We've only improved the 400m time by 4 seconds from 47 to 43 in 100 years. Factor in that the type of track they ran on was not conducive for maximum speed and the shoes are improved and most importantly the training, and that gap probably reduces to maybe 2.5 seconds. Crazy man.
I was thinking the same, that first guy to win the world record was very fast, he had no good shoes, crappy track and no good supplements and or nutrition, not to mention no vitamin S. Take all those things away and the difference is very negligible.
I disagree that running negative splits is necessarily the best tactic or that it will become the standard one day. The 400m and 800m are unique because they are at near sprint speeds but for a sustained period of time. And runners run positive splits for the 100m and 200m as well, it's just that the flying start negates the slowdown. The standard for the 100m and 200m is to just hammer the pace as hard as you can and slowly fade. Running negative or even splits means that you lose time on the first 200m. It's incredibly difficult to make that time up in the second 200m. It's usually easier to hammer it hard and fade a little as opposed to coasting a little in the beginning and making up the time on tired legs.
@@TheWayToWin Not sure what you mean by "most people." Most of the coaches of elite college and professional athletes do not coach to run a negative or even split. There's a reason all of the world's best athletes currently run positive splits. If even splits were clearly better, then the elite runners would run that way. It's ambiguous which technique is better, as world records have been set with both positive and negative splits. Even Michael Johnson was fairly rare for running even splits. It's always been an uncommon trait among 400m runners. It also varies by athlete. Some athletes have less quickness but better endurance and strength, so they can run even splits. Runners with more muscle mass dedicated to raw sprinting power can get out faster but cannot run even splits. I'm doubtful van Niekerk would be better off running even splits. To run a negative split he'd have to give up some of his top speed for better endurance and strength.
@@finewinedaily4997, sure it`s always been an uncommon trait because a different level and class is required to do it. The humanity is not yet ready for that.
@@TheWayToWin It is not a "different level" or "different class" of runner than runs even splits for the 400m. There's plenty of just state-wide high school level talents that run even or negative splits. A few world class 400m runners do it as well. But more common and usually more effective is to run the positive split. You have to sacrifice top end speed to have the strength and endurance needed to run a negative split. And the result for most sprinters is that they are slower overall. What experience do you even have with any of this? Are you actually a coach of elite athletes? You act like you're some authority on the topic.
Excellent analysis. Regarding the 800m; I cried when I watched David Rudisha crush the field in London to break the 1:41 barrier. Start to finish, all on his own.
It is the best straightest track ... if you absolutely know you are running against the clock and have no desire to think about other runners who may or may not be running good or slow, the lack of distractions can help you focus on getting your optimum split time.
blanca roca true. Tbh sometimes in a race, if you aren’t focused on just yourself, the pacing of the competition can actually slow your run too. Ppl tend to forget this
@@morrisparrish76 Excellent point! Some kind of perfect storm? Niekerk going out faster than normal just in case ...then also being pushed along just at the right time Or maybe he'd have gone even faster in a centre lane.. Didn't think that could be biologically possible but you might be right :)
Absolutely fantastic breakdown of the science that is involved with the 400 m running. My fastest is a 48.5 And to see these men run low 43 it's absolutely amazing. Thank you for this video.
He definitely will when he’s back from injury and gets a chance to race against Michael Norman. I think they’ll both do it, it’ll be an incredible race. We could also have the likes of Kirani James and Lashawn Merritt in that race too, it’ll really be something else
@@TheWayToWin the issue with running negative splits is the energy systems used when running - it's much harder to run a fast 200m with lactate buildup occuring. With training breakthroughs, etc. to reduce the effects of lactic acid buildup it might be possible though.
I'm actually a bit surprised the WR isn't 42.XX yet. I wonder if MJ could have done so had he run harder more often for the first 200m and when in absolutely top shape, maintaining like Van Niekerk did. Van Niekerk is obviously the main contender right now for 42.XX.
Man i dont think so. That shits damn near impossible. I think Bolt cud do it if he cared an was passionate about it. Hes built more for that than the 100 its crazy
I went to High School with Lee Evans at William C. Overfelt in San Jose, California when he was setting records in the 440. Evans later attended San Jose State University and with Tommie Smith helped SJS attain the title of Speed Capital. To me Lee will always be the greatest 1/4 miler ever.
What an amazing work you did, guys!... A report that is historically accurate, full of archive material and sober, inteligent analysis... Very few times I have been more satisfied with a UTube report on Sports... Quality all over, and no sentimental BS... I am a 75 year old man, I have been practicing and following Sport all my life and this report is really Top... Congratulations and thanks from Sydney, Australia.
Allot of folks say the 400 is ran with technique and planning but honestly I think all of that flys out the window by the last 150m. It comes down to who wants it more and who has the drive in them. It’s cringe to say but it’s true man
Everyone please take note that digits to the right of the decimal point are read as individual digits and not as they would on the left side of the decimal point.
@@frederickweeksjr.1189 I'm a Brit but MJ is the best 400m runner ever....Look at all his times in general compared to anyone else, and that's with no competition!
It took a 11 years for Butch Reynolds' record to be broken in 1999 then a further 17 years for it to be broken again. However regarding the 400m I don't think we're anywhere near the limit yet.
Very Good video about 400m ! this Goddamn sprint is So Complex ! As I was 2 times junior Champion in my Country with the age of 17 and best pb of 48.12 , my exact splits were : 12.07 - 11.05 - 11.74 - 13.26
Michael Norman is right there as well probably, just not officially. I mean his 200m is 19.7!!! He ran like 10.2 something back in HS for 100m. He definitely has to be sub 10 if he is running 19.70
800m is tougher, imho. You start in your own lane (just like in 400m) but then you have to get a good position. running so close to each other in a pack has a higher risk of fall, too. and a fall at this pace is way tougher than a fall at, let's say, 10 000m pace, especially if there is som1 running at your heels, just with a split second time to react if need be
Otis Davis was the first athlete to break the 45sec barrier( does he get a mention in this video?) In 1960, I saw Otis race in a post-Olympic Games meeting in Manchester, UK.
He was the only one until Michael Norman ran a 9.86 100m to become the second to do it, then in 2021, Fred Kerley became the third. He's still the only one who also has a sub-31 second 300m time, a time only two other runners have achieved before, Usain Bolt and Michael Johnson
Very nice video. My only disagreement is about the comment that running negative split in the 400m will be the standard in the future. 400m is the event with the most lactic acid than ANY OTHER SPORT OR EVENT in the world. Can't be compared with sprints or long distance running. It's so different and so unique
Thank you! If humans want to break 43 consistently they must learn to run with negative splits because it is the only natural way to run the distance. Improving the record by always running the first 200m faster is nonsense. We should sooner or later see some improvement in the second part of the race.
@@TheWayToWin i believe that humans can brake the 43 seconds barrier anyway. Van Niekerk is a perfect example. Michael Johnson tried to do it negative split many times, but his best time wasnt negative split. Doesn't have to be negative split. I agree though that the difference between first and second 200m should never be big. Run 20.5 firs half 22.5 the second half Or 21 / 22 Something like that
There's a young man who is the talk of NCAA Track and Field say hello to RANDOLPH ROSS of NORTH CAROLINA A&T he is the fastest 400M runner right now he posted back to back efforts under 46.00 seconds.He ran a time of 45.44 at The Texas Tech Invitational. In my personal opinion he is a definite threat to the WORLD RECORD of Michael Norman of Southern California 44.52!!!!!!
Random 113 everyone runs the same distance but it's much easier to run the fastest on the inside lanes why do you think in the longer distance races the athletes move into the inside lane after the first bend because it's a shorter the distance
The only reason why shorter distances have negative splits is the standing start. Even in a 100m race, sprinters slow down towards the end. It is possible to keep speeding up on a 60m track, but the fastest 60m sprinters also slow down in the last 10m. There are very good metabolic reasons for that, and those reasons apply to all distances up to 800m. I would actually claim that the optimal strategy on 1500m is fast start too, but because of tactics, they tend to save for a fast last lap. Negative splits on 400m are a pacing mistake or a fluke, and will *not* become the standard. The fastest part must be the 2nd hundred metres. The more distance you cover while not tired, the less time you spend by running while tired. That makes fast starts a better strategy.
20 - 30 years from now every one will laugh at sprinters running slower the second half of the race. Even todat it is ridiculous when men run 200m with first 100 faster than the second one, 400m is not much different.
@@TheWayToWin Unlikely. Read some research. On a 100m track, athletes can go about 5-6 seconds at the maximum effort and then try to maintain, always bleeding off speed at the end. 200m needs a bit of pacing, so you don't reach maximum effort, but similar principle. 400m is the exact same, but a further decrease of the maximum effort. The second half of the 400m track is ran completely on oxygen deficit, it in very inefficient to try to speed up in that state.
I read a lot. I recommend you to read some track history. Scientists always try to set limits which track coaches successfully challenge. Think bigger!
In case someone wants to mention that Usain Bolt and Michael Johnson ran 300m under 31 seconds, they were pushing for 300m only, when Wayde ran the last curve, he still had to run 100 meters more, if he had to run 300mts he would probably do it under 30 seconds.
Human physiology and anatomical structure limits how fast a human can actually run. 30 miles an hour is about the extent a person can run without artificial assistance.
It’s not like a 10 second difference on your morning jog. 54 seconds is a good highschool sophomore time, and usually takes a lot of work and training to achieve. 49 seconds also requires great genetics and you will go to state tournament but not win. Every second under that is a different world.
I went to Overfelt High School in San Jose California at the same time Lee Evans was setting records in the mid 60's. Perhaps the greatest quarter miler ever.
@@morrisparrish76 - Lee held the record in the 440 yd. and the 400 meters for over 25 years. He was the first to break 45 seconds. And yes I know sprinters came after him and shattered his records but in his era he was the best.
@@jerrybrownell3633 maybe you didn’t read or hear the lee evans quote: “I couldn’t beat tommie smith on my best day”! (Tommie ran the sprints; but was slated to run anchor on the 4x400 relay till he was kicked out of the games for his raised fist salute!) the USA lost their chance at a world record cause Vince Matthews (3 seconds slower than tommie) ran in his place! So just because lee evans held the record; doesn’t mean he was the best!
Those two names are the very reason I believe that it's going to be a long long time before the 4×400m relay record gets broken. In 1993, the year the record was set, Reynolds, Quincy Watts and Johnson were 1, 2 and 3 on the all-time list of 400m sprinters. To this day, I believe they are still in the top ten. Never before or since has that amount of flat out speed been on a single relay team, except for maybe the Jamaican 4×100 team that had 4 sub 9.8 sprinters, that still is the only team to run sub 37 seconds
I'd like to know what Van Niekerk could've ran that day if he was in lane 1. When you start in lane 9 the turns are less sharp and therefore less centripetal force pushing you outward.
Ted S, yes lane 8 is less sharper but you in the turn for longer than everyone else, Especially in the second bend. No one wants lane 8. I hope Van Niekerk can break the 43 second mark.
@@sizwe1131 I'd like to do an experiment on how it affects your time though because for the first turn you don't turn as much. Another reason people don't like lane 8 is mentally, you can't see how good you're doing compared to other running.
I'm not sure but it seems to me that some of these records required sub-11 second runs for the third 100 meters (i.e.--the stretch from 200 to 300m). I don't see how that's possible around that bend and am doubting my math but that's how it works out as far as I can see.
I'd be interested to see some splits for Salwa Eid Naser's races, she seems to run very even pace. She frequently comes from behind to win, except in the 2019 World Championships, where she was just faster than everyone for almost the entire race. The fact that Shaunae Miller-Uibo was catching Naser towards the end of that race and the fact that the times were faster than had been seen for over 30 years, makes me think Miller-Uibo may have had negative splits in that race.
@@TheWayToWin Thanks for that. Not as even as I would have thought, but still one of the best women's 400m races ever. The women really did manage some incredible performances at the 2019 world championships, really exciting for the future.
If you train for it, otherwise it is very hard to execute the strategy. That`s why many people burn it in the first 200 and then just struggling to survive.
ya i was always a positive split runner in my 400s. best was 50 flat with like a 23.5-26.5 Although i usually tried to maintain an even split of 24s many times but was never able to hold 24s b2b. Even 25s was very difficult. Takes a special kind of person and lots of training to negative split a 400 or an 800.
And all his records could have stood for at least 50 years. I wud put long jump in there too. Alot of generations will have him to thank that there are still records left to break. Just because he was ok with just the 1 and the 2
A Grip I can’t tell if your joking or not. It would be very impressive for him to be be world class at anything over 400 weighing over 200 pounds with low body fat. That’s a lot of oxygen he would need.
van Niekerk's world record is 43.03 set at the 2016 Rio Olympics. That run was out of this world, so I think maybe it is premature to talk about 42.9 - we may have to wait a while? But when that inevitably happens it will be beyond belief.
Wayde is great and has the world record, but has started to taper off, he is the second greatest 400m runner of all time as of right now. Even though Michael doesn't have the record anymore he is still the best 400m runner as he was able to run under 44 seconds 22 times and ran by himself most of the time without being pushed. Jeremy Wariner screwed up his career when he switched coaches, but should still be the third best 400m runner of all time with his numerous times under 44, plus he has the 2nd, 4th, and 6th fastest splits of all time. Quincy Watts was great and so was Harry Reynolds, but short lived track careers.
@@TheWayToWin Possible, but the athlete with the highest chance(Wayde Van Niekerk) probably won't run it that way. He has a habit of blasting the first 200m. I still believe in the negative split 400m, because that 43.66 Michael Johnson ran was run in 1996 the same year he ran 19.32. I think athletes with super fast 200m have a chance of negative splitting, because of the speed advantage.
It's the toughest of all track events. It's brutal. The last 100 to 150 you are hitting a wall. The body tightens up and it's hard to maintain good form. The legs are heavy and hard to get good lift. You are running on will or like you have a gun to your head. It's seems like forever until the finish line. The 400 is a nightmare.
Had another thought. You’re wrong about only the 400/800 having positive splits. Technically you’re right but biologically ALL sprint distances up to 800 are DECELERATED. The 100 & 200 - if measured halfway - certainly have faster second halves, but that’s only because the second have has a fully running start. And the margin of “faster” is so small that, if you calculate the VELOCITY of the second halves and imagine a slower start to each from blocks...then it’s clear that sprinters run ever second half of a race slower, that is they decelerate. So - even that Michael Johnson race that had negative splits actually contained a slower second 200m, since that 200m was timed “on the fly”. Google Central Governor Theory by Tim Noakes. He talked about this is context of fatigue.
Explain why Usain Bolt ran the fastest recorded land speed for humans at the 60m - 80m portion of the 100? I understand and agree with most of what you said, but this challenges the notion that the second half of the race is ONLY faster because of the running start. In Bolt's record setting race, he only began decelerating at the very end of the race as opposed to somewhere in the middle which tends to happen in the longer races. At the least, he was still accelerating, yes, picking up speed, 60m+ into the race. With that said, maybe not so much in 200m or 400m, but what we could possibly see one day is a 100m record setting race with no deceleration. How? If humans continue to push the boundaries on top speed alone, they would not only be reaching it later in the race, (but not necessarily as late as Bolt since his height is a factor, rather as a result of simple logic applied to physics, higher top speed always takes more time than a comparably lower speed from the same vehicle and/or body), but as a byproduct of the speed, reach later stages of the race sooner which means that the body's lactic acid and other decelerating factors have less time to take effect. Just to continue to conversation: I remember when Maurice Greene so called ran the perfect race setting the 9.79 record in the 100m. He didnt say it himself that it was perfect btw. But in the interview he claimed that he wasn't faster than everyone else but that he decelerated slower. Well, it seems many people believe this is the key to winning races. Yet, I'd argue that Bolt and Wayde are proving this assessment to be entirely wrong. These guys are running faster overall and hitting higher top speeds. It's makes too much sense. If you decelerate at the same rate as the competition but after hitting a higher top speed, it was the speed that won you the race, not this idea of less deceleration.
Since 400 winner never reaches ultimate top speed the amount of inertia is never a significant amount from a stationary position and by the time they reach the second 200 some degree of fatigue is already set in counteracts any moving inertia.
