Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby AFTERBURNER » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:17 pm

Not in this century!
AFTERBURNER
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby aaronk » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:27 pm

I thought Angelo Taylor had that capability!
HAD.......not have!!

The candidate(s) for this mark would need to be sub-44.00 for 400 flat.
I've always believed that the difference (in time) between a 400 flat runner and a 400 hurdler is about 2.5 seconds, though it could be as low as 2.0 seconds.
Thus the need for this person to be able to run a sub-44.00 on the flat!
aaronk
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby AFTERBURNER » Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:31 pm

Excellent reflection!
AFTERBURNER
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby lonewolf » Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:13 pm

This is the most probable/possible of the several queries being floated here.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby Pego » Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:43 pm

There was just one sub-47 in history, over 20 years ago. Nobody approached it since. Where is an indication that even anything close to 47, let alone sub-47 is imminent?
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby tm71 » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:15 pm

Pego wrote:There was just one sub-47 in history, over 20 years ago. Nobody approached it since. Where is an indication that even anything close to 47, let alone sub-47 is imminent?



Exactly. Sub 46 for 400 h is totally preposterous !
tm71
 
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby AFTERBURNER » Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:25 am

I was simply trying to start what I tought would have been intersting speculations in certain events about what could be the ultimate human barriers, that's ALL!

It seems that I have irritated many people around here, so REJOYCE PEOPLE I'm done!
AFTERBURNER
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby gh » Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:47 am

The intriguing question isn't sub-46: it's "when will/can anybody ever break 47 again"!
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby KDFINE » Thu Jul 04, 2013 6:57 am

gh. IF Kerron Clement had been a left lead hurdler capable of switching legs for the last two hurdles I believe we would have seen another sub-47.
IF there's been one Kevin Young there must be another one.
KDFINE
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:18 am

So a thread is started and the OP immediately says "not in this century" and then is supported by a claim of "totally preposterous".

Well, sub-46 is possible (though gh asked the more interesting question: "when will 47 be broken again?")

The biggest crime ever committed against the event was achieved by the best 400m hurdler of all time. No, I'm not talking about WR holder, Kevin Young, I'm talking about Edwin Moses. His crime? 13 steps! In nearly every one of Moses' races he went out too fast and came home "reaching" for hurdles. Had he tempered his ego in the slightest and switched to 14 steps for even the last 2 hurdles, imo, he would have not only been the first to run under 47 but he may have achieved that feat on multiple occasions. One only has to look at Moses' top 4 times of 47.02, 47.13, 47.14 and 47.17 - all faster than Kevin Young's 2nd fastest time of 47.18 - to see that even with his sub-optimal race plan, which was lauded for it's consistency and symmetry, he had the goods to go sub-47. So that's a candidate for gh's sub-47 club along with the likes of Bronson, Matete, Phillips, Dia Ba and Clement.

So lets look at just those hurdlers for now. Bronson used all speed and would die at the end, Matete was a converted 400m runner who's hurdling left a lot to be desired...you could say the SAME for the faster Angelo Taylor. And Phillips was an ATHLETE; he could/should have been sub-47. Dia Ba and Young may have the greatest difference between PB and the second fastest time on the day the PB was achieved for medallists (yup, better than Tonja Buford-Bailey!); Young was .85 improvement over his PB set in LOSING his semi and Dia Ba may have been over a second. Athletes are NOT supposed to have that much "give"...UNLESS the event is "soft". But, how can we say something is "soft" if only one has done it and few have come close? It's because there are so many moving parts. The m400h, and specifically, the sub-47 barrier is not too much different than the previous w4x100m record that was destroyed by the American women in London.

You just don't see the discipline in the event that SEEMED to once be there but the talent is there; there just needs to be a lot more work to build the perfect race. Athletes were better back in the 80s 90s because the standard was Edwin Moses; you had to be striving for the top - he made the athletes better (as Bolt is making the 100m better). Now there is no standard. I left out Clement in the discussion above because I believe he long ago squandered any chance he might have had towards challenging the 400h record.

I'll look them up later, if need be, but when you look at the proportion of time allotted to the first half of a 400m race versus a 400h race and compare the two it shows that Young either went out too fast or came home too slow. I've typed too long for this post but...sub-46 is possible.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby Marlow » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:29 am

KDFINE wrote:IF Kerron Clement had been a left lead hurdler capable of switching legs for the last two hurdles I believe we would have seen another sub-47.
IF there's been one Kevin Young there must be another one.

Bingo and bingo.
It (sub-47) will happen again in the next 20 years, but sub-46? Not in MY lifetime!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:01 am

Marlow wrote:...but sub-46? Not in MY lifetime!

I remember when people were asked whether 43.86A would be run at sea-level there was always someone who said, "not in my lifetime". I remember when the question was asked if a many would ever run 9.6, there was always someone who said, "not in my lifetime". I remember when people spoke of 8.92 and there would invariably be someone who said of the records 'breakability'..."not in my lifetime". I remember when people asked who might break the w100h record, there would be an answer like, "not in my lifetime" And, I remember when MJ ran 19.32 almost everybody said, when asked when the record would be broken said, "not in my lifetime".

It seems that I've been fortunate enough to see a lot of the "that will never be broken" records ... broken. I'm not sure what it tells me about my personal longevity or others personal cynicism towards notable achievements in our sport but I'm confident that my optimism will be rewarded.

Methuselah II
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby 18.99s » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:05 am

batonless relay wrote:
Marlow wrote:...but sub-46? Not in MY lifetime!

I remember when people were asked whether 43.86A would be run at sea-level there was always someone who said, "not in my lifetime". I remember when the question was asked if a many would ever run 9.6, there was always someone who said, "not in my lifetime". I remember when people spoke of 8.92 and there would invariably be someone who said of the records 'breakability'..."not in my lifetime". I remember when people asked who might break the w100h record, there would be an answer like, "not in my lifetime" And, I remember when MJ ran 19.32 almost everybody said, when asked when the record would be broken said, "not in my lifetime".


Sub-46 in the 400mh is in a whole 'nother universe compared to all of what you just mentioned. It ain't happening in the 21st century.
18.99s
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:28 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:11 am

18.99s wrote:Sub-46 in the 400mh is in a whole 'nother universe compared to all of what you just mentioned. It ain't happening in the 21st century.

Just saying "it ain't happening" ain't good enough, what's the reason? It's probably VERY likely that 46 will be broken BEFORE the next 47 is run (meaning the clock stops UNDER 46 seconds before it stops under 47 but slower than 46).
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby Marlow » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:34 am

batonless relay wrote:It's probably VERY likely that 46 will be broken BEFORE the next 47 is run (meaning the clock stops UNDER 46 seconds before it stops under 47 but slower than 46).

I HATE to start up with you, but that makes absolutely no sense . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:25 am

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:It's probably VERY likely that 46 will be broken BEFORE the next 47 is run (meaning the clock stops UNDER 46 seconds before it stops under 47 but slower than 46).

I HATE to start up with you, but that makes absolutely no sense . . .

That's not the most polite way that you could have said that but...what I wrote makes perfect sense.

The last time the WR was broken the athlete PB'd by .85 - and that was after PB'ing in the semi-final. This athlete was HARDLY a fly-by-night, journeyman or newcomer; Kevin Young was a known quantity in '92. If the "hypothetical" athlete who is "2nd to run under 47" has a PB of 47.02 BEFORE the race and has a Young-esque/Dia Ba-esque/Buford-Bailey-esque performance - which seems to be more likely in 400h than any other sprint event - than the clock could stop at 45.98 instead of 46.98. It is NOT unprecedented.

Progression doesn't have to be linear, the gradations that we think of as barriers are arbitrary. You don't have to jump 28 feet before you land at 29 feet (Beamon); and, you don't have to stop the clock in the 46.01 to 46.99 range before stopping it below 46.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby Grasshopper » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:52 am

batonless relay wrote:
Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:It's probably VERY likely that 46 will be broken BEFORE the next 47 is run (meaning the clock stops UNDER 46 seconds before it stops under 47 but slower than 46).

I HATE to start up with you, but that makes absolutely no sense . . .

That's not the most polite way that you could have said that but...what I wrote makes perfect sense.

The last time the WR was broken the athlete PB'd by .85 - and that was after PB'ing in the semi-final. This athlete was HARDLY a fly-by-night, journeyman or newcomer; Kevin Young was a known quantity in '92. If the "hypothetical" athlete who is "2nd to run under 47" has a PB of 47.02 BEFORE the race and has a Young-esque/Dia Ba-esque/Buford-Bailey-esque performance - which seems to be more likely in 400h than any other sprint event - than the clock could stop at 45.98 instead of 46.98. It is NOT unprecedented.

Progression doesn't have to be linear, the gradations that we think of as barriers are arbitrary. You don't have to jump 28 feet before you land at 29 feet (Beamon); and, you don't have to stop the clock in the 46.01 to 46.99 range before stopping it below 46.

I think the aspect of your original post that was confusing was that you said this scenario was "very likely", while what you just explained makes it sound like you meant to say that it's possible. "Very likely" would, in my understanding, mean there's much greater than a 50% chance it would happen. While I agree that your sub-46 before sub-47 is possible, I hardly think it's "likely" that it'll happen before someone else runs 46-point.
Grasshopper
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: In front of my computer

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:54 am

You're right and I can see how what I wrote could be confusing. The basic premise, as you understand it, stands.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby nbonaddio » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:19 am

Sub-46 in the IAAF points table equates to:

(Bold denotes already achieved)
9.66 in the 100m
19.35 in the 200m
12.63 in the 110mh
42.82 in the 400m
2:51 in the 4x400m
1:39.99 in the 800m
3:24.48 in the 1500m
7:45.92 in the 3kSC
12:29.37 in the 5k
25:59.83 in the 10k
2.46 in the HJ
6.24 in the PV
8.93 in the LJ
18.55 in the TJ
23.41 in the SP
74.66 in the DT
89.23 in the HT
96.93 in the Jav
9392 in the Dec

Don't want to dovetail the discussion into how fair the IAAF conversion tables are, just thought it was interesting. In addition to what's been achieved - Bolt certainly stands out - there's a few that are very close (HJ, DT, most of the distance ones) even if they haven't been approached for awhile.

To me, the 2:51 4x400 and the 9392 Dec seem the most impossible, along with the 45.99 400mh.
Last edited by nbonaddio on Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
nbonaddio
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby Marlow » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:20 am

batonless relay wrote:You're right and I can see how what I wrote could be confusing.

I wasn't confused. It's just that the LIKELIHOOD of it happening that way is . . . HIGHLY unlikely.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby Marlow » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:21 am

nbonaddio wrote:Sub-46 in the IAAF points table equates to:
12.63 in the 100mh

110H, yes?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby nbonaddio » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:27 am

Marlow wrote:
nbonaddio wrote:Sub-46 in the IAAF points table equates to:
12.63 in the 100mh

110H, yes?


Yes - edited. Thanks for the catch.
nbonaddio
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:39 am

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:You're right and I can see how what I wrote could be confusing.

I wasn't confused. It's just that the LIKELIHOOD of it happening that way is . . . HIGHLY unlikely.

You may not have been confused but you were definitely incorrect in saying that it "makes absolutely no sense". It made sense.

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:It's probably VERY likely that 46 will be broken BEFORE the next 47 is run (meaning the clock stops UNDER 46 seconds before it stops under 47 but slower than 46).

I HATE to start up with you, but that makes absolutely no sense . . .
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby Marlow » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:44 am

batonless relay wrote:You may not have been confused but you were definitely incorrect in saying that it "makes absolutely no sense". It made sense.

It made grammatical sense; it did not make logical sense. It is NOT highly likely that 46 will be broken before 47 is again.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:54 am

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:You may not have been confused but you were definitely incorrect in saying that it "makes absolutely no sense". It made sense.

It made grammatical sense; it did not make logical sense. It is NOT highly likely that 46 will be broken before 47 is again.

I don't agree, but what's new. Below is what I said and unsurprisingly, it differs from what you are trying to say that I said.
batonless relay wrote:... It's probably VERY likely that 46 will be broken BEFORE the next 47 is run (meaning the clock stops UNDER 46 seconds before it stops under 47 but slower than 46).


You're welcome to explain why sub-46 won't be possible in your lifetime. That would be MORE positive.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby Marlow » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:06 am

batonless relay wrote:Below is what I said and unsurprisingly, it differs from what you are trying to say that I said.
batonless relay wrote:... It's probably VERY likely that 46 will be broken BEFORE the next 47 is run (meaning the clock stops UNDER 46 seconds before it stops under 47 but slower than 46).

You're welcome to explain why sub-46 won't be possible in your lifetime. That would be MORE positive.

How is the underlined not what I just said?
Sub-46 is HIGHLY unlikely in my lifetime, cuz I just checked my expiration date and it's within 20 years (according to the latest actuarial tables . . . 19.74 years, to be precise). Just not gonna happen.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby Tuariki » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:08 am

Maybe Bolt will give the 400H a go
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:38 am

Tuariki wrote:Maybe Bolt will give the 400H a go

If Bolt isnt' running the 400m, then the 400h are definitely not on the table. Also, I don't think you need a Bolt to run sub-46 for 400h. You just need a mid-44 guy who can actually hurdle...might even be able to get away with a 45-flat guy.

When Fabricio Mori won worlds he touched down off of #6 in ~25.4 which means that he made it home in another roughly 22.2 seconds. The 25.4 means that he probably touched down around 21.5 at #5, meaning he came through the 200 north of 23 seconds; he would finish with a ~ 24.66 2nd 200m - a difference between first 200 and second 200m of ~1.66. A hurdler who touched down in 20.5 at #5 would be ~ 22.16 at 200m (Young, was ~20.6 at #5). Assuming he came home, over the final 200m equal to Mori at 1.66 he would run the second 200m in 23.82 for a grand total of ... 45.98 (22.16 + 23.82).

Most 400h, imo, go out too fast; however, 20.5 touchdown time at #5, though blazing, is not impossible for a lot of hurdlers. When Young and Smith say they could have run faster and that 45 was realistic, I believe them. And, not only was that in my lifetime ... that was over 20 years ago. I'll say we are not only overdue, but that we "missed" the guy who was supposed to do it.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby Marlow » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:43 am

batonless relay wrote: [an en-route] 20.5 touchdown time at #5, though blazing, is not impossible for a lot of hurdlers.

Yeah, it actually is.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:29 am

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote: [an en-route] 20.5 touchdown time at #5, though blazing, is not impossible for a lot of hurdlers.

Yeah, it actually is.


gh, when I say things like "that's why you don't coach elite hurdlers" to Marlow, you have to realize that I'm actually NOT being a combative ****; I'm actually trying to save Marlow from himself because he really doesn't know what he's talking about. Look at this thread and ask yourself If he is contributing or is he just trying to nitpick what I'm writing, whatever I'm writing...because it's me? Because IF he coached elite hurdlers (or even some national class guys) he would KNOW that 20.5 is NOT impossible. That it's actually a 5.7, 3.7, 3.7, 3.7, 3.7; that's also knowing that a LOT of elite/national guys are running some 3.6s in the first 5 ... in practice and touch down in 5.6's over the firstwhen inspired. And, this is also knowing that Young touched down in 20.6. It's the equivalent of saying that Michael Johnson couldn't run 20.9 for the first 200m because he ran 21.0 for the first 200m in his WR race... He thinks he's being clever by adding [en route] to the conversation when it's obvious that Young's ~20.6 was [en route]; that the entire purpose of the exercise is to show the entirety of the event through touchdown times which would have to mean that the times were [en route].

I really want to bite
but, this choke-collar is kind of tight. :lol:
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby Marlow » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:52 am

batonless relay wrote:I really want to bite but, this choke-collar is kind of tight. :lol:


http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ga/1997/ga971005.gif
:D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:15 pm

batonless relay wrote:Most 400h, imo, go out too fast;...


Can you expand on this? Is it because if they go out at a more measured pace they will be better able to handle those last hurdles and a lot of runners give up time by ineffective hurdling over 7-10? Does it have to do with the number of strides you have to take and how long you can, for example use 13 before shifting to 14 or 15?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:38 pm

26mi235 wrote:
batonless relay wrote:Most 400h, imo, go out too fast;...


Can you expand on this? Is it because if they go out at a more measured pace they will be better able to handle those last hurdles and a lot of runners give up time by ineffective hurdling over 7-10? Does it have to do with the number of strides you have to take and how long you can, for example use 13 before shifting to 14 or 15?

It has to do with all of the things that you mentioned but if you look at most 400h first 200m compared to the second 200m it becomes obvious that they're going out too fast. It also becomes apparent in the hurdling technique in the second half of the race; you see athletes jumping, falling, and sometimes coming to a complete stop. If, in many cases, they went out at a more measured pace they would finish stronger. And, one of the biggest reasons for why they go out too fast is the 13-step compulsion; it forces you to use more effort in each step, and though it's eas-y/er on the first 5-8 for a lot of hurdlers, they will pay for it on the last few hurdles if they're not fit enough to run that pace. Most aren't. Of all the athletes who have ever run under 48 seconds, there are probably only 3 who have ever run 13s (or less) all the way around. It's more energy consuming and most athletes take the 13-pattern too far - or farther than they can manage it. The athletes who SEEM to be best balanced in their races tend to be athletes who ran 14 steps all the way around: F. Mori, K. Thompson.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby Marlow » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:47 pm

batonless relay wrote:if you look at most 400h first 200m compared to the second 200m it becomes obvious that they're going out too fast.

It does not. There's usually 2-second positive split between the 200s, because that really is the best way to run it. If someone WERE to run <46.0, it'd probably be a 22/23.9.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Is a sub 46.00 possible at 400mh?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:54 pm

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:if you look at most 400h first 200m compared to the second 200m it becomes obvious that they're going out too fast.

It does not. There's usually 2-second positive split between the 200s, because that really is the best way to run it. If someone WERE to run <46.0, it'd probably be a 22/23.9.

Marlow, you're really striking out trying to disprove everything I say. You say above that if someone were to run <46, it'd probably be a 22/23.9...well, where have I seen that before? Oh, that's right, it was when I wrote....
batonless relay wrote:...A hurdler who touched down in 20.5 at #5 would be ~ 22.16 at 200m (Young, was ~20.6 at #5). Assuming he came home, over the final 200m equal to Mori at 1.66 he would run the second 200m in 23.82 for a grand total of ... 45.98 (22.16 + 23.82).

But you said 20.5 is impossible. And the only way you get to ~22.1 is to step down in 20.5, which would not support your newest claim that it would probably be 22/23.9. Anyway, how about this? Put your guns down. If you want to discuss, lets do that, but stop with the whatever I say you're going to do your endeavor best to prove me wrong. It's not working. That said...

Most hurdlers at USATF or NCAAs are going out in 23.5 (about 22-flat for #5) and only the best are running 49.0 which is what a 23.5 + 25.5 is (your 2s diff that is not standard, but hey, arguments sake). That's why I'm saying most are going out too fast. Even many of the guys who are running 50 and 51 or more are going out in 23.5/24...that, again would mean too fast.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests