400/800 Times to Walk On at D1 School?

Training
21

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
just how FAST you can get is a different question,
[/quote]
No. It’s the most important question. [/quote]

So, if you’re not genetically predisposed to being elite an sprinter there’s no point in even trying to improve your foot speed cause either you have it or you don’t?

That line of thinking makes no sense to me. You can’t teach someone to be a superfreak, but you can, in many cases, absolutely teach them to be a hell of a lot faster than they may “naturally” be. To believe otherwise is self defeating, unless you happen to be a superfreak.

[/quote]
You miss the point. The OP was asking about running at a D1 school, i.e., running competitively. It’s not about getting faster than you are but getting fast enough to compete. Anyone can get faster. Anyone can get stronger. Not everyone, and in fact almost no one, can get fast enough to compete at a high level by simply “learning.” How many kids started to “learn” a sport at a young age then continued to “learn” through HS then, when it came time to go to college, had to stick to learning in the classroom because they just weren’t good enough to practice that sport anymore?

22

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
just how FAST you can get is a different question,
[/quote]
No. It’s the most important question. [/quote]

No… it’s still a different question… YOUR arbitration of the hierarchy of importance is irrelevant

nothing to say to the rest of my post? including the genetic discussion in the story i posted???

23

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
just how FAST you can get is a different question,
[/quote]
No. It’s the most important question. [/quote]

So, if you’re not genetically predisposed to being elite an sprinter there’s no point in even trying to improve your foot speed cause either you have it or you don’t?

That line of thinking makes no sense to me. You can’t teach someone to be a superfreak, but you can, in many cases, absolutely teach them to be a hell of a lot faster than they may “naturally” be. To believe otherwise is self defeating, unless you happen to be a superfreak.

[/quote]
You miss the point. The OP was asking about running at a D1 school, i.e., running competitively. It’s not about getting faster than you are but getting fast enough to compete. Anyone can get faster. Anyone can get stronger. Not everyone, and in fact almost no one, can get fast enough to compete at a high level by simply “learning.” How many kids started to “learn” a sport at a young age then continued to “learn” through HS then, when it came time to go to college, had to stick to learning in the classroom because they just weren’t good enough to practice that sport anymore? [/quote]

just because some athletes fail doesn’t mean genetics is the scapegoat… perhaps a more likely explanation would be poor coaching and/or poor execution.

24

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

If it could then we should see more white 100m runners, or rather, competitive white 100m runners, no? [/quote]

Not when they’re told at 10 y/o that they don’t have a chance.

Regardless there’s a HUGE difference in speed between someone who is taught and trained to run fast and someone who isn’t. You can always be a faster you.

Heres an interesting take

agreed on both points

25

[quote]swhole milk wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
just how FAST you can get is a different question,
[/quote]
No. It’s the most important question. [/quote]

No… it’s still a different question… YOUR arbitration of the hierarchy of importance is irrelevant

nothing to say to the rest of my post? including the genetic discussion in the story i posted???[/quote]
No, it isn’t arbitrary. You need to demonstrate a certain level of speed if you want to perform at a high level. The 800 and 400 are not about endurance as much as they are speed. Training can make you faster but only your DNA will make you fast enough.

And the slow white man comment was obviously a joke. Pietro Mennea held the 200m world record for almost 20 years. Then again he’s Italian so he might not count as white.

26

guess the OP wont give us his best 400 and 800 times…

27

[quote]spk wrote:
guess the OP wont give us his best 400 and 800 times…[/quote]

something tells me they’re not close to the times i offered which he said were “too slow”

28

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
just how FAST you can get is a different question,
[/quote]
No. It’s the most important question. [/quote]

No… it’s still a different question… YOUR arbitration of the hierarchy of importance is irrelevant

nothing to say to the rest of my post? including the genetic discussion in the story i posted???[/quote]
No, it isn’t arbitrary. You need to demonstrate a certain level of speed if you want to perform at a high level. The 800 and 400 are not about endurance as much as they are speed. Training can make you faster but only your DNA will make you fast enough.

And the slow white man comment was obviously a joke. Pietro Mennea held the 200m world record for almost 20 years. Then again he’s Italian so he might not count as white. [/quote]

well as i have said SEVERAL times now, a genetic link to ethnicity and speed has been sought after, but not found

and besides… if one wants to be fast, training for speed still seems like a good idea. not sure why you are so worried about the genetic ceiling for speed anyway, i don’t think most people will encounter it without a near decade of specific training (arbitrary number, you get the point)

29

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
just how FAST you can get is a different question,
[/quote]
No. It’s the most important question. [/quote]

So, if you’re not genetically predisposed to being elite an sprinter there’s no point in even trying to improve your foot speed cause either you have it or you don’t?

That line of thinking makes no sense to me. You can’t teach someone to be a superfreak, but you can, in many cases, absolutely teach them to be a hell of a lot faster than they may “naturally” be. To believe otherwise is self defeating, unless you happen to be a superfreak.

[/quote]
You miss the point. The OP was asking about running at a D1 school, i.e., running competitively. It’s not about getting faster than you are but getting fast enough to compete. Anyone can get faster. Anyone can get stronger. Not everyone, and in fact almost no one, can get fast enough to compete at a high level by simply “learning.” How many kids started to “learn” a sport at a young age then continued to “learn” through HS then, when it came time to go to college, had to stick to learning in the classroom because they just weren’t good enough to practice that sport anymore? [/quote]

My point was more geared toward your statement that “speed can’t be taught” period. In my opinion and that of many others more qualified than myself, that statement is simply untrue. Furthermore, that line of thinking is extremely damaging for the long term development of many, if not the overwhelming majority of athletes. My own athletic development was definitely negatively impacted by this widespread belief. And yes, I am a white guy. I am also faster in my 30’s than I ever was in my teens and 20’s, although I am certainly by no means fast enough to run D1 track. I may never have been, but I could definitely have gone further in my other sports if someone had taught my 14 year old self how to be fast instead of just telling me to run.

Speed is a skill that can be developed to a huge extent through consistent, intelligent technical practice and coaching. Most athletic skills and attributes are. The belief that they are the product of “talent”, “genetics” or some other mystical X factor beyond the athlete’s control holds back many athletes who may not be natural “stars” but who could definitely excel through hard work, intelligence and dogged persistence. 10,000 hour rule. If anything, that willingness to work and sacrifice and figure out what really works, combined with the good fortune to find the right coach or coaches at the right time is imo, the real X factor in athletic success, more so than talent or genetics.

Admittedly, however, if you show up at college and then decide to learn to be fast so you can walk on for track, your chances are probably not so great.

30

My little brother is on books (as close to walk on as you can get while still on scholarship pretty much) at Memphis, although a major school, they’re more of a mid-major for xc and track. You could possibly walk on with a 50 flat or faster 400 and a sub 1:58-59 800. You likely would only get to run in very few, if any meets, at those times, but at least they would give you a shot at a small home meet or something most likely.

As far as the assertion speed can’t be taught, that’s such a vague statement. Sure, a kid with bad footspeed will never be able to develop into a sub 10.3 100m runner, but they can still get faster, so I won’t even enter into that pointless argument.

31

[quote]MightyMouse13 wrote:
As far as the assertion speed can’t be taught, that’s such a vague statement. Sure, a kid with bad footspeed will never be able to develop into a sub 10.3 100m runner, but they can still get faster, so I won’t even enter into that pointless argument.[/quote]

My point wasn’t that one couldn’t be taught to run faster but that one can’t be taught to be fast. If you go from an 18 second 100m to a 14 second 100m you got faster but you still aren’t fast. So when I say speed can’t be taught I mean speed in a more absolute sense. A 2012 Corolla might be faster than the first models to come out but it isn’t a fast car. Getting faster than you are at the moment doesn’t mean you are now fast. And to run the 400 or 800 competitively you need to be fast.

32

I’m very curious about this “speed is innate” vs “speed is learned” debate. I realize that every person is different but…

  1. What does everyone think is an average 100m for a lean, healthy, but completely untrained 25 year old male?
  2. And then what would that person’s ceiling be with a couple years of intelligent training?
  3. And what’s an average first attempt at 100m for a genetically gifted person with elite (low 10sec) potential?

I’m just a casual track fan but I would guess the answers might be something like:

  1. 13-14.5sec
  2. 12sec
  3. 11.5-12sec
33

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
just how FAST you can get is a different question,
[/quote]
No. It’s the most important question. [/quote]

So, if you’re not genetically predisposed to being elite an sprinter there’s no point in even trying to improve your foot speed cause either you have it or you don’t?

That line of thinking makes no sense to me. You can’t teach someone to be a superfreak, but you can, in many cases, absolutely teach them to be a hell of a lot faster than they may “naturally” be. To believe otherwise is self defeating, unless you happen to be a superfreak.

[/quote]
You miss the point. The OP was asking about running at a D1 school, i.e., running competitively. It’s not about getting faster than you are but getting fast enough to compete. Anyone can get faster. Anyone can get stronger. Not everyone, and in fact almost no one, can get fast enough to compete at a high level by simply “learning.” How many kids started to “learn” a sport at a young age then continued to “learn” through HS then, when it came time to go to college, had to stick to learning in the classroom because they just weren’t good enough to practice that sport anymore? [/quote]

My point was more geared toward your statement that “speed can’t be taught” period. In my opinion and that of many others more qualified than myself, that statement is simply untrue. Furthermore, that line of thinking is extremely damaging for the long term development of many, if not the overwhelming majority of athletes. My own athletic development was definitely negatively impacted by this widespread belief. And yes, I am a white guy. I am also faster in my 30’s than I ever was in my teens and 20’s, although I am certainly by no means fast enough to run D1 track. I may never have been, but I could definitely have gone further in my other sports if someone had taught my 14 year old self how to be fast instead of just telling me to run.
[/quote]

I’m a black guy and my athletic development was negatively impacted by that belief in the opposite way. Having to supposedly rely on natural talent all I knew how to do was try harder. Now at 34 when I focus I’m faster then I ever was but I feel like I would’ve been a great athlete had I learned these things at 14

34

[quote]bruceprice wrote:
I’m very curious about this “speed is innate” vs “speed is learned” debate. I realize that every person is different but…

  1. What does everyone think is an average 100m for a lean, healthy, but completely untrained 25 year old male?
  2. And then what would that person’s ceiling be with a couple years of intelligent training?
  3. And what’s an average first attempt at 100m for a genetically gifted person with elite (low 10sec) potential?

I’m just a casual track fan but I would guess the answers might be something like:

  1. 13-14.5sec
  2. 12sec
  3. 11.5-12sec[/quote]

Your going to hate my answer but this is far too vague because of

  1. Running technique makes a huge difference in a 100 meter sprint versus long run. Some people move well, like some people are born better dancers and some can learn.
  2. Leg strength plays a huge role and I have yet to see two people with identical leg stregth that you can eye just by looking.
  3. I would say 10.8 - 12. For genetically elite first ever.
35

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]bruceprice wrote:
I’m very curious about this “speed is innate” vs “speed is learned” debate. I realize that every person is different but…

  1. What does everyone think is an average 100m for a lean, healthy, but completely untrained 25 year old male?
  2. And then what would that person’s ceiling be with a couple years of intelligent training?
  3. And what’s an average first attempt at 100m for a genetically gifted person with elite (low 10sec) potential?

I’m just a casual track fan but I would guess the answers might be something like:

  1. 13-14.5sec
  2. 12sec
  3. 11.5-12sec[/quote]

Your going to hate my answer but this is far too vague because of

  1. Running technique makes a huge difference in a 100 meter sprint versus long run. Some people move well, like some people are born better dancers and some can learn.
  2. Leg strength plays a huge role and I have yet to see two people with identical leg stregth that you can eye just by looking.
  3. I would say 10.8 - 12. For genetically elite first ever.[/quote]

Very true. I probably should have phrased my question better. Obviously if you have one thousand fit 25 year olds run 100m for the first time there’s going to be a huge range- probably from low 11s up to around 17 seconds. I’m curious about the 25-75 percentile type people, eliminating those who naturally have great form and power and those who are naturally slow. And then I’m wondering what the typical genetic limitation is on that same group of fit people with middle-range potential.

I ask because I probably fall in that group but I think it would be fun to put myself on a sprinting program and see how much I improve. Right now my form is sloppy, my muscles are tight, and I feel like I lose the coordination to fire everything at once when I get near my top speed. I find this topic so interesting because I wonder if I’m destined to always be that way or if with regular training, if someone like me could typically shave significant chunks off his time.

36

i think the problem with your proposed test and sample would be that they would have terrible sprint endurance…

a 40 yd dash would be better for this question IMO

37

[quote]bruceprice wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]bruceprice wrote:
I’m very curious about this “speed is innate” vs “speed is learned” debate. I realize that every person is different but…

  1. What does everyone think is an average 100m for a lean, healthy, but completely untrained 25 year old male?
  2. And then what would that person’s ceiling be with a couple years of intelligent training?
  3. And what’s an average first attempt at 100m for a genetically gifted person with elite (low 10sec) potential?

I’m just a casual track fan but I would guess the answers might be something like:

  1. 13-14.5sec
  2. 12sec
  3. 11.5-12sec[/quote]

Your going to hate my answer but this is far too vague because of

  1. Running technique makes a huge difference in a 100 meter sprint versus long run. Some people move well, like some people are born better dancers and some can learn.
  2. Leg strength plays a huge role and I have yet to see two people with identical leg stregth that you can eye just by looking.
  3. I would say 10.8 - 12. For genetically elite first ever.[/quote]

Very true. I probably should have phrased my question better. Obviously if you have one thousand fit 25 year olds run 100m for the first time there’s going to be a huge range- probably from low 11s up to around 17 seconds. I’m curious about the 25-75 percentile type people, eliminating those who naturally have great form and power and those who are naturally slow. And then I’m wondering what the typical genetic limitation is on that same group of fit people with middle-range potential.

I ask because I probably fall in that group but I think it would be fun to put myself on a sprinting program and see how much I improve. Right now my form is sloppy, my muscles are tight, and I feel like I lose the coordination to fire everything at once when I get near my top speed. I find this topic so interesting because I wonder if I’m destined to always be that way or if with regular training, if someone like me could typically shave significant chunks off his time.
[/quote]

Including what Milk said below I would say about 15. That would include if you got tired around 50 and had to let momentum carry you the second half. Unless your totally uncoodinated I think you can get significantly lower with training. Significant being cutting another 3 seconds.

38

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

If it could then we should see more white 100m runners, or rather, competitive white 100m runners, no? [/quote]

Not when they’re told at 10 y/o that they don’t have a chance.

Regardless there’s a HUGE difference in speed between someone who is taught and trained to run fast and someone who isn’t. You can always be a faster you.

Heres an interesting take

That was a pretty bad article IMO.
The idea that marathon runners are small for “heat dissipation” rather than the obvious fact that it takes less energy to move a lighter person than a heavier person for 26 miles was where it lost me. But I wasn’t too impressed with the higher center of gravity theory either.

39

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
just how FAST you can get is a different question,
[/quote]
No. It’s the most important question. [/quote]

So, if you’re not genetically predisposed to being elite an sprinter there’s no point in even trying to improve your foot speed cause either you have it or you don’t?

That line of thinking makes no sense to me. You can’t teach someone to be a superfreak, but you can, in many cases, absolutely teach them to be a hell of a lot faster than they may “naturally” be. To believe otherwise is self defeating, unless you happen to be a superfreak.

[/quote]
You miss the point. The OP was asking about running at a D1 school, i.e., running competitively. It’s not about getting faster than you are but getting fast enough to compete. Anyone can get faster. Anyone can get stronger. Not everyone, and in fact almost no one, can get fast enough to compete at a high level by simply “learning.” How many kids started to “learn” a sport at a young age then continued to “learn” through HS then, when it came time to go to college, had to stick to learning in the classroom because they just weren’t good enough to practice that sport anymore? [/quote]

My point was more geared toward your statement that “speed can’t be taught” period. In my opinion and that of many others more qualified than myself, that statement is simply untrue. Furthermore, that line of thinking is extremely damaging for the long term development of many, if not the overwhelming majority of athletes. My own athletic development was definitely negatively impacted by this widespread belief. And yes, I am a white guy. I am also faster in my 30’s than I ever was in my teens and 20’s, although I am certainly by no means fast enough to run D1 track. I may never have been, but I could definitely have gone further in my other sports if someone had taught my 14 year old self how to be fast instead of just telling me to run.
[/quote]

I’m a black guy and my athletic development was negatively impacted by that belief in the opposite way. Having to supposedly rely on natural talent all I knew how to do was try harder. Now at 34 when I focus I’m faster then I ever was but I feel like I would’ve been a great athlete had I learned these things at 14
[/quote]

I know what you’re saying. That’s why I feel compelled to pipe up whenever I hear someone toss out the whole “speed can’t be taught” line.

When I played football in HS (OLB), I was definitely not the fastest kid on the field. I could hit and move well and I had great size for my age and a good work ethic and intensity, but I just wasn’t that fast flat out. We never did timed stuff, but I would have been really lackluster.

Flash forward to me at 32 years of age I end up involved in a program does speed/fitness testing. I have LEARNED a little since I was a kid about what makes fast people fast and what made me slow, but I have done very little actual running outside of fooling around with this or that sport, doing hill sprints etc., but focusing on technique when I do run. With minimal specific prep and at a decent but by no means remarkable fitness level, I turn in a 0:57 400m, a 0:12 and change 100m and a 9:47 2500m (all hand timed and so kind of irrelevant, but you get the idea). I did this at a body weight of 205# (6’4"). Not really impressive times and definitely not D1 track material, but I’m not the slow kid any more either. I haven’t been exposed to radiation or anything since I was a slow-ass 16 year old, so my genetic potential shouldn’t have changed much. What gives?

So yeah, I wonder what I may have accomplished, and more to the point I wonder how many other guys coming up will never get the chance to find out what they might really be capable of for want of proper training.

40

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Flash forward to me at 32 years of age I end up involved in a program does speed/fitness testing. I have LEARNED a little since I was a kid about what makes fast people fast and what made me slow, but I have done very little actual running outside of fooling around with this or that sport, doing hill sprints etc., but focusing on technique when I do run. With minimal specific prep and at a decent but by no means remarkable fitness level, I turn in a 0:57 400m, a 0:12 and change 100m and a 9:47 2500m
[/quote]

What were your times when you started the program and how long did it take you to get them down to the current level?