Run-Down Forums

[Dan]

http://sport.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5148684%5E9757,00.html

[Conway]

Yes, that was the Commonwealth ... And yes Freeman did compete ... Her husband told her to so she did ... But she only ran a relay leg and I believe that was in the 54sec range ...

As for Freeman v Guevara I would see Guevara as the definititve winner ... She is more like a sprinter than Freeman ... Kathy has the long loping strides of a 80 runner (which I think she should be) ... Her key has been her strength ... Guevara has more of a sprinters stride and her strength has grown !!! She holds her form very well in the stretch ...

Conway

[Dan]

Interesting comparison, as I believe Guevara moved down from the 800 and Freeman has a bit of a 200 background...

Of course, I'm one who has long thought Freeman could be an amazing 800 runner.

Didn't Cathy and her husband have a big legal battle in 2000, or was that a different husband?

Dan

[Conway]

Well Freeman tried the 200 ... She was only low 23 when she made the change ot 400 ... And she is still only around 22.7x for PR ...

I don't remember any legal battles ... But I do remember something was wrong in 2000 ... Maybe it was legal ... I too have thought for a long time that 800 was better for her mainly becasue of her stride pattern ... But she has been dominating the 400 so why change ??

Conway

[Dan]

She talked about moving up after Sydney, but then she basically disappeared from the sport...

She did seem maxed out on speed in the 200. Not much more than a mid-pack threat.

Dan

[Conway]

After Sydney, Freeman said she needed a break after having the games in her country and all the pressure that was on her ... Then as she began training her husband developed (or at least was diagnosed) with cancer ...

Freeman's domination of the 400 is indicative of what has been wrong with the women's 400 - lack of speed !!! Sprinters quit running the race on the women's side over a decade ago ... The few that have run it infrequently - Privalova, Torrence, Jones - have rather easily turned in 49.xx performances ...

While drugs may have been a boost to many at the top of the all time list, the bigger key is that almost all were sprinters converted to the event ... The Eastern Bloc realized that the event took speed ... And for a short period of time during the early 80's the Americans followed suit ... Our first real quartermilers Chandra Cheeseborogh and Valery Brisco, are still 1 & 2 on the all time US list and both were sub 11.00 and sub 22.00 sprinters !!!

Perec was the last to remotely fit that mold and it is no coincidence that she dominated the event until her mental anquish got in the way ... Marion would be far more devastating here than in the sprints ... But why should she move up, she's still winning ?? Although I think she would have a better shot of truly getting a WR here !!!

COnway

[Distance_Guru]

This might open up a can of worms but what the hell , we haven't ha d a really heated debate around here in days. Could it be that the reason really good sprinters don't move up and run the 400 is because they don't want to. What I mean is, sprinters hate running the quarter. I will admit that I haven't been around as many sprinters as I have distance runners. But we have a few All-American sprinters (former and present) floating around campus and I've been able to hang around them for about a year now and one thing that I noticed is that you could put a gun to the 100/200 guys head tell them to run a 400 or else and I think they'd probably tell you to pull the trigger. They absolutely cringe at the thought. We do have several darn good 400 runners around but they were quater-milers in high school. I do think you are right about speed being a real key factor in the 400 and that many 100/200 athletes could move up and potentially be very successful, I just think that they'd rather not.

PS this isn't accusing anyone of lazyness or any of that non-sense. Simply noticing what appears to be a general distaste for the event by the athletes that run shorter sprints.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Conway]

I think you are partially correct ... At least in my own experiences ... Looking back, I think that the 400 was "probably" my best event ... And I know several other sprinters that would fit in that mold ... Now when I say probably, that is if I had run it on a regular basis and trained for it properly ... As it was, I ran many 46 sec splits and had a couple of high 45s (45.8/9) ... I had hand timed PRs of 10.3/20.5, whatever that means ... I ran the open 400 several times over the years, but only when nursing inuries and wanted the competition but did not want to risk further injury !!! When in shape I could get under 47 or thereabouts ...

I didn't mind running the 400 ... As a matter of fact I LOVED the mile relay ... What I hated was the thought of training just for that ... Coaches immediately want to "move you up" in workouts ... And move you up substantialy, as in moving to more repeat 500's and 600's; the occasional worak down from 800 ... You guys know what I mean .... THAT is death to the mind of the sprinter ... I did repeat 300's and 400's as part of sprint workouts ... An easy couple of miles a day to work on endurance (a warm down kind of 2 miles) ... But sprintrers want ot stay with speed, not move towards middle distance !!!

My experiences anyway .... I had lots of friends who didn't mind that relay leg but didn't want the full time duty ... The other part of the 400 is the stagger in the open race ... That makes it a totally different race ... Easy to get the baton and race someone .... Different "racing" out of the blocks and with that stagger ... I think that is why you see guys get on the relay and do some outrageous stuff that they NEVER approach in race conditions ...

Conway

[Distance_Guru]

I like your point about the 4x400 relay. That is a fun race to watch and with it beingthe last race at most team meets it's often the one that decides which teams finish in what place. And usually you can talk a short sprinter into running a leg when you couldn't pay them to run the open 400. Funny what a team atmosphere will do to a person. I also think that the full time 400 vs part time running on the relay aspect of training does have a big affect on short sprinters.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Dan]

I would say the majority of short (100/200) sprinters strongly dislike the 400, but there are enough who either love it or the pain of it to keep you guessing as a coach...

I never really liked the approach of lots of over-distance intervals for 400 training. I think it needs to be trained for the same way it is raced, which is maintained sprinting, not pacing. As such, the stable of a 400m runner's training should be 200's, 250's, 300's, and some 350's. Leave the off days to work on the final bit of endurance. Of course, my head coach felt the 400m is a mid-distance race, not a sprint, so I didn't get much opportunity to work with the quarter-milers to fully test that theory... One of many related reasons I'm now an ex-coach...

Which, now that I think about it, makes me wonder if the stereotypical sprinters' dislike of the 400 has more to do with the way it is coached than with the race itself?

Dan

[Distance_Guru]

I don't know but I've seen several sprinters balk when the coach asked them to run the open 4 at meet as a tune up or contditioning or some such thing. So I would imagine it's a little of both.

I think sprinters look at the 400 the way I look at Ultra's. Sure I could run it, but it's so long and it really hurts.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Dan]

There's definitely some of that, but what I'm getting at is maybe there's a misconception of the pain (from a sprint perspective) that results from the way it is commonly trained for. Many sprinters either have tried 400 training or have friends on the team that have done so, so word of mouth spreads...

Dan

[Conway]

Sprinters hate 2 things about the quarter --1) the training and 2) the race ...

training at distances between 200 & 350 meters isn't that bad if you are in good condition ... But goin those 500's ... That is a quantum leap ....

And the race from the blocks is not the same as a relay leg run in lane one ... Learning to run the race from the huge stagger that you have is difficult to learn to do !!!

And coaches want to make it a non sprint !!! When in reality it really boils down ot how much speed you have - AND can carry

Conway

[Dan]

One thing that always seemed a bit odd to me, but that makes more sense in the context of this conversation, is Michael Johnson's response to the suggestion he could have been a great 800m runner: "I can run strong for 399m and coast the rest."

Taken literally, it begs the question of what role over-distance training plays in long sprinting. You don't see marathoners doing hard 30 mile runs, so why extend the hard intervals 50% over race distance for the sprints? It makes a bit more sense for the 100 and 200, where the race distance is too short to have much creative flexibility in keeping workout distances below that (or much conditioning effect), but I think that breaks down quickly above 200m...

If standing starts were allowed in collegiate (championship) and international sprint competition, I think it would help ease the relay to open 400m transition for a lot of tentative sprinters. With practice, it probably wouldn't sacrifice any time, as the 400 start is more about efficiency than explosive power. Might even help in the late stages of the race.

Dan

[Distance_Guru]