sub 1:40 800m

trackhead wrote:

Coe was 46.78 and 3:29.77

Kipketer was 46.5 and 3:40 (probably better than that in reality)

Cruz was 46.0 and 3:35

46.0 + 3:30 = 1:40?

OR

Lee Evans 43.86 and ~4:15

Back in the 50's and 60's, many 400 runners in the US ran cross country. At the time that Evans held the 400 WR, he came to all-comer meets and ran the mile in about 4:30. I have Johnny Gray as 46.3 and 4:07 (mile and not at the same time as 1:42.6).

With Juantorena's conversion from 400 to 800, Evans would have been 1:42.5, but with somewhat better aerobic power from XC, it might have been quite a bit better conversion than that--not Coe's conversion, but it wouldn't have to be with a 3 second edge in the 400.

It could be that the best guy to run 1:40 is in the Hall of Fame.

On a side note, I think the reason so many distance guys think that a great 400 guy could set the 800 WR is because they have spent some much time training and still can't run the 800 time they want to run. They then throw their hands up in the air and scream "I just don't have the speed!", and they take for granted how much endurance a good 800 takes.

It's an interesting event to think about what kind of muscular stamina and energy usage it takes and to balance the advantage of being able to run a 50 quarter like its nothing against being able to run 20 miles like its nothing. (or 12 or whatever, I'm not trying to discuss good MD training)

I agree with one of the earlier posters who said it will probably be a distance guy with crazy speed that does it and not a sprinter that can run smoothly.

Most of those fast quarter guys can run a 50 like it's nothing but if they have to run for more than about 80 seconds or so their muscles just don't have it.

As a biochemical/physiological study this event might be the most interesting test case.

If the first 1.40 is to come from a 400m back round it will not be a sub 44 runner, more likely a 45.? runner. If you have the ability to run sub 44 you probably have too much fast twitch muscles, why MJ could not have done it. Going sub 1.40 involves two 49.9 400m, may not seem a lot for a 44 runner but that is only half way. I think it will come from a guy running 400m in HS but shortly after moving up to 800m. Moving up too late will not give them enough time to adapt.

There was a guy on our team who ran 46.0 for 400 meters.

One time he raced the 800 meters and got outkicked by another guy on the team.

Their time was 2:10 or something like that

I agree that it would have to come from someone with a predominantly distance background who also possessed phenomenal speed. In one of Peter Coe's books (winning running, I think), he actually talks about people interchanging events like the post on this board. He says something to the effect of: Most 400m runners who couldn't excel in their event moved, wrongly, up to the 800. Unfortunatley, they couldn't accel here, either, because they lacked the requisite distance background.

The 800 is certainly not a "long spring", as people would like to regard it. back to back 50 second quarters is HARD! Even 52's is Hard, for a large portion of the distance community. Distance background=important to having the threshold to carry that kind of pace over half a mile.

yeah when you look at the way 400m runners run compared to 800m run there is a HUGE differance.800m have that typical long stride of a distance runner.

they however run MUCH faster than 1500m runners.

It's certainly tantalizing: why couldn't someone run, say, 45 seconds for 400 m, and then follow that up with 55 seconds? I think there's a reason no one has been able to do it. It's a bit like wondering why Hicham El Guerrouj can't run 3:55 for the mile and follow that up with 4:05.

The person who made the hypothesis that most top 400 guys having too much muscle to continue much longer than 80 seconds is the most accurate, IMO. It explains why the 4/8 double is so rare.

Ever hear sprinters wonder what Wilson Kipketer could run if he moved down to the 400?

Typical letsrun poster's logic:

If so and so can run 44 for a 400, then a 50 shouldn't be too hard and he can probably do two back-to-back.

Reality:

It doesn't work that way. For someone training exclusively for the 400, a 50 second 400 is very hard. I would be willing to bet that a 50 second quarter is harder for a 400-trained runner with a PR of 44 than for a 1500-trained runner with a PR of 46. By harder, I mean larger volumes of lactic acid in the legs, not to even mention the mental aspect of it. You can't simply use the time differences to judge difficulty (i.e., you can't say a 50 is always easier for a guy with a 44 PR than it is for a guy with a 46 PR).

Typical letsrun poster's logic:

If you have a 400 guy who's run 44 train for an 800, then they can run 1:40 when given a proper aerobic base.

Reality:

The guy's 400 PR is 44 when he trains exclusively for a 400. If he started doing 800-specific work, his 400 PR would no longer be 44, but probably a 45-46 now. I would be willing to bet that if you took a good portion (obviously you'll find exceptions, but I'm saying a healthy percentage) of 800 guys with PRs of 1:42-1:44 (51-52 pace) with PRs of 45-46 and you trained them for a 400 for 2-4 years, they could run 44+ or 45-.

I'm a bit kinda wondered why noone mentioned Hicham El Guerrouj , has it seems he could have come as close as any one had he focused on the 800m.

but it seems he saw no need to.

the problem is that the 800m is so much more aerobic than the 400m.

At the 30s into the race (400 or 800) you're instantaneous energy use is already 50/50 aerobic/anaerobic and it just goes up from there. At 90s (into the 800m, presumably) the instantaneous energy use is 91% aerobic (Tinman found this info in the resaerch of Perronet). That's that last 200m where the bear jumps on the runners' backs.

I think that Hicham El Guerrouj's aerobic power is so great that his 1:46 for the last 800m of the 1500m at Athens would have been only 1-2seconds shy of his best over 800m, if anything, his HR would have been less 700m into the race than it was before the race (anticipatory rise would play a bigger part than running 800m in 2:01.9). El Guerrouj hasnt raced an 800 for about 10years because he doesn't have much confidence in his speed and doesn't like to lose.

I think the next WR holder will be an endurance based 800m runner with alot of natural speed. Those 400m guys, running -1:40 ain't that easy, I think the best 400:800 ratio that they would get is 800m split = 400m time + 8seconds, which means that the guy would have to run about 42seconds flat in the 400. These 400guys are completely different athletes when they have to run more than a lap, you'd be suprised.

Get some tall, lean Kenyan to run -3:30 in the 1500... then give him a season of super-fast 400m training to get him to run about 45mid 400m, whilst still runnign close to 3:30 for 800m and he will be able to go -1:41 (maybe -1:40)

Think about it this way.... -3:40mile is prehaps similar (abit harder i believe) than running -1:40 for the 800m. Do you think that Kipketer could be the one to run -3:40 for a mile? HELL NO! Kipketer has only just broken 4, and if he trained for the mile, could probably run 3:53 or something, that is, he would have to run roughly 2 X 1:56 800m, a full 15s slower than his 800m PR, roughly convert that to a 400:800 type and that is 7.5s slower than PR at the half-way point

SO, to run -1:40, a 400m runner would have to have 43.5 400m speed and would have to have as good endurance (saying the 400mrunners endurance over 800m is comparable to wilsons endurance over 1mile) as Wilson Kipketer (assuming Kipketer could go from 3:59-3:53). A bulky American 400m runner would not be as good at the 800m as a Kenyan (well former) 800m runner would be at the mile.

*Sorry if that makes no sense what-so-ever.

gav800 wrote:

I think the next WR holder will be an endurance based 800m runner with alot of natural speed. ....

Get some tall, lean Kenyan to run -3:30 in the 1500... then give him a season of super-fast 400m training to get him to run about 45mid 400m, whilst still runnign close to 3:30 for 800m and he will be able to go -1:41 (maybe -1:40)

Why "some tall, lean Kenyan" ? Coe was not tall. Why not a shortish, powerful Ethiopian?? And it would take, in my opinion, more than a "season" of 400m training.

I still stand by my statements: the 1:40 flat or under 800 is OVERdue, and it will be done by either:

* An American 400m man with 44-flat speed moving up (Wariner or maybe Clement), or....

* An Ethiopian who commits to the 800 as a career. (sure he can do some 1500's too, but he will need to focus on 800). And I know that they have not shown a ton of prowess in this event, but.......I just don't think they have tried it much yet.

IT WILL NOT BE AN AMERICAN

I wouldn't think of moving Clement up now. Or at least wait until he makes his hurdling mark.

gav800 wrote:

IT WILL NOT BE AN AMERICAN

Ah hell it may as well be. Coe was english how is that different?

Great topic... this subject has been posted before on Letsrun. But even more enjoyable is the great discussion that has resulted. Thanks to the many posters for their facts, data and in-depth analysis on this topic. And amazingly, not a single derogatory/nasty/insulting reply. I have really enjoyed reading it. This topic is a model for what topics/posts should be on Letsrun.

I am no expert on the topic, but it seems to me that the difference between the 400 and the 800 is the crossover point between a non-aerobic and an aerobic event. That might explain why the 800m world record 'seems' weak in comparison.

It's all about the last 200m.

to run sub 1:40 the athlete i believe would definitely have to be capable of going at least 44.5 in the 400 meters and have a large aerobic base

dream on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it will never happen. he will not run over the 400 meter distance. history says this as true

As a whole the 800m is definitely a crossover, but the second half and particularly that last 200m are so aerobic...