He’sBackonLRBABY!!!! wrote:
Alan Webb
Actually I take that back. I think it’s Steve Cram.
He’sBackonLRBABY!!!! wrote:
Alan Webb
Actually I take that back. I think it’s Steve Cram.
No 1:48 max
He’sBackonLRBABY!! wrote:
He’sBackonLRBABY!!!! wrote:
Alan Webb
Actually I take that back. I think it’s Steve Cram.
No chance it's a mostly-1500 runner. It's Juantorena.
Knife-fighting expressions are from south of the border.
Bad Wigins wrote:
He’sBackonLRBABY!! wrote:
Actually I take that back. I think it’s Steve Cram.
No chance it's a mostly-1500 runner. It's Juantorena.
Knife-fighting expressions are from south of the border.
Also big in the UK. I think he may have said that announcing at some point too.
I agree that that a controlled 22 would be more realistic for a 1.44
And that's why!
SlowTwitcher wrote:
Given world class aerobic and anaerobic systems is 23.0 sufficient speed to run 1:44
The simple answer is yes, 23.0 speed is more than enough basic leg speed to run 1.44
All the best with the aerobic and endurance work.
Sal
sorry to be that guy on this thread, but are we talking sub 23 FAT or hand-timed? With a rolling start?
I wouldn't say more than enough. I guess it can depend if you're a savvy runner and coming down from the 1500, then could be enough if you don't drop off in the middle quarter.
in general no 23.0 does not cut it, that is if you worked at the 200.
you might get by with 22.5... 22.0 works.
21x is what you need to go 141.
some guys have the lousy 200m time and run a good 8, but they never run the 200 for quality, more for a workout, so it's all smoke and mirrors.
same thing goes for the 400m times of the 800m runners, guys like cram struggle in practice to go sub 49, but that's in
the middle of training and sharpening for the mile, so the PR is bulllshit in these cases.
rest assured that a guy that can go out in 50 flat, and come back in 52 mid running wide, and beats a 141 guy, he can do sub 48....
Hard to say.
23.0 is not fast for a 1:44 800 runner. In fact, I'd guess it's on the slow side. However, if you are otherwise a strong 1500 type, then, yes, 23.0 is likely fast enough to run 1:44 something (but you better also be capable of 3:35...or better).
So, are a good miler (compared to other 23.0 guys you know)? How old are you? Is 23.0 based on lots of sprint training, or just something you went out and ran? Blocks? Spikes? What type of track?
We really don't have enough info to really say for you. However, while 23.0 might be good enough to run 1:44.x, that's about the max, and we're really talking about 1:44.7 or something. Which is darn fantastic, and qualifies as elite (as opposed to sub-elite), but you are lucky to make an olympic or WC team. And very unlikely to make any championship finals if you do.
weighing in wrote:
I had 23.0 200m speed and only ended up running 1:50. I must be a bum.
same here. i ran 23.2, 49.8, 1:51
total bum
the speed strength someone mentioned is real. I never could put that part of it together in an 800 and was just trying to hold it together the last 200m
Nick Symmonds is that you???
No, not anyone that has been mentioned either! I think it's funny trying to figure it out. And yes, I would let you know if you were close.
Old Man 2 Lapper wrote:
A 23 is only one part of being able to run fast in the 800, and it's not really a high bar. If that is your limit then no. I'm sure some of the high mileage guys on here will say otherwise. But as someone who actually ran 1.44 and faster.......you need to bring a bigger knife to the fight.
BS if you had run that fast you would use your real name as other elite on here have done.
SlowTwitcher wrote:
Given world class aerobic and anaerobic systems is 23.0 sufficient speed to run 1:44
What's your 800m pb.
My guess is you are better at 200m than 800m and 23.0 is unlikely to get 1:44 anyway
Subway Surfers wrote:
No 1:48 max
Wrong! There are definitely people with 23.0 200m who are slower than 1:48.
Old Man 2 Lapper wrote:
No, not anyone that has been mentioned either! I think it's funny trying to figure it out. And yes, I would let you know if you were close.
Your second sentence implies you don't know who you are!
You could do it - but only just - if you had top-drawer speed-endurance. I'll give you an example. Murray Halberg, the 1960 Olympic 5000m champ and world record holder over 2 and 3 miles (imperial distances were more typical than metric then) could do 25secs for the 200, 52 for the 400 and 1.52 for the 800. (He was also a 3.58 miler, which he did in 1958). He was one of the first Lydiard-trained athletes - his endurance was fantastic. On the basis of what he could do, as a 23sec guy you could theoretically run a 48 sec 1 lap and 1.44 for the 800, applying the same differentials for the 200, 400 and the 800 as Halberg. But what would count against you is that he was essentially a distance and not a speed guy. His endurance would have been considerably greater than what most top 800 guys would have.
A more realistic example of what you would need is shown by world record holder and Olympic champ in 1960/64 800 specialist (and miler) Peter Snell (again, a Lydiard-trained athlete big on speed-endurance). He was a 1.44 guy (on grass - so he was likely to be sub-1.43, even 1.42 on the best modern tracks! ) Unbelievable in 1962. What was his 200 time? 22 secs. He wasn't as quick as some of his competition, like George Kerr of Jamaica, who was a 21sec guy, but he was still a whole 2 seconds faster over the longer distance - and had a kick for the ages. So, the key is to have great strength and outstanding endurance. Snell was a 100mile a week guy - when he trained. Of course it would help if you are a physical freak.
I could run a 23.1 but only ever managed a 1:57, so my speed endurance must fucking blow.