average suburban white kid–definitely long.

        Yepishin and maybe Pickering are the only guys I can think of that are “elite” without an achilles that is substantially longer than the average person, though there is variation among the elite with how different than the average they are. Mind you, they are 6.5/10.1 guys, not 6.3/9.7 guys… (that isn’t a knock on them, just to show there is a pretty big difference still).

      • Avatar
        Participant
        flow on #84174

        yo callam, i do get the picture up there. first of all i think davan is right, but dont forget we are talking about 400m sprinters here

        the long tenondons rise in importance with the sprinting distance, because they work as an elastic blabla, i dont have to tell you.
        imo if you have the fast twich fibers but not the tendons, stick with the 60m haha. no really, this tenon thing was just ONE example, dont hang me up on every word i say.

        bottum line is: yes, you have to work hard as a 400m guy, but you just cannot work against “genetical deficites”. the only reason why people think its easier to becom a good 400m guy through hard work if tallent is amiss is because “good” is just reletive in a discipline where the competition is just not that tight. i´d say a 48 isnt better than an 11.3, and thats achieveable through hard work aswell. if you dont have the speed, the biomechanical features to hold that speed without fatiguing rapidly etc etc youre just limited. everyone works within his limits.

        BUT, i think i understand youre point of view(S)(cause youre two guys here, eh?) because the 400m training is a pain and not many people endure it long enough to even come close to their limits, you are saying its more nurture. i respect that and i give you that it takes probably at least ínitially more nurturing to get to an equivalent level in the 400 to the 100m. but dont get blinded by the hard work.
        no it from personal experiance: two guys in my junior relay team, both alway trained together and where almost equal training partners, and although both worked very very hard no.1 peaked with 45,93s a day after his 24 birthday while the other dude barely reached the 49s mark… and he is 29 now

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84175

        That’s what I was saying… you can be limited by the nature but nurture plays a huge role.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        davan on #84191

        How about Andrew Steele. Sub 45 at the Olympics but he didn’t go quicker than 11.14 and 21.48 (bests of 10.69 and 21.11).

        Obviously 100m speed will be a limiting factor, but what makes a 400m runner is what he can do with his basic speed. I think its always better to come up to a 400 than down to a 400.

        In my opinion the 3rd hundred is the most crucial. Running a hard first 100 and coasting the 2nd hundred is easy enough and holding form/ giving what is left in the last is easy enough. Its the 3rd 100 that links everything together.

        It is possible to get ridiculously quick in the 400 without ever breaking 11. I know a guy who ran 46.0 but never broke 11.

        Did he never have the ability to break 11 or did he never do it because he didn’t run it when he was fully prepared? MJ never broke 10, but he ran 10.1 from lane 3 on the curve and 19.32…

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84193

        He has broken 11 he just didn’t in the Olympic year, he seemed to be struggling last year and we were quite shocked he ended up running as fast as he did.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Craig Pickering on #84205

        I think Andrew Steele perfectly illustrates my point. I know Andy pretty well, and Im sure he wont mind me saying (and will probably admit himself) that compared to the other 400m runners, he has the least natural talent. He has got to where he is today by training hard and smart, and having a 100% professional attitude towards training and recovery.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84207

        Steele is a extraordinary athlete I think its quite amazing that last year he couldn’t break 11 yet broke 45. From what Speedfreak1 has said also I think that it shows the 400 is more nurture than nature.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        johnstrang on #84209

        Do you also think that runners that do the 800m, 1500m, or 3000m are all more nurture than nature as well? Just because someone runs slow doesn’t mean they are not naturally just a beast at being able to hold a fast pace longer than others. Yes working hard and training right will get someone to be great but there has to be a great natural ability be it speed or endurance for someone to go under 45s. The ones that use their natural ability plus smart training are the ones that become great.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84219

        Yes this is true. Someone said its all nature which I think isn’t true. I do think that up to a point (maybe a 50/50 split between nature and nurture) the longer the distance the greater the role nurture can play.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        Mccabe on #84220

        Look at how many sports start could run a 10. something. I doubt they could do something as good in any other distance.

      • Avatar
        Participant
        trackjabber on #84709

        I could only vote one time (??) but I think nature, speed, and home stretch.

        I would bet there has not been an olympic 400 meter finalist in the last 20 years who couldn’t break 11 seconds over 100.

Viewing 35 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.