If USC...

[Avante]

Originally Posted by runningchoc

See where your statement makes no sense? The top runners in the 200 are moving at a very high top end speed. Strength is obviously important, but it is by no means more important than pure speed. Which is why we see more people specializing in the 100/200 than the 200/400. The two events are much more similar. Quit with the half page post of stats. You said you wanted to have a discussion. Well bring something besides trivia to the table or gtfo.

Who is talking trivia? I'm showing you why the 200m is not about pure speed. If it was about pure speed then how did Tommie Smith own Jimmy Hines in the event? How did MJ beat the far faster Fredericks and Boldon? Why does John Regis run a faster 200 than Linford Christie? The 200m is about "sustained" speed. Those who can run fast longer. That's why those familiar with the 400 have an advantage over 100m guys running the 200m.

Hell yes strength/endurance are more important than just blazing speed in a 200m. As we know nobody can run all out in a 100m much less a 200m so now what? Yep, "speed endurance". Now who has more of that a 100/200 guy or a 200/400 guy?

Don't look at this as some silly trivia whatever. It's not, it's simply the facts.

MJ is the American record holder in the 200m, yet he is just a 10.09 guy. So is it his blazing speed or his speed endurance? How come he runs 19.32 while far faster 100m guys Tyson Gay, Walter Dix, Mo Greene can't break 19.5?

Why is the HS record of 20.13 held by a guy known for his 4x4 prowess in Roy Martin?

Why did you ignore Tommie Smith? He was a good 100 guys but not a great one. He was a great 400 guy since he did hold that WR. How was he beating Hines and Carlos in the 200m, both better 100 guys?

The 200m is not about 100m speed. It's about the ability to sustain/maintain the speed. It's an event more suited for a sprinter who can run the 400m, not a 100m guy moving up.

[Avante]

Originally Posted by jpac511

To Avante, there are two words that would explain why a stud short sprinter would do well at 400... speed reserve

Sprinters come in all guises, some are more 60/100...

Ira Murchison
Tim Harden
Lerone Clarke
Morne Nagel
Henry Neal
Mel Pender

Some 100/200

Carl Lewis
Ato Boldon
Frankie Fredericks
Valery Borzov
Bobby Morrow
Dave Sime

Some 100/200/400

Tommie Smith
Xavier Carter
MJ
Henry Carr
Pietro Mennea
Usain Bolt
Tyson Gay
Mike Marsh

Notice how that third group has five WR holders in it? Six Olympic Champions.

A stud short sprinter can run a 400, but it's those who have that 400 abilty along with short sprint speed that set those 200m records. History has proven that.

[runningchoc]

Originally Posted by Avante

Who is talking trivia? I'm showing you why the 200m is not about pure speed. If it was about pure speed then how did Tommie Smith own Jimmy Hines in the event? How did MJ beat the far faster Fredericks and Boldon? Why does John Regis run a faster 200 than Linford Christie? The 200m is about "sustained" speed. Those who can run fast longer. That's why those familiar with the 400 have an advantage over 100m guys running the 200m.

Hell yes strength/endurance is more important than just blazing soeed in a 200m. As we know nobody can run all out in a 100m much less a 200m so now what? Yep, "speed endurance". Now who has more of that a 100/200 guy or a 200/400 guy?

Don't look at this as some silly trivia whatever. It's not, it's simply the facts.

MJ is the American record holder in the 200m, yet he is just a 10.09 guy. So it is his blazing speed or his speed endurance? How come he run 19.32 faf far faster 100m guys Tyson Gay, Walter Dix, Mo Greene can't break 19.5?

Why is the HS record of 20.13 held by a guy known for his 4x4 prowess in Roy Martin?

Why did you ignore Tommie Smith? He was a good 100 guys but not a great one. He was a great 400 guy since he did hold that WR. How was he beating Hines and Carlos in the 200m, both better 100 guys?

The 200m is not about 100m speed. It's about the ability to sustain/maintain the speed. It's an event more suited for a sprinter who can run the 400m, not a 100m guy moving up.

Why is it that Usain Bolt is a good but not great 400m guy but the wr holder in the 100m and also the current wr holder in the 200? Why is it that Yohan Blake is the second fastest 200m runner of all time yet is just a very good 400m runner and a rising star in the 100? Walter Dix, Tyson Gay, Xavier Carter, Wallace Spearmon, Fredericks, Mennea, Marsh..all 100m runners who are top 10 200 meter runners of all time. You can keep using Michael Johnson as your example, but like I said before, he is the freak of the conversation. If all you want to do is talk trivia, then you've been beat at your own game. When you're ready to talk science, get back at me. The science of it says pure speed is more important. Very few runners have the ability to maintain as close to their top speed as Michael Johnson did. It is much more reasonable to look for a runner who has the pure speed required to run a sub 10 hundred meter out of the blocks and expect their 50-150 in a 200 to be much faster since it is on the fly. Like I said before, it's good to have the strength and endurance, but it is by no means more important than the speed requirement of the race. Quite the contrary in fact.

[Avante]

Originally Posted by runningchoc

Why is it that Usain Bolt is a good but not great 400m guy but the wr holder in the 100m and also the current wr holder in the 200? Why is it that Yohan Blake is the second fastest 200m runner of all time yet is just a very good 400m runner and a rising star in the 100? Walter Dix, Tyson Gay, Xavier Carter, Wallace Spearmon, Fredericks, Mennea, Marsh..all 100m runners who are top 10 200 meter runners of all time. You can keep using Michael Johnson as your example, but like I said before, he is the freak of the conversation. If all you want to do is talk trivia, then you've been beat at your own game. When you're ready to talk science, get back at me. The science of it says pure speed is more important. Very few runners have the ability to maintain as close to their top speed as Michael Johnson did. It is much more reasonable to look for a runner who has the pure speed required to run a sub 10 hundred meter out of the blocks and expect their 50-150 in a 200 to be much faster since it is on the fly. Like I said before, it's good to have the strength and endurance, but it is by no means more important than the speed requirement of the race. Quite the contrary in fact.

You really aren't getting it at all.

Usain Bolt started out as a long sprinter, the 400m was his first event. Yohan Blake could run with Bryshon Nellum in the 400m as a high schooler. Tyson Gay is a 44.8 guy, Xavier Carter is a 44.5 guy, Wallace Spearmon was winning the 400m at state as a high schooler. I am talking about multi talented sprinters here...ok? Guys who can do it all as opposed to those who don't. This isn't about Lee Evans, Butch Reynolds or Jeremy Wariner. This is about those with sprint speed...and...that 400m ability. Those are the guys who have held the 200m world record since the early 60's. No 100/200 has done that.

One more time...

Henry Carr...45.6ish/4x4 Olympic anchor
Tommie Smith...WR 400
Pietro Mennea...European indoor 400m champ/Italian Oly 4x4 anchor
MJ...WR400
Usian Bolt...teenage 45.3/sub 44.00 x4 split

Notice all of them ran the 400m? That's what I'm talking about. Multi talented sprinters.

Xavier Carter is a 10.00 guy, yet he has ran a sub 19.70. How come his 200m is faster than 9.8 sprinters Frankie Fredericks, Carl Lewis and Ato Boldon? Could it be because he was also a 44.5 guy and they weren't?

In 1972 the great Valery Borzov barely beat Larry Black (lane 1) in the Olympic 200m. Black was no 100m guy but he was a 43.5 4x4 guy.

You wanna talk science? In the 200m that starts with the abilty to sustain speed. Guys with the ability to run a 400 don't have that advantage over 100/200 sprinters, hell yes they do and history has proven that.

I noticed you keep ignoring Tommie Smith...why? Tommie had a terrible start as a 100yard/meter guy. His thing was to come on in the latter stages of everything he ran, he had speed endurance. Like MJ he was a 200/400 world record holder. He owned the great 100m man Jimmy Hines in the 200, why? Yep...speed endurance.

You are way off on this. Just look at who holds the records.

100m jets last how long in a 200m? That's right around 70 meters. Now what? MJ could whip up on 9.8 guys for a reason. Was it his superior speed...nope! Was it his superior speed endurence...absolutely! The same reason Henry Carr could beat Bob Hayes, Xavier Carter could beat Tyson Gay, Tommie Smith could beat Jimmy Hines, Kenteris could beat all those far faster 100 guys in a 200m.

Here we see a great example of what I'm talking about.

+ YouTube Video

Allan Wells had already won the 100m. Mennea was by far the superior 400 guy. Did great 100m speed win that, nope.

How do guys like Obea Moore,Tyree Washington, Adolph Plummer, Bryshon Nellum, Calvin Harrison beat far faster 100m guys in the 200m?

[jpac511]

Avante, do you not understand that all of the guys you listed in the beginning of the above post are all sub 10 guys? Their 400 ability is BECAUSE OF their 100 ability. If you can run sub 10, but only have to average 11.25 per 100 in a 400, that is a lot easier to deal with.

[Avante]

Originally Posted by jpac511

Avante, do you not understand that all of the guys you listed in the beginning of the above post are all sub 10 guys? Their 400 ability is BECAUSE OF their 100 ability. If you can run sub 10, but only have to average 11.25 per 100 in a 400, that is a lot easier to deal with.

That is about as wrong gets, nobody runs anything in a 400m because of 100m prowess. These are two totally different deals.

Sustaining speed in a 400m is in another galaxy than what we see in a 100m.

You are as wrong as wrong gets.

[runningchoc]

Originally Posted by Avante

That is about as wrong gets, nobody runs anything in a 400m because of 100m prowess. These are two totally different deals.

Sustaining speed in a 400m is in another galaxy than what we see in a 100m.

You are as wrong as wrong gets.

Because I don't feel like quoting another ridiculously long post of yours...

Once again, 9 of the top 10 all time fastest 200 meter runners had blazing 100m speed. The speed is more important than the endurance. It is purely an anaerobic race. Making it more similar to the 100 than to the 400, which is a 35-45% aerobic race. Just because those runners can run the 400m doesn't mean that the 400m strength is more important than the 100m speed. And your example of Tommie Smith's start beig horrible is counterproductive to your point. He had 100m speed but couldn't capitalize because he didn't get out of the blocks well. Same for MJ, who was a notoriously average starter with blazing speed. Got any science or just wanna toss a few examples out there and continue to scream, "I'm right!"?

[Avante]

Originally Posted by runningchoc

Because I don't feel like quoting another ridiculously long post of yours...

Once again, 9 of the top 10 all time fastest 200 meter runners had blazing 100m speed. The speed is more important than the endurance. It is purely an anaerobic race. Making it more similar to the 100 than to the 400, which is a 35-45% aerobic race. Just because those runners can run the 400m doesn't mean that the 400m strength is more important than the 100m speed. And your example of Tommie Smith's start beig horrible is counterproductive to your point. He had 100m speed but couldn't capitalize because he didn't get out of the blocks well. Same for MJ, who was a notoriously average starter with blazing speed. Got any science or just wanna toss a few examples out there and continue to scream, "I'm right!"?

Why are you not getting this?

Yes yes yes the 200m takes speed. I have never implied it didn't. But it's when we find those with the speed....AND...that 400m is when we get the records broken. Mo Greene isn't beating MJ, Hines isn't beating Smith, Wells isn't beating Mennea.

Why are you totally missing my point? Speed...WITH...400m endurance is what all the 200m WR holders have had for the last 50 years. Stop ignoring that fact.

No the 200m is not about blazing 100m speed, that is not the event. The 200m is about sustained speed which is what a 400m guy has. That's why all those who have held the WR were 4x4/400 guys to go with the speed.

How can you not see that? How many examples do you need?

[jpac511]

Avante, Please read this and then come back to us

http://completetrackandfield.com/?s=speed+reserve

[Avante]

Originally Posted by jpac511

Avante, Please read this and then come back to us

http://completetrackandfield.com/?s=speed+reserve

Read that before on another site. It's not accurate.

The 400m is not about sprint speed, that's why so many great 400 guys wouldn't break a 10.30. The 400m is about speed endurance.

Mel Pender was a WR holder in the 60, he was also a two time Olympian in the 100m. He stood 5-5. No way in hell he is running anything world class in a 400m. That could be said about most great 100m guys who didn't run the 400m as youngsters. Mo Greene ran a 48 something, Tyree Washington couldn't break 10.4 in a 100m.

Lee Evans would destroy any 100m guy in the 400m, I don't think he ever ran a 100m. Butch Reynolds in a 100m? Jeremy Wariner in a 100m?

The 400m is a totally different breed of cat than the 100m. It takes a different kind of sprinter most the time. Which is my point. When we do find those with 100m speed and that 400m endurance that's when we see records go in thye 200m.