stoog wrote:
1) "nearly" every sub 1:43 is not "all" sub 1:43 so your point is wrong. If even just 1 person disobeys your idea, then your idea is not true.
By the way, is there even one exception to this pattern?
stoog wrote:
1) "nearly" every sub 1:43 is not "all" sub 1:43 so your point is wrong. If even just 1 person disobeys your idea, then your idea is not true.
By the way, is there even one exception to this pattern?
Greygoose wrote:
If someone wanted to get 2:02 in the 800, what would you think their 400 PR would need to be? I know it would technically need to be 1:01, but it's unlikely that they'll get 2:02 with that. I was thinking around 57.
This is so different for everyone. I just mentioned in another thread that I know two current HS runners who can't break 58 for 400 and have PRs of 2:01 and 2:03 for 800. They both are relatively slow still for the 1600 but then have sub 9:15 3200 PRs.
What is COMMON is probably 56-57, but there are always outliers. No magic formula applies to all runners.
stoog wrote:
Much of what you said is wrong. A maxed out endurance type could run 2:02 with something like a 58 or maybe even a 59 flat. As with any other distance, even effort is going to give you your best possible time. However, if you have to compete for positioning then your first lap may be faster than your second. If you are purely focused on competing, then your laps can be whatever you want.
Do you really think people can achieve a 2 to 3 sec/ lap jump between 400 and 800? High schoolers rarely make the 5 - 6 sec/ lap jump, college runners can MAYBE do 4 - 4.5 / lap, and professionals 4 / lap. You are saying for 800/1500 endurance types, that if they can drop a 50, they can run 1:44-1:46?
Perhaps the runners you know never raced their 400 m all out. The minimum to run 2:02 would be 57 for a maxed out endurance type. You are neglecting the effects of the anaerobic system on the 800. Sure your 1500, 5k, 10k, marathon races may be 90%+ aerobic, but racing the 400 and 800 properly means that no way those races are 90% aerobic. Even so, do you think Mo Farah, a 5k/10k type who has run 49.xx, can run 1:44?
It would be fair to say the following:
A marathoner would have an 800m pr about 2x his 400m pr
A 100m sprinter would have an 800 pr closer to 3x his 400m pr. Add the need for an oxygen tank if he dare finish the challenge. Most would quit because of boredom. Those guys aren't known to be patient.
Reading all this, nobody said anything that is plain wrong but I noted the intense desire to argue, the need to be right and prove the other wrong.
All the times listed in this thread are possible depending on the runner. Apparently no one has ever seen a negative split. Recall a 1:51 with a 56.5 first.
Hobby juggernaut wrote:
stoog wrote:Much of what you said is wrong. A maxed out endurance type could run 2:02 with something like a 58 or maybe even a 59 flat. As with any other distance, even effort is going to give you your best possible time. However, if you have to compete for positioning then your first lap may be faster than your second. If you are purely focused on competing, then your laps can be whatever you want.
Do you really think people can achieve a 2 to 3 sec/ lap jump between 400 and 800? High schoolers rarely make the 5 - 6 sec/ lap jump, college runners can MAYBE do 4 - 4.5 / lap, and professionals 4 / lap. You are saying for 800/1500 endurance types, that if they can drop a 50, they can run 1:44-1:46?
Perhaps the runners you know never raced their 400 m all out. The minimum to run 2:02 would be 57 for a maxed out endurance type. You are neglecting the effects of the anaerobic system on the 800. Sure your 1500, 5k, 10k, marathon races may be 90%+ aerobic, but racing the 400 and 800 properly means that no way those races are 90% aerobic. Even so, do you think Mo Farah, a 5k/10k type who has run 49.xx, can run 1:44?
Farah has not run 49.xx