Q&A With Clyde Hart

[EPelle]

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5884473?source=rss

[jumplove]

Since I don t think is fair the way I was attacked and missunderstood, I found honorable to delete my posts as my intention was never to diss somebody, but to share opinions and help myself and others to undertstand track and field better

[eldrick]

i can never get this figured out properly - you can't run a 400m flat-out from gun-to-tape & logic suggests that you shoud try & run it as evenly as possible, so what pace shoud that be ?

pj suggests differential between flying 400 & open 400 shoud be 0.7s & that between an flying 100 & open 100 is 1.1

a 400m is an open 200 + a flying 200, which is therefore somewhere between the 2 above, which proportioning between the 2 differentials above suggests it shoud be 0.97s difference - call it 1.0s

so therefore, an "ideal" 400 shoud have splits ( if evenly run as possible ) differing by 1s ( meaning this differential indicates equal amount of energy put into both halves of the race ) :

45s -> 23.0/22.0
44s -> 22.5/21.5
43s -> 22.0/21.0

51s -> 26.0/25.0
50s -> 25.5/24.5
49s -> 25.0/24.0
48s -> 24.5/23.5

anecdotally people keep saying you must run the initial 200 faster than the 2nd so that you have "something to hang onto"

i'd be nice to see someone try going out slow ( like above ) & see what they come back in

[tafnut]

As a good coach wanna be,,,,I kind of disagree with him. I believe he is blessed with natural fast runners, and he can afford to overlook the speed issue...I still believe speed kills and its the most important thing you should continue to look to develop. ,endurance should come second....But again....I am learning........

I think his point is that as a coach he can affect endurance much more than speed. Speed is 98% God-given. While endurance capacity may be largely genetic also, actual displayed endurance is 98% (doncha love how I make up numbers to look authoritative, but you get my drift) determined by how one is trained, so Coach Hart is trying to improve the one area he does have complete control over.

[SQUACKEE]

"

i'd be nice to see someone try going out slow ( like above ) & see what they come back in

I see your logic but theres something about the 400 which demands you get out. Its such along sprint that if you dont use your speed early it will be hard to find in the last 100. IMHO.

What say you 400 dudes?

[eldrick]

extending argument about "even" running ( i'm not going to start another topic just for this - might as well stick it on a topic about the greatest modern 200/400 coach )

i've never been able to figure out best splits to run a 200, but from a few recent topics ( namely relay split legs in a 4 x 100 ), perhaps we might get somewhere

now, you can't run a 200 flat-out from gun-to-tape, as you'll collapse at about 140m mark, so you do need to "husband" your energy resources & spread it out evenly

from various posts, we get differential between open/flying 100 of 1.10s - that's the easy part ! :P

trouble always has been to guestimate what the curve costs in comparison to a straight 100 - we had marsh running a 10.00 open leg & 9.90pb that year, but that 0.1s differential looks too tight ( maybe wind round the curvr pushed him to 10.00, when more realistically 10.05 looked appropriate ?!

i'll stick to 0.15s ( but can simply alter following analysis to a 0.20s if consensus opinion dictates )

so, a 200m is essentially an open 100 run on a curve, followed by a flying 100 :

the differential between that shoud be therefore :

1.10s - amount curve slows the initial 100, which i'm using 0.15s =

~ 0.95s

so, for "ideally" run 200s, with equal energy expenditure, the differential on modern tracks ( assuming 0 wind ) shoud be :

200 time = (2 * 100 split ) - 0.95s

so, trying out a few numbers to see if above is complete bollocks or not :

20.20 -> 10.57/9.63
20.10 -> 10.52/9.58
20.00 -> 10.47/9.53
19.90 -> 10.42/9.48
19.80 -> 10.37/9.43
19.70 -> 10.32/9.38
19.60 -> 10.27/9.33
19.50 -> 10.22/9.28
19.40 -> 10.17/9.23
19.30 -> 10.12/9.18

obviously wind in race affects some of what we see in practice, but maybe some of the guys in reality are running the curve too hard, used up too much energy in that part & then fade in the stretch - better to run a slower, controlled curve & therefore have more left in the stretch ?

i'll put in some for women hypothetical times after

[John G]

I've always been surprised that more athletes didn't adopt the tactic Eldrick suggests - particularly after Butch Reynolds' emergence. Maybe it was perceived as a high risk strategy (some may have attributed Reynolds' failure to win in Rome or Seoul to him leaving it too late). The only guys I can recall over the years who seemed to run a fairly even pace are very tall leggy runners who probably just can't get out that fast or run a good bend (Kitur, Kamoga, Racquil).

[eldrick]

for women :

22.30 -> 11.62/10.68
22.20 -> 11.57/10.63
22.10 -> 11.52/10.58
22.00 -> 11.47/10.53
21.90 -> 11.42/10.48
21.80 -> 11.37/10.43
21.70 -> 11.32/10.38
21.60 -> 11.27/10.33
21.50 -> 11.22/10.28
21.40 -> 11.17/10.23
21.30 -> 11.12/10.18

( unfortunately, i've not got any actual women's splits to test it )

[EPelle]

Supporting your 1,0 differential eldrick:
http://www.snelkracht.nl/index.php?article=54

Charlie
Administrator
Forum Moderator
Posts : 1942

Administrator Forum Moderator 5/8/2002 : 10:11:36 PM
Re Marita Koch
Marita ran her special endurance at race pace in an ascending order of distances and a descending number of reps (I don't have the time over which the sequence was carried out) She had timing lights set up every 5 meters set at the planned ultimate race pace and she followed the lights during all of her runs. The runs started with a significant number of 50 meter runs and culminated with one run over 325 meters. When she successfully completed this distance she was considered ready for the 400 race. She raced at the 400 meter distance no more than 2 or 3 times a year. She, of course, ran sprint distances at well above any conceivable race pace (Official PBs of 10.83 and 21.71) I was told by her coach/husband, Wolfgang Meyer, that she ran an unofficial,but electronically timed 21.56 just before the world record of 47.60 that she set in Canberra in 1985. I was there and it was a sight to behold! The key for her was her incredible speed reserve. Her 200m split in Canberra was 22.4h with 33.9 at 300m. As her hand timed 200PB would be 21.3, this left her with a speed reserve of 1.1 seconds. In other words,even though she went out far faster than anyone else,she still had a bigger differential, meaning the split was easier for her than for any of the others!

[EPelle]

From same link:

Charlie
Administrator
Forum Moderator
Posts : 1942

Administrator Forum Moderator 5/9/2002 : 10:13:23 AM
Re John Smith
I spoke to John in 1988 about his 400 meter training. He described it as similar to what I was doing with one big change. After he spoke to Clyde Hart about the energy system change that occurred at 40sec, he shifted his special endurance runs from 300meters to 350meters. This change moved much of the season's work to times above 40sec. As the athletes got faster and approached the 40sec threshold, he shortened the rest periods to keep them above 40sec a little longer. Then when he wanted them to start peaking, he spread the rest periods and let them fly! Of course, with the people he produced, some of them started turning out 350s in the 37sec range towards the end. Of course,as in all cases, you need to know the whole program to see how the componants interplay.

[Cooter Brown]

Now I know where my HS coach got the beeper idea from (he went to Baylor). I still can hear that dang beep 17 years later.

[AS]

I've always been surprised that more athletes didn't adopt the tactic Eldrick suggests - particularly after Butch Reynolds' emergence. Maybe it was perceived as a high risk strategy (some may have attributed Reynolds' failure to win in Rome or Seoul to him leaving it too late). The only guys I can recall over the years who seemed to run a fairly even pace are very tall leggy runners who probably just can't get out that fast or run a good bend (Kitur, Kamoga, Racquil).

John Steffensen (under the tutelage of John Smith) seems to run a pretty even pace or if anything "kicks" the 3rd 100...

[jumplove]

Since I don t think is fair the way I was attacked and missunderstood, I found honorable to delete my posts as my intention was never to diss somebody, but to share opinions and help myself and others to undertstand track and field better

[paulthefan]

the best way to determine the best 200splits for the 400 is empirically. Simply compile the best 20 races of the best 40 Quarter milers and compare with their best 5 or 10 200m runs. That should give you the best estimate of what your athletes should shoot for.

[trackhead]

no

tafnut I have to disagree with you as well.
Speed can be imporved and its beeing imporved all over the place. Yeah, you got to have it in you....but lots of times you may never get it out there if you don t train it....I know bunch of 11.5 kids running low 10........ at 25 years/27..
Look at Linford Cristie....and lots of other late peakers in sprints.....

Speed can be improved!!! That s a no brainer.... but I guess.....when u have 20.6 highscoolers in 200m.....u can go ahead and train them like they are 800m runners...

Actually, it really can't.

Renato Canova had some data on letsrun a few years about showing the Ben Johnson's 50m splits from the early 80s compared to Seoul. I have no idea where that post is, but I remember that the first 50m in both races were marginally different, while his Seoul race showed significant improvement in his final 50m. Of course he cheated to get there, but it was the fact that he was able to slow down less that got him to 9.79.

If I can find the link I'll post it.