Could Jeremy wariner step up to the 800 and run sub 1:42?

People go on about figures for anaerobic vs aerobic blah blah blah over the 800m are complete idiots. It is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

The beauty of the 800 meters is that it is the one event where athletes of so many physical makeups can compete to the same high level.

Juantorena and Cram had roughly the same person bests over 800 meters - 1.42 high for Cram and 1.43 for Alberto. Yet Alberto was a 44 flat 400m guy - Cram by his own admission could run 49.5 seconds for 400m and "just under 49" in a relay leg.

On paper Juantorenas "anaerobic potential" is far higher than Cram, and he would appear under "67-33" theories to be far better suited to 800m running. Yet Cram ran faster. And this is just one case that I can be bothered writing about.

Some amazing 800 meter runners are also anaerobically AND aerobically poor by elite standards, they just simply have other completely unexplainable physiological assets such as acid buffering at certain speeds (for an elite guy 25.5-26.0 second pace), and thats what makes them good. This alone throws any "anaerobic vs aerobic % values" OUT THE WINDOW

Americans should be able to recognise this better than anyone. Every year you get completely random guys coming out of your college system busting out 1.45's at the NCAAs who have neither blazing 400 speed or miler endurance (best example Jeremy Mimms who might have even run 1.44 - he warmed up in freakin basketball shorts and kicks and might have run 47.5 on a good day and under 3.50 for 1500 in his wildest dreams - yet an amazing 800m guy)

It also never ceases to amaze you guys who also quote guys like "William H Freeman". William H Who? Who says this guy knows what he is talking about? How fast did he ever run? How long did he train for the 800 meters? Too many of you guys have "University'itis" of believing any crap you read from text book.

there is no way cram had only 49.5 ability

in the race where he beat cruz & set his 1'42.88pb, he went thru in 50+

it is impossible to run within 1s of your 400pb & set a 800pb ( & a huge one ) off it

cram had to be at least 48-flat ability that day

Cram himself said it! It is completely reasonable that a lanky MD runner like Cram (running the 800m coming down from the mile) would be hopeless out of the blocks - bad enough to stunt a stellar time over 400 meters.

In Zurich Cram goes through 400m in just under 51 seconds. Last time I watched the race on youtube I think I timed his last lap at 51.9. And Cram was a master of this - one of the only 800m guys that could ever bust out even splits at such an incredibly high level (another case in point when he won the 1986 Commonwealth Games in 1.43.22 running 51.3 for the last 400m).

So assuming he actually bothered training for the 400 and practising his block starts, maybe he runs a fraction under 49 seconds. For a guy with 3.46 mile strength and his obvious economy and lactic acid buffering ability at 25.5 second 200 meter speed, it is ENTIRELY plausible that Cram could sustain such pace even though it is about 2 seconds slower than his 400 meter time.

Also remember that in using Cram here we are talking about arguable one of the most talented MD runners of all time. As I just said, not many (if any) have ever had that even paced ability at such a level that Cram had.

Anyway, even if you want to give Cram a 48 flat 400 at his best, he is still 4 seconds slower than Juantorena, even 3 seconds slower than Borzakovskiy. That is more than substantial and more than enough to prove my original point that attaching anaerobic/aerobic values to an ideal 800m runner is pointless

The Bare Facts wrote:

loiuktyjgf wrote:

200m run: 29% aerobic; 71% anaerobic

400m run: 43% aerobic; 57% anaerobic

800m run: 66% aerobic: 34% anaerobic

1500m run: 84% aerobic; 16% anaerobic

http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/training/energysys.htm

It's funny...in the last 20 years there have been sources that flip the 800m ratio entirely. For example, "The 800 meter is approximately 67% anaerobic to 33% aerobic." - William H. Freeman, Peak When it Counts(1989)

That's why I say 50-50. Do we really know for sure? It's probably athlete dependent.

***************************************

The change in the figures are due to the realization that lactate can be metabolized aerobically during the race.

A lot what you say is true, but do you really think every physiologist who has studied this is an idiot? Let me guess, everyone who isn't as brilliant as you is an idiot.

All I'm saying is based on what I, a complete amateur, have observed being around the sport for many years - that 400m runners generally make poor 800m runners. And I believe that the reason for this is that the 800 is a very aerobic-intensive event. Whether it's 50-50, 60-40 either way, 70-30 - I really don't know.

And I really don't care if some young dude comes on here and asks the question about Wariner or M. Johnson or any other 400m runner from time to time. Not everyone has monitored Letsrun 24/7 for the past 10 years.

"Some amazing 800 meter runners are also anaerobically AND aerobically poor by elite standards, they just simply have other completely unexplainable physiological assets such as acid buffering at certain speeds (for an elite guy 25.5-26.0 second pace), and thats what makes them good. This alone throws any "anaerobic vs aerobic % values" OUT THE WINDOW"

Acid buffering IS aerobic capacity, you idiot.

"400 meter is 63/37, 800 meter is 39/61"

"400 meter is 57/43, 800 meter is 33/66"

"400 meter is 59/47, 800 meter is 40/60"

Obviously it differs some. The 400 is ~42% aerobic and the 800 is ~62% aerobic.

Who besides Juantorena was world class at both the 400 and the 800? The only other guy who comes to mind is Marcello Fiasconaro.

In 1972, he set a world indoor record in the 400 meters of 46.1 (his outdoor best was 45.49). In 1973, he set a world record in the 800 meters of 1:43.7.

sdfghj wrote:

"Some amazing 800 meter runners are also anaerobically AND aerobically poor by elite standards, they just simply have other completely unexplainable physiological assets such as acid buffering at certain speeds (for an elite guy 25.5-26.0 second pace), and thats what makes them good. This alone throws any "anaerobic vs aerobic % values" OUT THE WINDOW"

Acid buffering IS aerobic capacity, you idiot.

What???????

I agree with your point that Cram wasn't anywhere near world class at 400m, and that he was extremely good at running even splits in his fast 800m runs, but Ventolin is right in suggesting that his 400m ability was a bit better than you first suggest.

In Autumn '84 he ran a 47.6 relay leg when running in the Far East (part of a mini tour). That's worth between 48.1-48.3 for 400m flat. If he was at this standard then, he must have been worth at least 0.5 secs faster by August 85 (or 86). I would say at his very best, he could run between 47.5-48.0. With this in mind, 51.5 for the first 400m (4.0 above his ability) would be about ideal.

His 49.1 pb was set in 1982, when he was only a 1:44.5 guy. By 85 he was a second and a half faster than this. I would argue that he was pretty close to his limit when he ran 1:42.88 in 85. (51.2/51.7). His splits in Edinburgh '86 were v. similar; 51.7/51.5.

Living in the Past wrote:

Who besides Juantorena was world class at both the 400 and the 800? The only other guy who comes to mind is Marcello Fiasconaro.

Rudolf Harbig. He ran 1:46.6 (a WR by nearly two seconds!) and 46.0 (another WR), both in 1939. That 800 time, in particular, has held up pretty well--still very respectable, ~70 years later.

Obviously it's different.

For a 1:41 800m runner, the 800 is as hard as you can run for one minute and forty one seconds. For a 2:00 runner, it is as hard as you can run for two minutes. Those are two different events in terms of time competing. Obviously a 1:41 runner's 800 is greater %wise for anaerobic, and the 2:00 runner is greater %wise for aerobic.

What would Lashawn Merrit run in an 800? We don't care about sprinters.

formerly present wrote:

Living in the Past wrote:

Who besides Juantorena was world class at both the 400 and the 800? The only other guy who comes to mind is Marcello Fiasconaro.

Rudolf Harbig. He ran 1:46.6 (a WR by nearly two seconds!) and 46.0 (another WR), both in 1939. That 800 time, in particular, has held up pretty well--still very respectable, ~70 years later.

I think the 46.0 is just as respectable as 1:46.6... an early speedster to be sure

loiuktyjgf wrote:

200m run: 29% aerobic; 71% anaerobic

400m run: 43% aerobic; 57% anaerobic

800m run: 66% aerobic: 34% anaerobic

1500m run: 84% aerobic; 16% anaerobic

http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/training/energysys.htm

Wasn't as of 5 years ago it was

800m 51% aerobic/49% anaerobic

1500m 66% aerobic/33% anaerobic

5000m 84% aerobic/16% anaerobic

No, it´s been knewn longer. Some people still are looking wrong old sources.