i've dedicated the last 2 years of my life to retraining my nervous system, at the expense of lookin gay and autistic (depsite being neither) in order to learn how to run most effectively
You always see athletes that focus the 100/200, or 200/400, but rarely just the 200M.
"Focusing on the 200M" doesn't make any sense. It exists either because it gives the 100M losers a chance to win another race, or to give the 400 runners a bit of speed work after they run their main race prior.
If you excel at the 200M but refuse to run any other race, you are wasting talent on a more significant event.
A 21.00 200M runner should be able to run either a 46.00 400M or a ~10.3x 100M
The mix of top speed and speed endurance in the 200M is a byproduct of either the 100M athlete or the 400M athlete.
It is, and always will be a secondary event.
Actually the 200 was the first running event ever contested in the ancient Olympics. It was called a Stade, the original length of a foot race (600ft / 181 meters). Hence the word stadium.
i've dedicated the last 2 years of my life to retraining my nervous system, at the expense of lookin gay and autistic (depsite being neither) in order to learn how to run most effectively
EVERY event after 100 and 200 exists for people who are too slow for those events.
Too slow for the 100 and 200? Do the 400. Too slow for that? Try the 800. Can’t do that? Go for the 1500. Still too slow? Take up the 5k and 10k. Not quite fast enough? Run a marathon.
Id like you to say that to Bednarek or Knightons face. If they werent such nice guys youd probably feel the David Schultz open hand smack like ABCs 20/20 John Stossel did for calling pro wrestling fake.
The 200 is a great speed endurance race. 100 guy isnt always going to win it but lately they have. K ighton and Bednarek could both move up to the 400 and lead those fields as well but the training is too far out of the sprint spectrum and wouldnt help the 100. It's about opportunity to compete for the athletes. If you dont want to watch, then dont. But im sure many here will watch Kessler in the 800 and 1500 even tbough his chances of medaling or even making the 800 final are nil.
You always see athletes that focus the 100/200, or 200/400, but rarely just the 200M.
"Focusing on the 200M" doesn't make any sense. It exists either because it gives the 100M losers a chance to win another race, or to give the 400 runners a bit of speed work after they run their main race prior.
If you excel at the 200M but refuse to run any other race, you are wasting talent on a more significant event.
A 21.00 200M runner should be able to run either a 46.00 400M or a ~10.3x 100M
The mix of top speed and speed endurance in the 200M is a byproduct of either the 100M athlete or the 400M athlete.
True! As the say, the other events are for people who can't cut it in the 100m. Why slave away with long distance training with little exposure when you can do the much easier (but more competitive) 100m with vastly more exposure and popularity.