Is 9.58 really worth 1:37 for 800m?

Sub 1.40 You have to take wind resistance into accout, which is very much higher in the 100m

The 800 hasn't really evolved. A good debate would be to question why not?

deanouk has no concept of track times or the physics involved, and why one time differential is different than another time differential.

Like all Bolt fans they aren't unbiased observers and don't use logic in their assessments.

Running faster results in more wind resistence, it also uses different energy systems in the body.

Thus a shorter distance record of the same differential is by far more impressive than a lengthier record of the same differential. This would only make sense as the athlete is traveling that much faster.

In addition, the shorter race is not rabbited. The longer race is.

A 9.58 is nowhere equal to a 3:43. It is much faster, under 3:40 for sure which is pretty unbelievable unless you're a loon that trusts everything.

you are not having into account anaerobic/aerobic, power/endurance, fast/slow fibers factors. 800 IS NOT a sprint.

What would be wellnow's reasoning behind what or why the 800 has not evolved? Also what other events are on your list of non-evolvers?

wellnow wrote:

Sub 1.40 You have to take wind resistance into accout, which is very much higher in the 100m

The 800 hasn't really evolved. A good debate would be to question why not?

I specifically stated that my original comment was not a sophisticated model, but offered something for comparison. You give your opinion but offer nothing in explaining why 9.58 is worth under 3:40 for a Mile.

I Do have concept of track times thank you.

You said:-

" Thus a shorter distance record of the same differential is by far more impressive than a lengthier record of the same differential. "

Of course a 0.1 improvement at 100m is worth more than a 0.1 at 400m. The question is, how much is 0.1 worth for 400m? Or 800m?

If you take it that Bolt is now 0.13 faster than anyone else in history for 100m, and that this is (in your words) worth sub 3:40 for a Mile (e.g 3.5 secs faster than current WR), I take it that you believe 0.13 at 100m to be c. 3.5 secs at a Mile. What formula would you base that on?

And, does that mean it's worth c.1.75 improvement at 800m, giving what, 1:39.36 for 800m? That's just about believable, but 1:37!?!!

I don't think you can really compare any event to another and say they are equivalent. What does it even mean? The world record is the fastest any human has ever run at the distance in all the attempts that have ever been made, how can you say that one "fastest ever" is better than another "fastest ever". Its just a silly debate. BTW the only other event that has stagnated like the 800 is the 3000m they were both set around the same time (1997 and 1996) and haven't been updated or even approached in years.

I would say 1:39.xx

The same time that Coe would doing if he was born in 1986

Mind you Bolt might well go sub 9.5!

wellnow wrote:

Sub 1.40 You have to take wind resistance into accout, which is very much higher in the 100m

The 800 hasn't really evolved. A good debate would be to question why not?

but there has always been higher wind resistance in the 100m...is that a serious comment?

wellnow wrote:

Sub 1.40 You have to take wind resistance into accout, which is very much higher in the 100m

The 800 hasn't really evolved. A good debate would be to question why not?

Well, I would argue that it's because 800m runners (unlike their 1500m-runner counterparts) are still neglecting aerobic training. Maybe they don't have to run 100mpw in singles, but 800m runners still train like 400m runners. If we could go back in time and have Jeremy Wariner (or similar lanky 400m type) do high school cross-country and focus--REALLY focus--on the 800m in college, he'd be a sub-1:40 guy. Think about it--how many of the US's top 800 guys have ran a 1500 recently? Symmonds? nope. KD? Nope. Brown? Nope. Smith? Nope.

800 training today is probably where it needs to be for preparing for the UPCOMING SEASON, but it does not take into account long-term development. Our 800 runners need a lifetime base of mileage, and because the 800 is such a speed event, that lifetime mileage base has to come during their formative years. 800 runners peak at what, 24? 25? That's only a a few years to get good quality aerobic training in. Here's the problem: the guys who DO put in the aerobic training don't stay in touch with their speed enough during those years, and end up being 1500m runners (not that it's a bad thing...).

So here's the obstacle: HOW do we get aerobic quality and volume while STILL not just "maintaining" speed, but ACTIVELY improving it during an 800m runner's career from age 18 to 23? I think it'll take a new coach with a fresh perspective to overcome this.

I think you've got a point, but I get annoyed when Americans always go on about how Wariner would run under 1:40 if he'd trained for it, just because he "looks tall and slim" like 800m runners should look. If he hasn't got the natural aerobic capacity (i.e high VO2 max) there's only so much he could do with more endurance training.

I do agree with you that a 1:40 800m runner needs to be one of the world's top 1500m runners with international class 400m speed. For me the best candidate we've seen thus far was Coe, with sub 3:30 1500 ability ( and that was under-achieving for him) and 46 dead 400m speed (45.5 relay). I still believe he'd have gone 1:40 (sub 1:41) with more attempts in '81 and without the illnesses of 82/83.

There are a few 800 athletes today that are approaching Coe's 1500 ability, Kiprop, Kamel, Lallou, but not sure whether they've got sub 46 400m ability. I doubt it.

Good site:

If you look at the Purdy Points for various distances you'll see the 800m is the most "off" the world record.

http://run-down.com/statistics/calc.php

WR for the 800m is likely weak. The combination of 400m speed and distance running endurance required to run a fast 800m is hard to come by. The best 800m runners are likely 2nd tier 400m guys clinging to false hopes.

Alan

The only problem with this is it goes against the old adage of track and field that you will usually be better moving up rather than down in events. Almost all 1500m runners have tried the 800m and decided they were better at the 1500m other wise we would just call them 800m runners. However the thought that maybe a 400m runner (people who rarely try the 800m) could step up to the 800 event similar to a 5000m runner stepping up to the 10,000m makes more sense to me. I doubt that Werner could run even a world class time for the 800m but i bet that if several of the top 400m runners in the world stepped up to the event say in the last few years of their career you might see some great success of 400 to 800 converts.

Don't you think there are 400m guys out there who know they're not going to beat Merritt or Wariner who haven't thought about moving up to 800m, if it's an automatic guarantee they'll run great 2 laps? Of course there have been.

Juantorena, Everitt, Borza- all were excellent 400m runners, yet none of them have run faster than 1:42.6. I really don't think it's as easy as that.

The 800m is run around the world as much as the 400 or 1500m, and it makes no sense that all the talent go to the 1 lap or metric mile, giving the 800 a wide bearth.

The 800m is one of the most difficult events to train for and it's no good for a 44 sec 400m guy moving up to the 800 in their late 20's, because they simply wouldn't have the years of background endurance at their disposal.

I think Kipketer's 1:41 WR is actually one of the best in the book. Certainly better than the 400m record. Coe and Kipketer were exceptional athletes, ahead of their time, and so the event has stood still it would seem, with none of the current crop looking like they'll run within a second of the WR. That is why the event looks weak.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Good site:

If you look at the Purdy Points for various distances you'll see the 800m is the most "off" the world record.

http://run-down.com/statistics/calc.php

WR for the 800m is likely weak. The combination of 400m speed and distance running endurance required to run a fast 800m is hard to come by. The best 800m runners are likely 2nd tier 400m guys clinging to false hopes.

Alan

According to the Purdy Points, 1:40.0 is equivalent to 12:53! How many guys have run that fast at 5K? More than a dozen, while no one has yet run within 1 sec of 1:40.

It also says 1:42.0 (which only 3 men have ever run) is equivalent to 44.38 for 400m (the WR back in the late '60's) and 27:33 for 10k.

According to this system, Coe's 1:42.33 WR is inferior to Lasse Viren's 27:38 10k WR. For that alone, I wouldn't put much stock in that system.

I think there's a good chance that there's only so much one can get out of the 800m, and that all the longer events have progressed at an exponentially superior rate due to the increased aerobic capacity required of those events. I'm sure in the last 20 years all the distance athletes haven't suddenly decided to train and work much harder for their advances, while the 2 lap fraternity have been too bone idle and lazy to even attempt to improve!

Perhaps EPO from the mid 90's onwards has something to do with the apparent gulf in times and advances made between the 800 and longer events?

wellnow wrote:

The 800 hasn't really evolved. A good debate would be to question why not?

EVOLUTION IS REAL!!!

haven't read much beyond 1st post yet, so i'll toss out a starter for 10 & see where it goes with refinement

back in '79, hines 9.95 was worth 10.03 basic & bolt is worth 9.62 basic from peking/berlin if you knock off 0.02s for RT + 0.05s for celebrating from 1 to other + wind

that's 10.03/9.62 = 1.0426 ratio

now, a possible improvement factor for 800m is to apply a modified factor to this of

1 + (((100m factor increase)^(800/100) - 1.00 ) / ( 800/100 ))

=

1 + ((( 10.03/9.62 )^8 - 1.00 ) / 8 ) = 1.0495

divide this into 1'43.44 ->

1'38.55

have to see what it offers for other distances - 3 to 10k

the 800m hasn't evolved because it was created on the 8th day by the LORD

matt scherer is an example of why so many 400m guys bomb at moving up.

stupiddddd wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Sub 1.40 You have to take wind resistance into accout, which is very much higher in the 100m

The 800 hasn't really evolved. A good debate would be to question why not?

but there has always been higher wind resistance in the 100m...is that a serious comment?

Yes the wind resistance has all ways been higher in the 100. They are traveling at a faster pace. The faster you go the higher the air resistance is. That is why cars get better gas mileage at lower speeds.