Slowest 400 time for a sub 2 800 that you personally know?

Agree, I still have a hard time understanding how you cannot run faster than 56 or 57 if you are a 2:00 flat 800 guy.... I never ran a 2 flat 800 (more like 2:06), but could easily run 56 just messing around in practice. Yes, those guys must suck at the 400M, and must go out way too slow with the distance runner mentality.

I only went 2:04 but that was running stupid splits like 57 67. I would think a 1:59 guy with great endurance slowest all out 400 would be 56.5 at worst

There’s this guy named Sage Canaday and he said he could break 2 and his best 400 was 57 when he was in college. He made a video with another guy named Spencer Brown and I remember he was trying to sprint 100m and was heel striking for 15s 100 pace; it was absurd. Don’t know how someone like that could go sub 2 , even in their prime but I guess I believe him since he has a 1:04 half marathon pb

This is an interesting question, which I've delt with quite a bit and not just with the 800m. I concur with what several people have posted; 57 is about the slowest. However, most runners whose 400PR is 57x, will not be able to break 2 minutes in the 800 because it takes running a lot of 800m before you connect with the event in the way you need to run it when you don't have much natural speed. To break 2 with a 57x 400PM, you need to run almost the entire race like an all-out sprint. I coached a H.S. kid who was a pretty good 2-miler; he spoke to a college coach his junior year and was told he needed to run a sub-2 800m to be taken seriously even as a walk-on. He ran several 2:01s indoors and out, forget about breaking 2, he could get under 2:01. What I noticed was, his body mechanics looked similar to when he ran longer distances and that he was pacing himself in 800. What I told him is, he needed to run with a sprint body posture and that he needed to run the first 600m as fast as he possibly could and put the last 200m in God's hand. Obviously, that's not sophisticated coaching, but it worked; in one race, he went from 2:01.1 to 1:58.8. The biggest problem for this athlete previously was simply understanding how to run faster. Btw, this athlete ended up significantly improving his 400 and getting much faster in the 800 and the mile as well.

A lot of the problem is most guys (like me 25+, 55+, 2:00) rarely got a chance to run at these distances because there were other guys who were better.

Also, I hated to run all out at those distances. Much preferred the pain associated with longer distances than the "gorilla on your back" pain of the last 150 of a 400/800.

I was at one point friends with a guy who was an Olympic 5k/10k runner (not from the US, but from another English-speaking country). Told me he never ran faster than 58 for a 400, but he was a a 3:45/13:22 guy. That struck me as bonkers, because I was 53 and 4:07/16-flat runner. Not sure if it was true, but that's what he told me.

I broke 2 with 43" 400 speed. Ran something like 1:37 in a TT. So someone with good endurance might be able to break 2 with a 47ish 400 for sure.

Over here, best of 53.3 relay carry. I call that slow.

But I'm of biblical age, having run a 1:58.0 over the 880. That's a half mile, folks. Still, I beat guys on my team over the half who could run under 50... the idea was to build a lead, and not RIG tooo bad.

So during track season I ran 29.?, 59.5, and 2:01.4x. Obviously, 2:01 is a long way from sub 2 but given it was only the 2nd time I ran it that season, it was off of a 1600 double, and it was an even split, I believe I could have run 2 flat mid. So maybe all you need is 59 low speed. You definitely don't need 26 speed, probably closer to 28 high. I'll find out during track season.

I had a friend who could run 23?/52 and who had better 32/XC pr's than I did but who only could run just under 2. So either I'm much more of an outlier (expect perhaps for the 58/3:45 guy) or some people just can't run the 800, hence the 57/sub 2 guys being seen as outliers when they shouldn't be.

When Al Salazar was in his prime it was said in Runner's World that his best 400 was 57, and he was 13:11/27:25 runner for the 5/10. He had 7:43 for a track 3000 in college. Hard to say if he ever broke 2 for 800 but he surely was capable of it. He probably NEVER raced one.

The 57 is plausible because it had to be in a workout of some sort. In college I'm sure Dellinger was never short a man in the 4 x 4 and stuck Salazar in there. In high school he was running with the GBTC and wouldn't have raced a 400 then either. He was a real slow twitcher, and even so he could have squeezed another second or two if had ever actually raced a 400.

It’s absurd to me that some people in this thread actually believe people can run sub 2, with 57-58 second 400m speed

i would say you need atleast 55 seconds to break 2, but that’s if your an endurance beast, 53.5 would be more like it though

I went 2:00.99 with a 56.9 PR.

I coached a kid who went 2:01 point who never broke 60. I believe his 400 PR was the 400 split in his 201 and it wasn't sub 60. That was one of the most amazing races I've seen anyone run.

What do you think the ratios would be for girls?

What should a 58 or 59 girl be able to run the 800 in, assuming she's reasonably strength based?

What 400 speed should it require to run say 2:10?

I think this is correct.

I never broke 55.00 in a 400m (only ran a few), but ran 1:57.5 for 800m. That's not really representative thought. I could do 10x200m in around 27.0 and finish with a 25.xx and also ran 25.0 from a standing start. I could also run 100m in 11.xx with rolling start, and ran a 39.xx 300m in training with a rolling start.

I just never learned how to run a 400m (was more 800/1500/3000/3000 s/c runner) and that's probably true of a bunch of middle-distance runners.

You are correct in terms of how it usually is, but we are talking about what's possible.

I think everyone is different. I ran 1:51.3 FAT (54.X - 56.X) within year of an all-out 400 (in a meet) running 52.1. I think I ran 51.6 on a relay that same year. Granted, both efforts were second (or third) races at a meet, but I don't think it would make much difference.

I also wasn't particularly strong aerobically, more of a pure mile type (4:02). I dropped off hard after a mile having only run 14:40 for 5000. Likely could have gone a little faster in the 5k but not on par with the mile, that's for sure.

In HS I was on the speedier end of the spectrum. 52 low for 400,1:59.8 800, 4:30 mile. But my 2 mile was 10:15 couldn’t go longer than 5 mins.

My guess is there is someone out there who could do it with a 57 high but very rare

Would be interesting to know what Laura Muir could do for a flying 400 in comparison to her 800 pb

A lot under performers there. They should have all been 1:56-59.