The women's 400 has been equally bad. But it never was that competitive. So many of these meets are won in 50. It's to the point where the women's 400 hurdles is closing in on average 400 times.
The 400m and Long Jump have a similar problem in that neither of them probably pay as well as the 100m does. I suspect that even being in the top 10 in the 100m in a given year probably pays as well as being one of the top 400m guys or Long Jumpers, and yet it takes nearly world class speed to be at the top of either of those events. What we are left with in the 400m and Long Jump are the guys that aren't fast enough to be world class 100m or 200m guys, which is why 44.x and 27' are winning those competitions.
That guy from China, Wang Jianan, is one of the furthest jumpers in history and the co-national record holder. He's equal 35th on the all-time list.
Not only that he's coached by Randy Huntington, the same guy that coached Michael Powell when he set the world record!
If you want to know why Americans aren't winning long jump medals look no further than the fact that one of the best long jump coaches, ever, is making more money coaching in China than he could in the US. Btw, Huntington is also coaching Su Bingtian, you know the guy that ran the fastest 60 meters ever en route to a 9.83 100m in the Tokyo Olympics.
I was spoiled watching, Myricks, Lewis, Powell, Walder, Connely etc....
Joe Greene only gets a mention of "etc.". Poor timing to come along when Lewis & Powell were around has made Joe forgettable. He would be long jump god in today's LJ world.
Will anyone ever get near Mike Powell and Carl Lewis bests?
I used to think Echevarria would be the one... not any more.
Echevarria was a great talent. Tajay Gayle had some serious potential as well, I don't think he ever fully recovered from getting injured. Luvo Manyonga was another talent with pretty good consistency. Honestly Tentoglou looks to be the top jumper for the foreseeable future, but I don't think that he'll improve much on his PR at this point.
The women's long jump is in even worse shape, exactly one woman (Brittany Reese) has jumped within a foot of the world record in the last 20 years and the top 100 marks are dominated by marks from the 1980s and early 1990s.
We need a major revamp of how field event athletes get paid or the events are going to die in obscurity. The sad thing is the jumps are favorites of people that actually pay to go watch track meets, but without major sponsorships these athletes don't have much hope of being able to make a decent living. In the meantime it's likely the top jumpers are going to continue to come out of countries like China and Cuba where they receive some financial support.
I used to think Echevarria would be the one... not any more.
Echevarria was a great talent. Tajay Gayle had some serious potential as well, I don't think he ever fully recovered from getting injured. Luvo Manyonga was another talent with pretty good consistency. Honestly Tentoglou looks to be the top jumper for the foreseeable future, but I don't think that he'll improve much on his PR at this point.
The women's long jump is in even worse shape, exactly one woman (Brittany Reese) has jumped within a foot of the world record in the last 20 years and the top 100 marks are dominated by marks from the 1980s and early 1990s.
We need a major revamp of how field event athletes get paid or the events are going to die in obscurity. The sad thing is the jumps are favorites of people that actually pay to go watch track meets, but without major sponsorships these athletes don't have much hope of being able to make a decent living. In the meantime it's likely the top jumpers are going to continue to come out of countries like China and Cuba where they receive some financial support.
A huge component of the decline in long jump is that, given the massive emphasis on speed and raw ballistic power (arguably to even a greater degree than the sprints), it is simply not feasible to put the human body through a suitable training regime that would yield WR-adjacent results without the significant use of steroids.
Most field event protocols more generally are still based on old Soviet training science, which themselves were designed to train athletes already on steroid cycles. Those plyometric techniques that build phenomenal jumpers are absolutely BRUTAL on the body, and simply can't be executed properly without significant usage of ergogenic aids. The body just can't recover from that kind of training effectively enough to stay in one piece.
But I agree that there needs to be SOME sort of plan to re-incentivize progress in the field events. It used to be that the LJ was one of the sport's premier events, and that hasn't been the case for decades now. We can no longer rely on state-sponsored sports programs to scour the nation for the people who have the most suitable skill sets for something obscure like the Hammer and train them up, like the Eastern Bloc used to do. The world has changed. It needs to be profitable enough for athletes to keep these events alive.
The 800m is certainly in a downswing, no question about that.
But my point is that the 400m is actively hemorrhaging talent. They come with huge promise and blazing times and then disappear. To say they don't develop is an understatement. They get injured, mysteriously go AWOL, or leave the event entirely.
It's not the case in the 800m that you've got a bunch of 1:41, 1:42 guys that just come out guns blazing and then proceed to fall off the face of the Earth, or decide they are going to become 1500m runners instead.
The 800m is just in a bit of a lull follhe Brazier situation is disappointing for sure, but barring a few other steady declines (Emmanuel Korir, Ferguson Rotich).
This makes me wonder "why do we keep losing talent in the 400m?"
Norman wins WC in Eugene, then doesn't run the event anymore to move down to 100 like Kerley? Doesnt make sense to me.
Is it possible that the 400m is so much more demanding and difficult than the 100/200 in training that guys just don't want to run it? Does anyone have experience with this? How difficult is training for the 400 compared to 100/200?
Go down to any sprint group training session at your local high school and university, and ask the guys your question. The answer will clear. 400m training is legendary for it its sheer physical and mental difficulty, and 100/200 guys know it. Theres a reason so many of them hide behind the bleachers when it's 4x4 time.
The difference is that while 400m training focuses almost exclusively on speed endurance. Any decent sprinter can be trained to build speed endurance to 200 or 250 meters with little difficulty. This doesn't pose much of a physiological challenge, so the training doesn't need to be particularly grueling. More to the point for the really heavily fast-twitch guys is keeping them healthy and fresh, while building their capacity for power output in the offseason. It's really the last 150-200 meters that makes the difference because the human body just goes into oxygen debt, and theres not much that can be done about it, other than trying to push that lactic threshold a millimeter further each session, day in and day out, year after year for your entire career.
Its a massive difference, and much more of a head-game than the short sprints.
Echevarria was a great talent. Tajay Gayle had some serious potential as well, I don't think he ever fully recovered from getting injured. Luvo Manyonga was another talent with pretty good consistency. Honestly Tentoglou looks to be the top jumper for the foreseeable future, but I don't think that he'll improve much on his PR at this point.
The women's long jump is in even worse shape, exactly one woman (Brittany Reese) has jumped within a foot of the world record in the last 20 years and the top 100 marks are dominated by marks from the 1980s and early 1990s.
We need a major revamp of how field event athletes get paid or the events are going to die in obscurity. The sad thing is the jumps are favorites of people that actually pay to go watch track meets, but without major sponsorships these athletes don't have much hope of being able to make a decent living. In the meantime it's likely the top jumpers are going to continue to come out of countries like China and Cuba where they receive some financial support.
A huge component of the decline in long jump is that, given the massive emphasis on speed and raw ballistic power (arguably to even a greater degree than the sprints), it is simply not feasible to put the human body through a suitable training regime that would yield WR-adjacent results without the significant use of steroids.
Most field event protocols more generally are still based on old Soviet training science, which themselves were designed to train athletes already on steroid cycles. Those plyometric techniques that build phenomenal jumpers are absolutely BRUTAL on the body, and simply can't be executed properly without significant usage of ergogenic aids. The body just can't recover from that kind of training effectively enough to stay in one piece.
But I agree that there needs to be SOME sort of plan to re-incentivize progress in the field events. It used to be that the LJ was one of the sport's premier events, and that hasn't been the case for decades now. We can no longer rely on state-sponsored sports programs to scour the nation for the people who have the most suitable skill sets for something obscure like the Hammer and train them up, like the Eastern Bloc used to do. The world has changed. It needs to be profitable enough for athletes to keep these events alive.
I've been reluctant to bring up drugs on here, but yeah that's probably part of it as well. With Biopassport and the AIU this might be what the clean(er) sport we've all been asking for looks like. Suddenly 9.9, 44.0 and 27' are competitive marks again. The men's records are going to start looking like the women's records, these otherworldly marks set in a completely different era. Maybe someday we'll come to our senses decades from now and wipe the slate clean and start over again.
A huge component of the decline in long jump is that, given the massive emphasis on speed and raw ballistic power (arguably to even a greater degree than the sprints), it is simply not feasible to put the human body through a suitable training regime that would yield WR-adjacent results without the significant use of steroids.
Most field event protocols more generally are still based on old Soviet training science, which themselves were designed to train athletes already on steroid cycles. Those plyometric techniques that build phenomenal jumpers are absolutely BRUTAL on the body, and simply can't be executed properly without significant usage of ergogenic aids. The body just can't recover from that kind of training effectively enough to stay in one piece.
But I agree that there needs to be SOME sort of plan to re-incentivize progress in the field events. It used to be that the LJ was one of the sport's premier events, and that hasn't been the case for decades now. We can no longer rely on state-sponsored sports programs to scour the nation for the people who have the most suitable skill sets for something obscure like the Hammer and train them up, like the Eastern Bloc used to do. The world has changed. It needs to be profitable enough for athletes to keep these events alive.
I've been reluctant to bring up drugs on here, but yeah that's probably part of it as well. With Biopassport and the AIU this might be what the clean(er) sport we've all been asking for looks like. Suddenly 9.9, 44.0 and 27' are competitive marks again. The men's records are going to start looking like the women's records, these otherworldly marks set in a completely different era. Maybe someday we'll come to our senses decades from now and wipe the slate clean and start over again.
Agreed. I'd even argue that the women have even had an easier time of it, in a sense, because several field events were actually only added recently. The Triple Jump, Hammer, and Pole Vault are all relatively new additions, AND the Women's Javelin got redesigned in 1999.
So in fact only 4 out of 8 field WRs are from pre-WADA days on the Women's side, while it's 6 out of 8 on the Men's. But yes the other four women's WRs (LJ, HJ, SP, DT) do seem to be pretty much set in stone. I see no other way out than to start fresh.
For a few seasons in a row, the 400m, one of the marquee events on the track, just seem to get better and better every year. Only a handful of men had ever broken 44 seconds before 2013, now 22 men have done so. And yet, despite a historical range of talent, many of these guys have risen and spectacularly fallen since Van Niekerk broke the record in 2016. Look at the sub-44 guys that, as of the present moment, haven't kept their form.
Van Niekerk: Specatularly disastrous injury in 2016 right after breaking the WR. Only now FINALLY, after being off of the map for nearly SEVEN years, looks like he we could see him approach his previous form once again (which I'm very happy to see).
Michael Norman: Changes coaches, drops the 400 altogether (?) falls off the face of the earth
Fred Kerley: Drops event altogether, has a fantastic year in 2022 but has already failed to even make the team in 200. Through in 100 on a bye, which looks far from promised. Maybe we will see him back again at 400m if this gamble falls through.
Champion Allison: ???. 43.70 in 2022, only 46.x in 2023.
Randolph Ross: Suspended for all kinds of shady business.
Muzala Samukonga: New star? Who knows. Out injured.
Anthony Zambrano: Hasn't broken 45 since 2021.
Akeem Bloomfield: Hasn't broken 45 since 2020.
One-and-done Masrahi (drugs) and MacDonald (maybe starting to make a comeback?) after 2015 Worlds.
Only the perennially-overlooked Steven Gardiner, and hopefully Van Niekerk once again, march onwards.
Any other precedent for such a historical loss of talent in just a few seasons?
If I remember correctly Van Niekerk doubled 200-400m at 2017 London Worlds, so he didnt injure back in 2016.
For me both 400&800m have the same issue. Both are events where the main focus is lactic threshold and speed endurance, which means lots of reps at a very high intensity (95-100%), which inevitable leads to injuries. Its very difficult to maintain the hard intensity of this kind of training for a long time. Longer events 1500 and above rely more on aerobic work and shorter events (100-200m) are more focused on technical details. Just my opinion
For me both 400&800m have the same issue. Both are events where the main focus is lactic threshold and speed endurance, which means lots of reps at a very high intensity (95-100%), which inevitable leads to injuries. Its very difficult to maintain the hard intensity of this kind of training for a long time. Longer events 1500 and above rely more on aerobic work and shorter events (100-200m) are more focused on technical details. Just my opinion
great events 400m and 800m with their many energy system sources.
This post was edited 29 seconds after it was posted.
This makes me wonder "why do we keep losing talent in the 400m?"
Norman wins WC in Eugene, then doesn't run the event anymore to move down to 100 like Kerley? Doesnt make sense to me.
Is it possible that the 400m is so much more demanding and difficult than the 100/200 in training that guys just don't want to run it? Does anyone have experience with this? How difficult is training for the 400 compared to 100/200?
Go down to any sprint group training session at your local high school and university, and ask the guys your question. The answer will clear. 400m training is legendary for it its sheer physical and mental difficulty, and 100/200 guys know it. Theres a reason so many of them hide behind the bleachers when it's 4x4 time.
The difference is that while 400m training focuses almost exclusively on speed endurance. Any decent sprinter can be trained to build speed endurance to 200 or 250 meters with little difficulty. This doesn't pose much of a physiological challenge, so the training doesn't need to be particularly grueling. More to the point for the really heavily fast-twitch guys is keeping them healthy and fresh, while building their capacity for power output in the offseason. It's really the last 150-200 meters that makes the difference because the human body just goes into oxygen debt, and theres not much that can be done about it, other than trying to push that lactic threshold a millimeter further each session, day in and day out, year after year for your entire career.
Its a massive difference, and much more of a head-game than the short sprints.
I remember reading an interview with WvN back in the day that 400m is not even his favorite event which is a good indication of why people avoid it !
Personally I ran 800m and I understand why people avoid that as well .. I think I feel better after racing a marathon now than the 800s back then ..
The event has not attracted truly talented runners in the US. The runners coming through the NCAA system are not developed with the long term in mind. Unless they turn it around, Holloway is squandering a lot of talent down in Gainesville. Kerley understood how weak the 100m field was and how hard 400m training is and how nuanced the racing can be. Norman is done. Listening to Benjamin speak after his race, he was shook that his friend just up and left their set up at USC. Just as it always comes up in soccer, maybe the best athletes are now drawn to year round football, playing receiver on the 7 on 7 circuit after their season.
Look at the 5000m or 400mh recently. Close to nobody breaking 13' in the 5000m, nobody watching the 400mh. Complete overhaul in a few years.
It just goes away and comes back. Just wait.
Yes, and generally I agree about the ups and downs that an event goes through.
But my point with the 400 is that by all account we SHOULD be at the top of the cycle, now. All the talent is there, its just fizzling out for many reasons, and the event can't gain much traction.
The event has not attracted truly talented runners in the US. The runners coming through the NCAA system are not developed with the long term in mind. Unless they turn it around, Holloway is squandering a lot of talent down in Gainesville. Kerley understood how weak the 100m field was and how hard 400m training is and how nuanced the racing can be. Norman is done. Listening to Benjamin speak after his race, he was shook that his friend just up and left their set up at USC. Just as it always comes up in soccer, maybe the best athletes are now drawn to year round football, playing receiver on the 7 on 7 circuit after their season.
So I've had this inkling about the NCAA system for a long time. I think generally bridging the gap between collegiate and professional careers is difficult for many reasons, but could you explain what you're thinking of in particular about not being developed for the long-term?
Go down to any sprint group training session at your local high school and university, and ask the guys your question. The answer will clear. 400m training is legendary for it its sheer physical and mental difficulty, and 100/200 guys know it. Theres a reason so many of them hide behind the bleachers when it's 4x4 time.
The difference is that while 400m training focuses almost exclusively on speed endurance. Any decent sprinter can be trained to build speed endurance to 200 or 250 meters with little difficulty. This doesn't pose much of a physiological challenge, so the training doesn't need to be particularly grueling. More to the point for the really heavily fast-twitch guys is keeping them healthy and fresh, while building their capacity for power output in the offseason. It's really the last 150-200 meters that makes the difference because the human body just goes into oxygen debt, and theres not much that can be done about it, other than trying to push that lactic threshold a millimeter further each session, day in and day out, year after year for your entire career.
Its a massive difference, and much more of a head-game than the short sprints.
I remember reading an interview with WvN back in the day that 400m is not even his favorite event which is a good indication of why people avoid it !
Personally I ran 800m and I understand why people avoid that as well .. I think I feel better after racing a marathon now than the 800s back then ..
So I'm beginning to think that this is really just attributable to genuine attrition. Legitimate mental and physical burnouts at maybe a higher rate than other events.
Because as others have noted, we DO end up seeing a fairly consistent number of sub-44s each season, its just that the performers keep disappearing.
Maybe this has always been the case at 400m, just that the bar has moved forward as far as times go. Could be the case that its just more noticeable because we aren't used to seeing so many sub-44 guys.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.