Who should move up to 400 next year?


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

Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby fasttrack85 » Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:45 am

I think there are a couple sprinters who have alot of potential to be successful as quarter milers.

For women I think Sherone Simpson is the best candidate to move up. She has dropped some good early season numbers(51.25 in 08, 51.42 in 2012) just off of general prep training so how would she look if she added specific training and special endurance throughout the season? She is only 95 pounds so she is extremely light but still an excellent starter when she gets it right. It would be great if she could join Allyson and Sanya as the third sub 11 sprinter running the 400.

I think Wallace Spearmon should have a go at the 400 as well. With Bolt and Blake dominated the deuce Spearmon is going to have to be content with simply being a finalist as even being a medalist is going to be far fetched for him. He seems to have alot left in the tank at the end of the 200 showing by the way he comes on strong in the last 50. He is also light built and has extremely long legs so bodywise he is a good candidate. Maybe just a bit more special endurance and early season tempo runs and he may be good to go?

Anyone have any picks?
fasttrack85
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby preston » Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:33 am

95 lbs? Where do you get this stuff? Simpson is at least 30-35 lbs heavier than that. You're running afoul of what you state is your purpose for starting threads (according to you).

Also, just because someone is not having the success that you expect in an event doesn't mean that they should move up. Nearly ALL sprinters are capable of A-standard 400m times (witness: Gay, T; Powell, A). Now, whether they can run the rounds requisite for winning medals is another question entirely. FWIW, I do believe Simpson could be an excellent 400m runner; however, she could also run 10.7x next year - assuming there are no residual inhibitors from her last few injuries. But you have it backwards: you shouldn't be looking for sub-11 sprinters who can run 400m to improve the 400m, you should be looking for mid-22 sprinters who have the will to run the 400m. Why? Name all of the sub-11 women who have run sub-49.30. Now name all of the 22-mid women who have. Much longer list.

I would love to see Tyson Gay or Yohan Blake move up to 400m; I think either could be sub-44 and probably sub-43.50 if not challenge the current WR. Walter Dix has sub-44 ability, imo and I would add Kemar Bailey Cole to that category as well. Ramil Guliyev would also get my nod as would Lemaitre. Ryan Bailey and of course, Usain Bolt. Darvis Patton would be a good candidate, but it's hard to move athletes BACK up after they've been successful going to the shorter event.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby ExCoastRanger » Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:30 pm

fasttrack85 wrote:I She is only 95 pounds so she is extremely light but still an excellent starter when she gets it right....


Quick google says she's 130 pounds, which is about 59kg, which is 95 something if you flip it around. Ninety-five pounds is more like Ethiopian/Kenyan distance runner territory.
ExCoastRanger
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: North of where I was.

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby fasttrack85 » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:02 pm

preston wrote:95 lbs? Where do you get this stuff? Simpson is at least 30-35 lbs heavier than that. You're running afoul of what you state is your purpose for starting threads (according to you).

Also, just because someone is not having the success that you expect in an event doesn't mean that they should move up. Nearly ALL sprinters are capable of A-standard 400m times (witness: Gay, T; Powell, A). Now, whether they can run the rounds requisite for winning medals is another question entirely. FWIW, I do believe Simpson could be an excellent 400m runner; however, she could also run 10.7x next year - assuming there are no residual inhibitors from her last few injuries. But you have it backwards: you shouldn't be looking for sub-11 sprinters who can run 400m to improve the 400m, you should be looking for mid-22 sprinters who have the will to run the 400m. Why? Name all of the sub-11 women who have run sub-49.30. Now name all of the 22-mid women who have. Much longer list.

I would love to see Tyson Gay or Yohan Blake move up to 400m; I think either could be sub-44 and probably sub-43.50 if not challenge the current WR. Walter Dix has sub-44 ability, imo and I would add Kemar Bailey Cole to that category as well. Ramil Guliyev would also get my nod as would Lemaitre. Ryan Bailey and of course, Usain Bolt. Darvis Patton would be a good candidate, but it's hard to move athletes BACK up after they've been successful going to the shorter event.



Wikipedia actually has her at 97 pounds.
fasttrack85
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby Gleason » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:15 pm

fasttrack85 wrote:I think there are a couple sprinters who have alot of potential to be successful as quarter milers.

For women I think Sherone Simpson is the best candidate to move up. She has dropped some good early season numbers(51.25 in 08, 51.42 in 2012) just off of general prep training so how would she look if she added specific training and special endurance throughout the season? She is only 95 pounds so she is extremely light but still an excellent starter when she gets it right. It would be great if she could join Allyson and Sanya as the third sub 11 sprinter running the 400.

I think Wallace Spearmon should have a go at the 400 as well. With Bolt and Blake dominated the deuce Spearmon is going to have to be content with simply being a finalist as even being a medalist is going to be far fetched for him. He seems to have alot left in the tank at the end of the 200 showing by the way he comes on strong in the last 50. He is also light built and has extremely long legs so bodywise he is a good candidate. Maybe just a bit more special endurance and early season tempo runs and he may be good to go?

Anyone have any picks?

I agree about Spearmon. In 2006 he anchored the winning US team in the 4x400 at the World Indoor Championships and ran 45.22 outdoors. That was the year that he ran his PR of 19.65 in September. I think that he should try the 400 indoors and in the spring to see how he does then choose between the 200 and 400 at USAT&F.
Gleason
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:20 pm
Location: Campbell CA

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby shivfan » Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:15 am

As we all know, the training for the 400m is very hard, and not every sprinter is up for it....
shivfan
 
Posts: 2588
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:30 am
Location: Just outside London

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby preston » Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:53 am

fasttrack85 wrote:
preston wrote:95 lbs? Where do you get this stuff? Simpson is at least 30-35 lbs heavier than that. You're running afoul of what you state is your purpose for starting threads (according to you).

Wikipedia actually has her at 97 pounds.

ok, you're one of those... :roll: Those people who can't admit that they're wrong so they have to find "evidence" to prove their point. Regardless of what is written on wikipedia (which is why it's called wikipedia and not the Holy Bible or the complete anthology of human events and times) at some point you should have stopped and asked yourself what a 5'9", 97 pound sprinter would look like (for reference: Wikipedia has Paula Radcliffe at 5'8", 120 lbs; 8.5 st...and she's a friggin marathoner!). Had you done that, you would have come to a very obvious conclusion: that you may not know exactly how much Simpson weighs, but it definitely isn't 97 pounds. Then, you could have googled an actual picture of Ms. Simpson or watched a video and it would have become even MORE clear that there is NO WAY that she weighs less than 100 pounds. But to actually write, "Wikipedia actually has her at 97 pounds" again makes me question your stated mission - and a whole lot more.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:28 am

preston wrote:
fasttrack85 wrote:Wikipedia actually has her at 97 pounds.

ok, you're one of those... :roll:

??!!
If you have a question, you look for answers. If wiki sez she's 97 pounds, then it is 'reasonable' to answer that she is 97 pounds. Doing so and then finding out that wiki was wrong is . . . not a big deal. It does not mean you are "one of those" (which we all know what you meant by that by your employment of the :roll: ). The internet is always a Caveat Emptor situation, but in MOST cases has eminently usable data.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby fasttrack85 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:51 am

preston wrote:
fasttrack85 wrote:
preston wrote:95 lbs? Where do you get this stuff? Simpson is at least 30-35 lbs heavier than that. You're running afoul of what you state is your purpose for starting threads (according to you).

Wikipedia actually has her at 97 pounds.

ok, you're one of those... :roll: Those people who can't admit that they're wrong so they have to find "evidence" to prove their point. Regardless of what is written on wikipedia (which is why it's called wikipedia and not the Holy Bible or the complete anthology of human events and times) at some point you should have stopped and asked yourself what a 5'9", 97 pound sprinter would look like (for reference: Wikipedia has Paula Radcliffe at 5'8", 120 lbs; 8.5 st...and she's a friggin marathoner!). Had you done that, you would have come to a very obvious conclusion: that you may not know exactly how much Simpson weighs, but it definitely isn't 97 pounds. Then, you could have googled an actual picture of Ms. Simpson or watched a video and it would have become even MORE clear that there is NO WAY that she weighs less than 100 pounds. But to actually write, "Wikipedia actually has her at 97 pounds" again makes me question your stated mission - and a whole lot more.


Actually i had remembered visiting the wikipedia page before i posted her weight. So i was only telling you what gave me the impression she was was around 95 pounds. Also i didn't know her height as well. She surely doesn't look 5'9. She looks around Allyson Felix height and not quite as tall as Sanya. I see you like to categorize people huh? You are one of those.
fasttrack85
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby user4 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:04 am

Only one name comes to mind, there is only one athlete that can step up to 400m and be a world beater : Rudisha.
user4
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby preston » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:24 am

fasttrack85 wrote:Actually i had remembered visiting the wikipedia page before i posted her weight. So i was only telling you what gave me the impression she was was around 95 pounds. Also i didn't know her height as well. She surely doesn't look 5'9. She looks around Allyson Felix height and not quite as tall as Sanya. I see you like to categorize people huh? You are one of those.

I'm only categorizing you as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, doesn't do their research and defends indefensible positions because that's what I've seen so far. I'm sure that my categorization will evolve should your posts follow suit.

She doesn't look 5'9"? You're right, she looks taller because she has a very upright running posture. And, the only way that you could "get the impression" that she was around 95 pounds was if you had NEVER EVER seen her before. Now, you say you didn't know her height which is a wonderful concession coming from you, but it begs the question: if you don't know her height and you don't know her weight and you've never seen her up close and you've never seen her run before (which has to be the conclusion if you think she weighs 97 pounds or she doesn't look 5'9"...), how can you recommend her for the 400? Are you randomly picking athletes off of the year-end list? Why not recommend Ruddy Zang Milama? Carrie Russell? Jeneba Tarmoh? Verena Sailer or Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce?
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby gh » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:06 am

latest ATFS Annual puts Simpson at 59kilos (130lb). Sounds good to me.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby Marlow » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:23 am

preston wrote:I'm only categorizing you as someone who
doesn't know what they're talking about
doesn't do their research
defends indefensible positions

Oh, well, as long as you are not insulting him with broad generalizations . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby fasttrack85 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:29 am

preston wrote:
fasttrack85 wrote:Actually i had remembered visiting the wikipedia page before i posted her weight. So i was only telling you what gave me the impression she was was around 95 pounds. Also i didn't know her height as well. She surely doesn't look 5'9. She looks around Allyson Felix height and not quite as tall as Sanya. I see you like to categorize people huh? You are one of those.

I'm only categorizing you as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, doesn't do their research and defends indefensible positions because that's what I've seen so far. I'm sure that my categorization will evolve should your posts follow suit.

She doesn't look 5'9"? You're right, she looks taller because she has a very upright running posture. And, the only way that you could "get the impression" that she was around 95 pounds was if you had NEVER EVER seen her before. Now, you say you didn't know her height which is a wonderful concession coming from you, but it begs the question: if you don't know her height and you don't know her weight and you've never seen her up close and you've never seen her run before (which has to be the conclusion if you think she weighs 97 pounds or she doesn't look 5'9"...), how can you recommend her for the 400? Are you randomly picking athletes off of the year-end list? Why not recommend Ruddy Zang Milama? Carrie Russell? Jeneba Tarmoh? Verena Sailer or Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce?


Has any of the ppl you listed ran 51.xx twice?
fasttrack85
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:43 pm

Re: Who should move up to 400 next year?

Postby preston » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:03 am

fasttrack85 wrote:
preston wrote:Now, you say you didn't know her height which is a wonderful concession coming from you, but it begs the question: if you don't know her height and you don't know her weight and you've never seen her up close and you've never seen her run before (which has to be the conclusion if you think she weighs 97 pounds or she doesn't look 5'9"...), how can you recommend her for the 400? Are you randomly picking athletes off of the year-end list? Why not recommend Ruddy Zang Milama? Carrie Russell? Jeneba Tarmoh? Verena Sailer or Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce?


Has any of the ppl you listed ran 51.xx twice?

running 51.xx twice is not proof positive that an athlete should move up even though it wouldn't shock me if ALL of the athletes that I listed actually could run 51.xx twice. There are many reasons why Simpson could be promising at 400m but running 51.xx twice is not necessarily one of them. The biggest reason? She's fast. I wouldn't factor height and weight into it too much; speed would be the most critical factor.

FYI: Laverne Jones-Ferrette has run a few early season 51's in addition to being one of the few women to run under 7.00 sec at 60m.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm


Who is online

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