Tweet
I observed long ago that the closer an athlete can come to running double their 100m best in a 200, the better they are at 400, or could be. Athletes who can run 200 in less than twice their 100 best are prime candidates for superb 400m runners. Another way of stating this is in the form of a ratio, eg. 2x100PR : 200PR . Or 2x100/200. The closer this value is to 1 the better the athlete is going to be at 400.
-
-
Re: How to spot 400m potential
The closer this value is to 1 the better the athlete is going to be at 400.
Correction: the smaller the value the better. -
Re: How to spot 400m potential
Correction: the smaller the value the better.
No I'm not on drugs but I should get more coffee. The LARGER the value the better.Comment
-
Re: How to spot 400m potential
So I guess Allyson Felix would be a prime candidate for the 400m. Her 100m is 11.24 and 200m non-altitude is 22.51 (22.11A).Comment
-
Re: How to spot 400m potential
Exactly why I am excited about her 400 potential. Apparently she is being coached by Pat Connolly, Evelyn Ashford's coach. If so, Felix may complete what Ashford and Connolly dabbled with over one lap and didn't bring to fruition. Ashford said in 1979 she thought she would run the 400 in the 49s the next time she ran it, but never really grew to like the event.Comment
-
Re: How to spot 400m potential
To illustrate my point, some female 1 lap greats with their 100 PRs, ratio of their 100 PR doubled/ 200 PR, and 400 PR.
First group: Some of the top 400 runners ever Second group: athletes who gave the one lap sprint (or hurdles) a one-season fling. Third group: 100/200 specialists who have run well at 400 without training specifically for the event (this group I find interesting since I believe they make my point well) Last: A couple of successful young Americans who have said they will run 1 lap along with what I believe is good reason they should.
Marita Koch 10.83 21.66/21.71 = 0.998 47.60
Jarmila Kratochvilova 11.09 22.18/21.97 = 1.01 47.99
Valerie Brisco-Hooks 10.99 21.98/21.81 = 1.008 48.83
Marie-Jose Perec 10.96 21.92/21.96 = 0.997 48.25
Cathy Freeman 11.24 22.48/22.25 = 1.01 48.63
Irena Szewinska 11.13 22.26/22.21 = 1.002 49.28
_________________________________
Chandra Cheeseborough 11.13 22.26/21.99 = 1.01 49.05
Kathy Cook 11.10 22.20/22.10 = 1.005 49.43
Irina Privalova 10.77 21.54/21.87 = 0.985 49.89
Gwen Torrence 10.82 21.64/21.72 = 0.996 49.64
Grace Jackson 11.08
22.16/21.72 = 1.02 49.59
Pam Marshall 11.01
22.02/21.93 = 1.004 49.99
Barbel Wockel 10.95
21.90/21.85 = 1.002 49.59
LaTasha Jenkins 11.02 22.04/22.29 = 0.989
Allyson Felix 11.24 22.48/22.51 = 0.999Comment
-
Re: How to spot 400m potential
I disagree with this theory. Is a male with sprint times of 13.0 and 25.9 a prime candidate for the 400m? Of course not, it just means he can hold his limitied speed fairly well.
The best POTENTIAL 400m runners are the the sprinters with the most SPEED- that is, the fastest 100m runners. Endurance is far more trainable than speed, so the relationship between an athlete's 100m and 200m times only tell you what kind of 400m shape the athlete is in RIGHT NOW- it is not an indicator of their genetic potential.
I firmly believe that the reason Michael Johnson was so superior to the other 200m/400m runners is because he had sub-10 100m speed (10.12 on the CURVE for the FIRST HALF of his 200m WR, with a stumbling start). On the other hand, the 200m is merely an afterthought for the elite 100m runners, and most 400m guys ended up in that event just because they weren't fast enough to run the shorter sprints.
The name of the game is SPEED!Comment
-
Re: How to spot 400m potential
I couldn't agree with you more Brian Gates!Comment
-
Re: How to spot 400m potential
"I disagree with this theory. Is a male with sprint times of 13.0 and 25.9 a prime candidate for the 400m? Of course not, it just means he can hold his limitied speed fairly well."
This hardly disproves anything. A male with those times is a prime candidate for a seat in the bleachers or on a couch. I thought it fairly transparent that I was talking about spotting 400m potential in people who already had proven sprinting ability. However, if I was coaching a kid with the times you mention, I'd certainly switch him to the 400 (for whatever that was worth, maybe he'd be a fast 10 year old)
Let me restate the issue in a different way: There are few men and even fewer women who can run double their 100 time for 200, or better yet, less than double their 100 time for 200. Mo Greene couldn't do it, Carl Lewis didn't do it (barely), Marion Jones has come nowhere close to doing it. Those who can are prime one lap sprinting material.Comment
-
Re: How to spot 400m potential
Let
>me restate the issue in a different way: There
>are few men and even fewer women who can run
>double their 100 time for 200, or better yet,
>less than double their 100 time for 200. Mo
>Greene couldn't do it, Carl Lewis didn't do it
>(barely), Marion Jones has come nowhere close to
>doing it.
That's true, but it doesn't mean that they didn't have the POTENTIAL to run less than double their 100m time for 200m. Remember, we're talking about POTENTIAL here, not present level of achievement.
Endurance is a very trainable quality, so if those athletes were to focus on specific endurance training for the 200m I have little doubt that they could POTENTIALLY run less than double their 100m time for 200m.Comment
-
Re: How to spot 400m potential
I think what michael lewis is trying to say is that those athletes who have done so with their normal training have more natural endurance built in, so are more likely to be able to run a fast 400 without too much of a change in training methods, but I do see your point.why don't people pronounce vowels anymoreComment
-
Re: How to spot 400m potential
"Endurance is a very trainable quality, so if those athletes were to focus on specific endurance training for the 200m I have little doubt that they could POTENTIALLY run less than double their 100m time for 200m."
If you look at those athletes who have spent a CAREER training for 100 and 200 metres, those who CAN run double their 100 time or better in a 200 are still few and far between. That is the point I may not have stated as clearly as I could but now I have. Athletes with natural God-given long sprinting talent will show it by holding their speed better over 200 and you can see this by comparing their 100 and 200 times.Comment
Comment