Yakob Ing vs Fred Kerley in an 800m...who wins?

Setting aside those two guys, I’ve always assumed 600 is about the end of where true sprinters can still look borderline elite and the shortest where mid distance guys start to look really fast.

I agree that the entire premise of this being a fair matchup is absurd. Clearly Kerley loses an 800 by a mile. I just think that indicating that 5 years of event specific training can’t convert a 43.x 400m runner into a sub 2 is over the top. 52 flat, aerobically underdeveloped HS freshman run under 2 minutes. 43.x is just too big a cushion IMO to say that running under 2 minutes wouldn’t happen.

It would be a competitive race at 800m for an elite 400m specialist against an elite pure Marathoner. In early teens, we see many athletes equally competitive 400m & 800m. It is very rare for elite 400m men or women to race competitively at 800m.

Before someone types. Edwin Moses let me explain Morehouse U. XC in that era. Morehouse U. in that era had a difficult time lining up 5 healthy 800m to 10000m men for XC meets. As security, Morehouse U. made the 400m & 400mH men on athletic grants participate in XC.

Men who were 400m specialist in college with no XC experience are not racing elite 800m times in their late twenties.

Ummmh no. Hes a 328 / 146 guy and he ran those in PERFECT conditions.

This thread is pretty dumb, but it won't hit bottom until Bad Wigins posts...

That is not true. He is flat out gassed from running a 44. But if he runs a 50, he is still gassed. If he runs a 55, he is tired. Not because of the speed but because of the distance.

The way to think of it is how far can a non-swim-team dude swim all-out in a pool? Just because he can swim the length of the pool hard doesn't mean he can do two lengths at anything close to that pace. People don't understand "gassed" until they have felt it themselves.

We are distance runners, so we are never "out of energy" we hurt because of the pace but five minutes later we go on long cool-down runs.

Kerley wouldn't care about the pace on the first lap, you are right, but he can't keep going at all, at any pace.

Could you run a 5 mile cool-down after an all out 15km race? Of course you could. But sprinters don't work like that. They have different metabolic systems. They are done in practice after doing drills and running 5x300m (for example).

I think most people will buy your reasoning, (among them Karsten Warholm) and not mine. And I’m not totally sure on my own arguments… And only a couple of years ago converting a 43x athlete to a sub 2 would have been pure logic to me, too… And I myself have run nearly two handfuls of seconds sub 2, with very little training or talent for the distance. So I know it’s not that hard…

Can you train a sprinter without talent for middle distance to break 2? And can he run on a reserve? In my new thinking 43x is worse than 44x, yes even worse than 52x, be cause 2 laps isn’t about how easy the first lap goes, but how you tackle the whole distance… And the pb in the 100m matters (a lot) being a 400m runner -excellent in the 100, good in the 200, a little less good in the 400: this is a trend that will punish you severely running the 800m! Kratochvilova is an example of the necessary profil Kerley misses (for a 400m runner): 100m pb: 11,09 (not so good), 200m: 21,97 (much better), 400m: 47,99 (excellent), 800m: 1,53,28 (sub 2 with a good margin). Well, Kratochvilova is a woman, but the trend is what matters; (I know men with similar profiles,; only even worse in the 100 and 200, and a little better 400m, and the same result in the 800m) your 400 pb has to be a lot better than your 100 pb, or else you are already fading, and will fade dramatic on lap 2…

Saying all this I don’t know if such an elite 100 / 400m specialist (as Kerley) can profit on 800m training. I really don’t know (I have no experience). But if he had been a pure 400m specialist with a little shady 100m pb, yes then he could of course gone easily under 1,50.

I lack experience with sprinters converted to middle distance, so my thinking may be totally wrong… Anybody out there with more facts / experience than speculation..?

I think Fred would dominate a 600. Jakob would take the 8 at present moment, but with a year of training for Fred I think the 8 would be close

worldathletics.org

Erison HURTAULT | Profile | World Athletics

Open link

here's a 20.high / 45.mid guy who ran 1:48 without specific training - note that he's pretty rough at the 100m.

i do think Kerley may be too big and fast twitch to run under 1:50, but i dont think its asking much of him to run under 2:00 even near term

Kerley runs more than 8 miles per week.

This is always the better hypothetical question. Whats the distance that would make this a toss up race. Before I read your post, I was thinking 485 meters is where I couldn’t pick a winner.

800m is only half a mile so it’s not possible for Kerley to lose by a mile unless he starts running in the opposite direction.

No, I don’t think Fred K. (Or Niekerk for that matter) would be any match for Jakob I. in a 700m, and not even in a 600m!
But I also think Wayde would stand a far better chance than Fred Kerley (because of the difference in 100m prs). Saying that I have to add that I have the outmost respect for Fred Kerley -he is no sissy in the 400m, and may even be world record material!

You need to be a Jeremy Warnier type of 400m runner to beat Jakob in the 600 / 700 / 800m -pbs 10.92 / 20.19 / 43.45 / 1.53,02. (Warnier should have run much faster in the 800m; I don’t know why he didn’t. Maybe it’s extremely difficult for a sprinter to excell in the 800m…) So what about Juantorena and Harald Schmid -were they sprinters? I don’t think so -the former has no registrated (100m / 200m) results, and Schmids 200m is 20.68 (hardly a top sprinter, but very good in 400m / 400mh / 800m)…

Scenario 600m Jakob I. Vs Fred Kerley / (and even Wayde van Niekerk): 1. Fred -all out capacity 400m: ca 43,5. Jakob -ca 49,0. Jakob takes the lead; 50.5 first lap (Fred cruising behind him). So how is Jakob feeling -well, he knows that 50;5 is a little on the fast side to be (his) 800m pace, but this is a 600m competition, and he knows he will not slow at all…. Running “close” to max over time is what he have been training for, and is where he has got his talent. So it goes smooth…

Freds feelings: Very little lactate one lap into the race. And we all think: “This is no match for him; the pace is 7 sec shy of his capacity -surely he must be rather untouched (compared to Jakob), and surely he must have a lot of reserves…” But this is wrong thinking: Fred is now in a uncharted territory, and have to use functions he hasn’t trained, and has no talent for (different demands for lung capacity, fibers, running style, psychie, pace +++). He will of course “glide” another 50m on his talent and speed resources, and strong will, before some sort of meltdown occurs. Him having a supurb 400m pr is not an advantage, it’s the opposite.. He will be like a fish on land (and not of the hybrid types that can crawl from lake to lake.). It would be like Fred and Jakob in a 100m together -Jakob would appear to have a meltdown in every step of the way…

Maybe I’m too harsh -just my 2 cents…

Kerley couldn't break 2:00 with 5 years and a billion dollars? That has to be one of the most outrageous statements in this tread. Ignoring the fact that a billion dollars would be enough to bribe every WADA and AIU official to let him get doped to the gills in enough EPO to make David Rudisha run 1:39. Prime 400m Kerley could easily break 2 with zero extra training just off of the crazy amount of speed and speed endurance he would have. Just cruise a 50 and stagger home in 69 for 1:59. After all, Jeremy Warner did it.

While you might get be right about Warholms 800m ability given that he lacks a bit of 100m speed, I think your math is completely wrong, as it says people 3-5 seconds slower than Kerley over 100m would run considerably faster over 800m, when in fact they would lack the basic speed needed to run under 2:00. While this comparison works with the two data points in discussion, it does not align with the majority of data. This comparison only works with some elite athletes because peaking at one extreme leads to the other being neglected. However, for anyone not at the top level of sprints or long distance the opposite is true: faster 100m means faster 800m assuming you are reasonably fit.

TLDR: Good comparison for Warholm vs. Kerley, Warholm probably does has more endurance since they are similar at 400m but Warholm is slower at 100m, but in general it is wildly inaccurate for literally everyone else.

I think you missed my last post -I too mention Wariner… But I don’t think a Kerley type can cruise a 50 and then a 69 (69 can be unobtainable even for a Cheptegei or a Ingebrigtsen under the right -meaning wrong- circumstances in the 5000m (if meltdown)… I think you have to be a Wariner type..

3-5 sec slower 100m pr than Kerley and no chanche to break 2..? (According to you). Well, I ran 1,52 (pretty much solo at Bislett stad, Oslo) when my 100m pr was 12,54 (2,8 sek slower than Kerley -pretty close to yout 3 sek I would say!). But even worse: Filip Ingebrigtsen ran 1,46 out of a 100m pb 12,26! (He may be a little faster, but not much).

3-5 sec slower 100m? Well, 5.27 sec slower than Kerley (in the 100) will place you above 2min even if you pr’ed on all the 8 100meters, so maybe you made an overkill here…! Anyways -I think 3 sec slower sprint than Kerley will easily get you sub 2. And that bad 100m pr is better than a good one (if you go for sub 2) unless you are a Rudisha-contender…

I think 400m and 800m are two different ballparks. (See also what other posters write). But that doesn’t mean nobody can do both with merit. It’s maybe like high jump and pole vault -you can maybe become good in both, but not if you are a skinny high jumper with no arm strength….

Good point. I missed your later post, sorry. What i tried to convey in my post was that your comparison only works for extremely talented, well trained athletes.

I may have exaggerated that 3-5 sec difference, but the point was that your comparison only works if you have similar 400m times that are both very fast.

I agree that a bad 100m PR is better than a good one, but only if the athlete is aerobic developed, like you.

Once again i may have exaggerated the 50sec/69sec splits for Kerley's 800m, but the point is that he is so fast he can run himself into a huge oxygen debt, positive split the second lap by a lot, and still run a fairly good time.

It's also worth noting that Kerley's brother Mylik is slower than him over 100m and 400m: having a 44.85 400m PR. However, Mylik can run 1:48 for 800m, so Kerley likely has fairly good genetics for running the 800m

Mylik actually trained for 800m as a young man. Fred Kerley is not going to ever run a sub-1:50 800m.

* Mylik Kerely is not a twin of Fred Kerely.

* Mylik Kerely has a body build dissimilar to Fred's build.

* I already stated straining difference.

True, but my point is: Kerley has amazing 100m and 400m ability, and probably has reasonably good genetics for longer distance running, so there's no reason he shouldn't be able to run well under 2:00 without training.

Genetics argument is thrown out the window unless identical twins.

Eg. According to Mendel's Law of Segregation, 50% of my genes are from my father's side and 50% of my genes are from my mother's side. Since none of my siblings are identical twins, the percentage from grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great grandparents, etc. differ. I may have as low as 1% from one grandparent and my siblings may all be in a 22% to 28% range from our grandparents.