Discus.
Discus.
neither. How many 800 greats were also great at either 400 or 1500? Coe, Juantorena. Everett if you can call him great.
Rudisha runs a competent 400. Aouita won 800's but wasn't a great. Same for Ovett. Kiprop. Lots of multi-eventers could win a tactical 800 at a championship, but if they can't go sub 1:43, they're not great.
to sum up with a haiku,
to be truly great
you must pour all of your hate
into just the 8
Nice haiku.
So would you say that mileage is not needed to succeed in the 800 Meters? Seems like everyone on this board is head over heels over mileage.
400/400H/800
Low mileage, speed endurance focus, no junk miles
EOT
An 800 training plan should include elements of both 400 and 1500 training.
Another benefit from longer intervals and continuos tempo runs is they mentally make racing the 800 a lot shorter and less intimidating.
Agreed. Lately, I've been finding that cruise (10k pace) intervals are the glue that hold slower and faster paces together, and can be done year around because they're not too harsh to break down the aerobic buildup. This is especially neglected by guys that have a bit of pace about them, but are more endurance-oriented
A lot of 400m runners could step up if they weren't too lazy to do the occasional long run.
I heard that from a former US t&f coach but it makes sense to me.
Bad Wigins wrote:
neither. How many 800 greats were also great at either 400 or 1500? Coe, Juantorena. Everett if you can call him great.
Hmm. Wasn't there a guy from New Zealand who was pretty good at both 8 and 15? Like WRs in the 8 and the mile? And OG golds at 8 and 15? Named Max Schnell or something? I could be wrong...
And wasn't there an American who was pretty fair at those same distances? Broke the NZ guy's 880 record, set WRs in the mile and 1500? Named Jamon Runyan or something? I could be wrong...
To answer the thread's actual question: different things work for different people. Juantorena trained very, very differently from Snell. Both had great success at 800.
lease wrote:
Hmm. Wasn't there a guy from New Zealand who was pretty good at both 8 and 15? Like WRs in the 8 and the mile? And OG golds at 8 and 15? Named Max Schnell or something? I could be wrong...
And wasn't there an American who was pretty fair at those same distances? Broke the NZ guy's 880 record, set WRs in the mile and 1500? Named Jamon Runyan or something? I could be wrong...
I was waiting for this. At risk of this thread devolving into a flame war about doping, the amphetamine-addled 50's and 60's don't count. Since in-competition testing began, there's been Coe and Juanto, and that's pretty much it.
There is overlap of training methods, of course. But if you want to run a fast 800, they should be geared toward the 800, not another event.
Man, you are a risible excuse for a troll.
Of course it's common knowledge in NZ athletics circles that Snell did more speed and coke than Charlie Sheen, Robert Downey Jr, and John Belushi put together. This, and only this, accounts for his success. Not strong aerobic mileage and the legendary Waiatarua long run, not his natural speed and strength cultivated by alactic sprints and hill bounding, and certainly not the innovative (for the time) peaking methods employed by Lydiard.
I don't know as much about Ryan, but I dare say that Americans would see your comments as equally retarded.
Don't you think Coe and his contemporaries blood doped, so you better scrub him from your list?
Bad Wigins wrote:
neither. How many 800 greats were also great at either 400 or 1500? Coe, Juantorena. Everett if you can call him great.
Rudisha runs a competent 400. Aouita won 800's but wasn't a great. Same for Ovett. Kiprop. Lots of multi-eventers could win a tactical 800 at a championship, but if they can't go sub 1:43, they're not great.
to sum up with a haiku,
to be truly great
you must pour all of your hate
into just the 8
Your stupidity is breathtaking.
I think the 8 is one of the coolest events to train, because you get such a diversity of athletes competing in it. I think a lot of people will say that it depends on your athlete and other such scenarios.
For example, if you're one leg short from a 4x4 that could place/win at state/conference/nationals and your athlete is ok with sacrificing a little bit of strength work to help the team out. Then it might make more sense to train them 4/8.
One advantage that I don't think is talked about as much is that when you train an athlete more on the 8/15 side, the resulting strength makes rounds easier. I notice a lot of top notch 800 athletes that are all-americans in high school, and can post fast times during the season, but struggle with the rounds at NCAAs.
I think nowadays it seems most 800m runners are more strength based. The days of a great 800 runner being able to run a fast 1500 are over. Look at the finalists from 2012. I think symmonds is the fastest over 1500 with a 3.34. Andrew Osagie has barely broken 3.50 for 1500. Speed and strength endurance seem to be more important in modern day 800m runner IMO