Range of a sprinter

[Shango]

Do you think a good 100m sprinter should be capable of running a quality 400m and is the reverse necessary?

[Mike88]

Thats a very good question as the record 200m sprinter also holds the record for the 400m but his 100m time is about 0.3s slower than the W.R whereas the 100m record-holder cannot get close to the 200m record time, nor the 400. I think it's the way they train- they train for a specific event

[Run4Fun]

Well I feel that I am a good 100 meter sprinter (10.9), and I ran a 50.x last year, and most likely of broken 50 if I hadn't torn my quad. I also ran a 18:30's 5k during xc this year, so I have a big range.

In my experiences, it isn't always how you are made, or composed, but more of how you train. My friend was the typical 100 meter power sprinter type, and then he goes a runs a 1:55 800.

[Shango]

Powell has run under 19.90s for the 200m. He has run 47.17s for 400m. The reason why he does not do very well in the 200m is because he does not like to do anything over 100m. His coach has had to push him to do more of the longer sprints. But he can run a very good 200m if not go after the world record. You have to have range in this sprinting thing I believe. Range is important for any sprinter. Or any athlete.

[getsgoin]

I find it really depends on the individual. I think it is important to practice different length races because it helps with quick feet and endurance. Even if you do not run them in a official race it is important to work all aspects and lengths.

[grasshopper]

Since the original question is a matter of ability and not records while running I will say yes. Different lengths help you stay on your toes and work on different things. It doesn't mean you have to medal in each of them, but using them in practice is a very good idea.

[Kelly]

I agree that using them both in practise is a good thing, because the one helps you work on your explosive start and the other helps with endurance. However when it comes down to it, I find that most people have one that they are best at.

[Walter-Ernest]

Do you think a good 100m sprinter should be capable of running a quality 400m and is the reverse necessary?
I believe that both are acheivable and have been accomplished by many in decades past. IMHO, there are very few today that would venture up or down. Incentive vs. perceived diminished status and all that.

Would you agree that with the proper training protocols and dedication to improving one's speed reserve that high marks on both ends of the f/t curve are possible?

[Kelly]

I know I am not the poster that you are quoting, but yes I would agree that with the correct training that almost anything is possible. However, I would guess that most people have a favourite event and would work harder on that, and that would tip the balance.

[Run4Fun]

To me, It seems it is more likely for a distance person to be on both sides of the spectrum, because they can do speed training while incorporating their distance work, while it is much more of a negative to have a sprinter do distance stuff. I have a friend that runs a 15 minute 5k, a 9:30 2 mile, a 1:55 800, and a 51 400, so I would say he is someone is both capabilities.

[jackrabbit]

My events are typically the shorter sprints if I can have a say but I work in just as much time on longer runs in practice. Yes I pay more attention to the short sprints, but I do get in the endurance as well.