1:15 not even close
1:15 not even close
TrackCoach wrote:
There is a difference between trying to win a race and set a record. Donavan without a doubt is capable of breaking the record but in todays race, the moment he does not look aggressive, the record is out the door.
This was a great post. (Abridged in the quote.)
24.07 / 48.43 (24.36) is a terrible approach to targeting 1:12.81, which is 24.27 pace per 200. People will talk about how he came home slowly in 26.64 for 1:15.07, but it was over from the start.
Even-splitting is not the way to run the best possible 800, and definitely not the best possible 600 (where the approach should be even more aggressive).
Lollollollol
roller coaster wrote:
mr. nice guy wrote:
he said he's very speed oriented. good luck and maybe he'll do some 400s in the future
He likes to think so, but that doesn't mean he is. 47.01 400m vs. 3:35 1500m.
He used to drop 45 second splits on the TAMU relay, easily. After running 800s, no less. I see what you're saying in some sense, because folks like Korir and Saruni can drop sub-45 FAT times. But just because there are 800 runners that are world-class 400 runners does not mean that Brazier isn't incredibly speed oriented/capable of running 44 second relay splits. And that's pretty quick. He just doesn't compete at that distance anymore, but if he did then I would be willing to bet all the money I've ever made that he is an FAT 45.xx guy right now. His indoor 600 where he went out in 48 flat and then wound up for a 24 high last lap was pretty crazy to watch as well.
JumpsDoctor wrote:
His indoor 600 where he went out in 48 flat and then wound up for a 24 high last lap was pretty crazy to watch as well.
I wish that had happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gU9AnVYm3kBearer of Dad News wrote:
JumpsDoctor wrote:
His indoor 600 where he went out in 48 flat and then wound up for a 24 high last lap was pretty crazy to watch as well.
I wish that had happened.
400m - 48.09
600m - 1:13.7
Ok, so his last lap was a 25.6x. Is that so far off from what I said?
JumpsDoctor wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gU9AnVYm3kBearer of Dad News wrote:
I wish that had happened.
400m - 48.09
600m - 1:13.7
Ok, so his last lap was a 25.6x. Is that so far off from what I said?
Yes.
faster indoors off of little training. ive seen this with distance runners before. coming off injury, quick training to get in shape enough for 400s and 800s, and they are actually faster at the shorter distances than they would be off of a full training program for 1600 and/or 3200.
Bearer of Dad News wrote:
JumpsDoctor wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gU9AnVYm3k400m - 48.09
600m - 1:13.7
Ok, so his last lap was a 25.6x. Is that so far off from what I said?
Yes.
My point was that he has tremendous speed, and speed endurance. Closing his last 200m around half a second slower than 24 high does not negate the argument, since it was meant to illustrate that a 48 flat indoor 400 is a breeze for him. I am sorry you are sensitive. Didn't mean to offend you.
JumpsDoctor wrote:
Bearer of Dad News wrote:
Yes.
My point was that he has tremendous speed, and speed endurance. Closing his last 200m around half a second slower than 24 high does not negate the argument, since it was meant to illustrate that a 48 flat indoor 400 is a breeze for him. I am sorry you are sensitive. Didn't mean to offend you.
25.68 is more than .5 slower than 24-high. I feel like you could’ve just added 48.0 and 24-high and realized that was inaccurate (and would equal the outdoor world’s best) before posting false info like fact. I think your last lines are funny because you’re the one who’s taking it personally and refusing to concede you made any error.
Bearer of Dad News wrote:
JumpsDoctor wrote:
My point was that he has tremendous speed, and speed endurance. Closing his last 200m around half a second slower than 24 high does not negate the argument, since it was meant to illustrate that a 48 flat indoor 400 is a breeze for him. I am sorry you are sensitive. Didn't mean to offend you.
25.68 is more than .5 slower than 24-high. I feel like you could’ve just added 48.0 and 24-high and realized that was inaccurate (and would equal the outdoor world’s best) before posting false info like fact. I think your last lines are funny because you’re the one who’s taking it personally and refusing to concede you made any error.
Sure, I was incorrect. But I was also approximating while trying to make a point about his speed, which matters more to me than the decimal points.
JumpsDoctor wrote:
Sure, I was incorrect. But I was also approximating while trying to make a point about his speed, which matters more to me than the decimal points.
Yeah, Donavan Brazier’s very fast. You got that right.
Bearer of Dad News wrote:
JumpsDoctor wrote:
Sure, I was incorrect. But I was also approximating while trying to make a point about his speed, which matters more to me than the decimal points.
Yeah, Donavan Brazier’s very fast. You got that right.
Feels good to agree on something
Isn’t he racing on Sunday as well? In Stockholm 800?
smart and data-driven wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:
There is a difference between trying to win a race and set a record. Donavan without a doubt is capable of breaking the record but in todays race, the moment he does not look aggressive, the record is out the door.
This was a great post. (Abridged in the quote.)
24.07 / 48.43 (24.36) is a terrible approach to targeting 1:12.81, which is 24.27 pace per 200. People will talk about how he came home slowly in 26.64 for 1:15.07, but it was over from the start.
Even-splitting is not the way to run the best possible 800, and definitely not the best possible 600 (where the approach should be even more aggressive).
I've never understood why people say that even splitting is not a good way to run an 800. In every distance event (1500+) when records are trying to be broken pacers go out at perfectly even splits (or a magical light goes around the track). Is this because of the physiological differences of an 800 or do people just have a misunderstanding?
If Vazquez goes out like he usually does and Brazier sticks close to him he has a chance. Lactic acid is a force to be reckoned with though. We'll see what happens.
DoubleA wrote:
smart and data-driven wrote:
This was a great post. (Abridged in the quote.)
24.07 / 48.43 (24.36) is a terrible approach to targeting 1:12.81, which is 24.27 pace per 200. People will talk about how he came home slowly in 26.64 for 1:15.07, but it was over from the start.
Even-splitting is not the way to run the best possible 800, and definitely not the best possible 600 (where the approach should be even more aggressive).
I've never understood why people say that even splitting is not a good way to run an 800. In every distance event (1500+) when records are trying to be broken pacers go out at perfectly even splits (or a magical light goes around the track). Is this because of the physiological differences of an 800 or do people just have a misunderstanding?
In events from a mile down, there is something to be said for the inertia you carry through from a brisk pace developed when you're primarily using anaerobic systems. This is most significant in an event like the 400 while you burn up ATP in the first couple of seconds (free energy, some say), but I think it's demonstrated as far up as the 1500. Tim finished that 1500 after opening in 52. That's obviously too fast, but it suggests to me that the optimal opening pace for him is probably a 54, as it costs you less from an energy perspective to float and try to avoid deceleration (especially when a positive-split race allows room for some deceleration, while an even-split race requires metronomic maintenance that might be more draining/equally draining).
cb800 wrote: We'll see what happens.
Yes. Any minute now.
DoubleA wrote:
smart and data-driven wrote:
This was a great post. (Abridged in the quote.)
24.07 / 48.43 (24.36) is a terrible approach to targeting 1:12.81, which is 24.27 pace per 200. People will talk about how he came home slowly in 26.64 for 1:15.07, but it was over from the start.
Even-splitting is not the way to run the best possible 800, and definitely not the best possible 600 (where the approach should be even more aggressive).
I've never understood why people say that even splitting is not a good way to run an 800. In every distance event (1500+) when records are trying to be broken pacers go out at perfectly even splits (or a magical light goes around the track). Is this because of the physiological differences of an 800 or do people just have a misunderstanding?
There's a solid amount of data that shows positive splits are the fastest way to run. Running an 800 pb on even splits is the outlier, not the norm.
DoubleA wrote:
smart and data-driven wrote:
This was a great post. (Abridged in the quote.)
24.07 / 48.43 (24.36) is a terrible approach to targeting 1:12.81, which is 24.27 pace per 200. People will talk about how he came home slowly in 26.64 for 1:15.07, but it was over from the start.
Even-splitting is not the way to run the best possible 800, and definitely not the best possible 600 (where the approach should be even more aggressive).
I've never understood why people say that even splitting is not a good way to run an 800. In every distance event (1500+) when records are trying to be broken pacers go out at perfectly even splits (or a magical light goes around the track). Is this because of the physiological differences of an 800 or do people just have a misunderstanding?
It’s simple, really: far more anaerobic than 1500, plus creatine phosphate system is important (so a fast initial pace must be utilized)