400m Potential

M cebee

you must have had great talent if you can really come back and do 51sec 400m

NiallG4

PaullBradyy wrote: »

For what it's worth. I ran the 400 on a track with a friend using a stop/watch.
The 100 metre intervals were all mid-high 11 from a running start.
It seems from the responses here that 44 might me unattainable. I still still think I want to go a lot faster than 51 seconds as I don't see this as being a great time for myself.
I am in my late twenties.

I have a footballer friend who always trys to wind me up by saying he is thinking of doing a months training and heading over to the Olympics because it is close to Ireland this year and run the 1500M. Is that you Duff (on a wind up). On the other hand, if you are running 51 secs from no base and this on the back of a couple of 100M runs with a few minutes recovery, you need to get yourself onto a track quick and you will be running high 40's in no time

RayCun

Join a club. Get trained (and timed) properly.

Dan man

Paul why don't you get over to your local club, let them see what you've got, they'll be delighted to have you on board. If you think you can go sub 50 secs you have great talent so don't let the opportunity pass you by.

karkar athlete

You said a friend timed you using a stopwatch :rolleyes:. Is there any chance your friend could have stopped the clock early and giving you false belief???

PaullBradyy

To karkar athlete.
I'm pretty sure he timed it correctly.
The next time I go to the track I will try at least equal that 400 time, although I will more likely be aiming a bit faster.
As I said above, I want to run faster and I felt myself slowing down during the final 100 metres that last time out so fingers crossed.

RandyMann

51 secs is possible and if you are doing that now you will improve with the right coaching and running group.
There are a few giving here giving you the right advice by telling you to join a club. There are a few guys in my club that can do that time and better.
Ignore the others as it is not advice, just BS.
I wish you the best of luck in your training.

SeanKenny

PaullBradyy wrote: »

To karkar athlete.
I'm pretty sure he timed it correctly.
The next time I go to the track I will try at least equal that 400 time, although I will more likely be aiming a bit faster.
As I said above, I want to run faster and I felt myself slowing down during the final 100 metres that last time out so fingers crossed.

Where are you based or what area would you look to join a club in. I am sure that we could reccommend a good club depending on geographic location.

Pisco Sour

RandyMann wrote: »

51 secs is possible and if you are doing that now you will improve with the right coaching and running group.
There are a few giving here giving you the right advice by telling you to join a club. There are a few guys in my club that can do that time and better.
Ignore the others as it is not advice, just BS.
I wish you the best of luck in your training.

I do not believe 51 seconds for 400m, after 10 years of inactivity to be in any way possible, unless this guy has extreme talent, a type that we have not seen in Ireland before, in which case we have lost out on many potential medals at international level over the last 10 years.

thirtyfoot

If you have potential to run 48, then it would be very possible to run 51 fairly easy. Not 6 weeks training but 6 months no doubt. I have seen evidence of it in fact.

RandyMann

04072511 wrote: »

I do not believe 51 seconds for 400m, after 10 years of inactivity to be in any way possible, unless this guy has extreme talent, a type that we have not seen in Ireland before, in which case we have lost out on many potential medals at international level over the last 10 years.

Fair enough, I know you dont believe him, you said that already. I don't like the ridicule though.
I don't know whether he can do that time or not, I would like to believe him. If he can do it, good for him, if he can't well, that does not matter.

walshb

PaullBradyy wrote: »

For what it's worth. I ran the 400 on a track with a friend using a stop/watch.
The 100 metre intervals were all mid-high 11 from a running start.
It seems from the responses here that 44 might me unattainable. I still still think I want to go a lot faster than 51 seconds as I don't see this as being a great time for myself.
I am in my late twenties.

Can I ask what weight, age, and height you are? Also, build?

Edit: late 20s.

Pisco Sour

thirtyfoot wrote: »

If you have potential to run 48, then it would be very possible to run 51 fairly easy. Not 6 weeks training but 6 months no doubt. I have seen evidence of it in fact.

Permission to quote you?

thirtyfoot wrote: »

The key to a good troll, in my opinion, is it may take the victims about 150 posts in the thread before they realise it's a troll. Reading the subject alone sent the troll alarms off on this one. It reminds me of a recreational troll, trying their best but ultimately going nowhere until they join a proper troll club.

Thud

if you can video your next run we'd be interested in seeing it ??

Did you run against your friend or solo?

dna_leri

Running 51.x secs for 400m is good but no big deal and about right for a flying 11.5s 100m. But you won't win any medals with that time - there are plenty of kids doing that all over the country. However if you train hard you can knock off a couple of secs. So join a club and get real advise (aka coaching).

If this is a wind-up its a pretty poor one and you need to up your game a lot. I suggest you come back on Monday and tell us you have just run a 48s 400m then you are a contender and you can be considered alongside the 4 min mile posters.

Gandalph

Unless you are either Michael Johnson's baby or a biologically enhanced super human that the military have been working on I do not believe you are running 51 seconds for 400m with 10 years of no activity.

Join a club, get some training, enter some races & come back with an official time. I have seen this case many times before were people come to you with their olympic standard hand times.

Pisco Sour

dna_leri wrote: »

Running 51.x secs for 400m is good but no big deal and about right for a flying 11.5s 100m.

Ah come on seriously. 51 may be in line with that 100 time for those who are actually training and doing speed endurance, not for somebody who has been inactive for 10 years. There is no way somebody who is 11.5 for 100m can run a 51 for 400m without the speed endurance and strengeth endurance training. 400m requires a lot of endurance and without the training your times will fall off spectacularly after 100m.

If the OP has been inactive for 10 years then there is a 90% chance (figure plucked from the clouds) that he is overweight. There is no way such a person can run a 51, a time which got bronze at the Under 18 (or maybeb it was under 20) Victorian State Champs yesterday, a state with a population bigger than Ireland.

myflipflops

Who care though. 2 scenarios here:

1. He has run 51 after 10 years of inactivity in which case, fair play to the man. He is a great talent and he should join a club. PM 'thirtyfoot' as I believe he coaches some of those crazy people who think races under 800 meters count.

2. He is making it up with the direct intention of trolling in which case he has achieved his goal with a couple of pages of people arguing against him.

dna_leri

04072511 wrote: »

Ah come on seriously. 51 may be in line with that 100 time for those who are actually training and doing speed endurance, not for somebody who has been inactive for 10 years. There is no way somebody who is 11.5 for 100m can run a 51 for 400m without the speed endurance and strengeth endurance training. 400m requires a lot of endurance and without the training your times will fall off spectacularly after 100m.

If the OP has been inactive for 10 years then there is a 90% chance (figure plucked from the clouds) that he is overweight. There is no way such a person can run a 51, a time which got bronze at the Under 18 (or maybeb it was under 20) Victorian State Champs yesterday, a state with a population bigger than Ireland.

I know nothing about the OP or 400m running in Australia, but I still say 51.x is not that impressive. In the schools T&F last year, 5 boys at senior level ran that time and 5 more at intermediate. Most of these have not reached their physical peak yet so I am not surprised that a 20 something year old could run that time. The OP probably did not but that's another argument.

Pisco Sour

dna_leri wrote: »

I know nothing about the OP or 400m running in Australia, but I still say 51.x is not that impressive. In the schools T&F last year, 5 boys at senior level ran that time and 5 more at intermediate. Most of these have not reached their physical peak yet so I am not surprised that a 20 something year old could run that time. The OP probably did not but that's another argument.

51 is not impressive at an elite level no. But 51 for somebody who hasn't done a bit of sport or regular physical activity for a decade is a startling result (although in this case clearly not true) and simply not believable. There can be no denying that. Is it realistic to believe that somebody with no sporting background over the last 10 years can just rock up to a track and run a time almost as fast as Joanne Cuddihy has done in her lifetime? I think not.

shels4ever

04072511 wrote: »

51 is not impressive at an elite level no. But 51 for somebody who hasn't done a bit of sport or regular physical activity for a decade is a startling result (although in this case clearly not true) and simply not believable. There can be no denying that. Is it realistic to believe that somebody with no sporting background over the last 10 years can just rock up to a track and run a time almost as fast as Joanne Cuddihy has done in her lifetime? I think not.

I think your a bit off there, there are some people out there that are capable of running a fast 400m off no running at all, I knew a guy before who wouldnt run for years and pop out a 55 with no training at all. He hasnt run in about 8 years now and i'd say he'd still run that.
It doesnt mean he is an amazing talent, he could have been better but would never have been top class. Its a fact that some people could sit on their ass for 10 years and still run faster then alot of club runners.

Pisco Sour

shels4ever wrote: »

I think your a bit off there, there are some people out there that are capable of running a fast 400m off no running at all, I knew a guy before who wouldnt run for years and pop out a 55 with no training at all. He hasnt run in about 8 years now and i'd say he'd still run that.
It doesnt mean he is an amazing talent, he could have been better but would never have been top class. Its a fact that some people could sit on their ass for 10 years and still run faster then alot of club runners.

A world of difference between 55 and 51 though.

shels4ever

04072511 wrote: »

A world of difference between 55 and 51 though.

yep i'd agree on the 51, but i dont think its impossible that there could be people out there capable of getting close. But its the exception the average joe would prob be lucky to get close to 70.

Pisco Sour

shels4ever wrote: »

yep i'd agree on the 51, but i dont think its impossible that there could be people out there capable of getting close. But its the exception the average joe would prob be lucky to get close to 70.

Agree on that. I'm a reasonably half decent sprinter and the first time I did a solo time trial for 400m, off no training I ran a 67. Now with spikes, more race knowledge, specific training 4 times a week and better preparation I am down to very low 59. With smarter training next year I think I could go into the 57's.

With regards the 51, if somebody is doing such a time on a solo time trial, after 10 years of innactivity, just think how good such a person could be with proper sprinting footwear, proper form, speed endurance training, being pushed on by others in a race etc. The chances of such a person running 51 in such circumstances must be a million to one shot. Maybe I am overstimating the difficulty of running such a time, but I would doubt it.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

Agree on that. I'm a reasonably half decent sprinter and the first time I did a solo time trial for 400m, off no training I ran a 67. Now with spikes, more race knowledge, specific training 4 times a week and better preparation I am down to very low 59. With smarter training next year I think I could go into the 57's.

With regards the 51, if somebody is doing such a time on a solo time trial, after 10 years of innactivity, just think how good such a person could be with proper sprinting footwear, proper form, speed endurance training, being pushed on by others in a race etc. The chances of such a person running 51 in such circumstances must be a million to one shot. Maybe I am overstimating the difficulty of running such a time, but I would doubt it.

What would be your flat out 100 time, and your 200 time?

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

What would be your flat out 100 time, and your 200 time?

12.96 for 100m, but with a +4.3 m/s (equates to around 13.1 with a +2.0 wind), and 26.92 with a +2.2 m/s.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

12.96 for 100m, but with a +4.3 m/s (equates to around 13.1 with a +2.0 wind), and 26.92 with a +2.2 m/s.

Very good. My 200 time would be lucky to break 35 seconds. Your point about the speed, and endurance, is the key. A man who has had pretty much no sports activity but is in ok shape may well run a fast 100, say 12-14 secs, and maybe 28-30 for 200, but he will without doubt die a death over the next 200. I would predict at least a 32 second last 200. That is about 55-60 seconds at best.

RandyMann

There is a 15 year old young man in my club running 52sec 400.
There are 10/11 year old girls in the club, my daughter included running mid 14 sec 100m.
I have witnessed this and they are good times so if hear some random guy claiming he can do a 51 400m, I'd say well possible but I would also like to see him doing it too. It's good but certainly not impossible.

dna_leri

My point is people here seem to think 51s for 400m is some sort of elite level, it's not, it's schoolboy level.

RandyMann

dna_leri wrote: »

My point is people here seem to think 51s for 400m is some sort of elite level, it's not, it's schoolboy level.

I agree