Originally Posted by dak95_00
57 seconds isn't horrible either. I bet you guys can't run that fast. Realize that keeping that up four times would be a sub-4 minute mile. If he ran 90 second 400s, he'd run a 18:39 5k. I'm letting him run at nearly 1/2 of his all out 400 speed and he could do that! Sub 20 minutes is a sure bet if he had to do it.
Seriously.....Who says 57 seconds isn't fast? I just looked up the local track honor roll for high school from a quick Internet search. 49.97 seconds got you on it and I can tell you that a kid who attended the high school I teach at was on there at 49.64 seconds and he is running for Ohio State on scholarship. These were the best times in the area throughout the track season. In case you want to bash Ohio State's team, keep in mind they have a tradition of excellent runners such as Butch Reynolds or Jessie Owens. I'd like to see a lot of guys go out and time/video themselves trying to run sub 1 minute 400s. It's not going to happen! Yes. There are many good athletes who can do it but it's not for the average guy either.
Next, we'll all be posting how we hit 120mph serves and how it is easy to do. I'm not doing that search as I'm sure the thread is here somewhere.
Your comparisons are illogical and don't make sense. You have no concept of times and running comparisons. 400m is a long sprint and you are running it once. Why would you compare an all out sprint to split times in a long distance race and try to draw conclusions about it?
Comparing it to 49 second 400m is ridiculous. In a 400m an 8 second win is huge margin. That would be like comparing a 10.0 sec. 100m sprinter to 12.0sec sprinter. One is world class the other is below average for high school varsity.
It is not even close to comparison to a 120 mph serve. In any typical high school. In most typical high schools there are probably 0-1 people who could hit a 120 mph serve. In your average public high school there are at least 50+ who could run subminute 400m and some of those would be girls.