Are you joking? In just those two years, there have been fifteen 1:41's ran, by five different runners. Two of them ran within .30 of the WR a total of three times.
1:40.91 is in more peril than Galahad at the nunnery.
Could the M800 not just be a weaker event historically? After Coe ran 1:41.73, it wasn't bettered for over 16 years. Then Kipketer's 1:41.11 stood for 13 years, and now Rudisha's has stood for 15. Coe's record was undoubtedly absurdly good for the time, but maybe we should've seen a larger drop by now? For comparison, the 1500 dropped from 3:32.1h (also by Coe!) to 3:27.37 in the same span of time (16 years) (3 more years before El G ran 3:26.00). Maybe that's just because Coe's 800 record was SO good. But I think the 800 record is just weaker than it could be, which shouldn't be a hot take. Whether you think Rudisha's record is the best or the worst record on the books, he undeniably ran it completely from the front at the Olympics after rounds, so he absolutely could've run faster with a pacer and completely fresh (and cooler weather).
Past that, I know the common wisdom is that 1-2s positive split in the 800 is ideal, but the guys running so fast today are doing it on closer to even splits. Rudisha went 49.28-51.63, close to a 2.5s positive split. There was a great post last year iirc talking about why even splitting the 800 may be more efficient, even though it's so common for pbs to come from positive splits. Most of it came down to positioning being the deciding factor, as it was better to be near the front when you're running at such a fast pace (much harder to pass).
Idk I don't have a super strong opinion, just some food for thought. I will say that I like that times are getting faster because it's fun to see people run so fast. Just because bicarb is revolutionizing the event doesn't mean it's ruining it. Rudisha had better tech than Kipketer, who had better tech than Coe, who had better tech than the guys in the 60s.
Are you joking? In just those two years, there have been fifteen 1:41's ran, by five different runners. Two of them ran within .30 of the WR a total of three times.
1:40.91 is in more peril than Galahad at the nunnery.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda.
I am talking about reality while you talk about hypothetical performances from guys finally sniffing a 13 year-old WR.
Even with better shoes, far better tracks, and 30 years to learn about training, ONLY FIVE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BEAT COE'S 1981 TIME.
Hardly reflective of a "ruined" event:
.
.
.
1 1:40.91 David RUDISHA 17 DEC 1988 KEN Olympic Stadium, London (GBR) 09 AUG 2012 1301
2 1:41.11 Wilson KIPKETER 12 DEC 1972 DEN Köln (GER) 24 AUG 1997 1295
2 1:41.11 Emmanuel WANYONYI 01 AUG 2004 KEN Stade Olympique de la Pontaise, Lausanne (SUI) 22 AUG 2024 1295
4 1:41.20 Marco AROP 20 SEP 1998 CAN Stade de France, Paris (FRA) 10 AUG 2024 1292
5 1:41.46 Djamel SEDJATI 03 MAY 1999 ALG Stade Louis II, Monaco (MON) 12 JUL 2024 1284
6 1:41.61 Gabriel TUAL 09 APR 1998 FRA Stade Charléty, Paris (FRA) 07 JUL 2024 1279
7 1:41.67 Bryce HOPPEL 05 SEP 1997 USA Stade de France, Paris (FRA) 10 AUG 2024 1277
8 1:41.73 Sebastian COE 29 SEP 1956 GBR Firenze (ITA) 10 JUN 1981 1275
8 1:41.73 Nijel AMOS 15 MAR 1994 BOT Olympic Stadium, London (GBR) 09 AUG 2012 1275
10 1:41.77 Joaquim CRUZ 12 MAR 1963 BRA Köln (GER) 26 AUG 1984 1274
Are you joking? In just those two years, there have been fifteen 1:41's ran, by five different runners. Two of them ran within .30 of the WR a total of three times.
1:40.91 is in more peril than Galahad at the nunnery.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda.
I am talking about reality while you talk about hypothetical performances from guys finally sniffing a 13 year-old WR.
Even with better shoes, far better tracks, and 30 years to learn about training, ONLY FIVE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BEAT COE'S 1981 TIME.
Hardly reflective of a "ruined" event:
.
.
.
1 1:40.91 David RUDISHA 17 DEC 1988 KEN Olympic Stadium, London (GBR) 09 AUG 2012 1301
2 1:41.11 Wilson KIPKETER 12 DEC 1972 DEN Köln (GER) 24 AUG 1997 1295
2 1:41.11 Emmanuel WANYONYI 01 AUG 2004 KEN Stade Olympique de la Pontaise, Lausanne (SUI) 22 AUG 2024 1295
4 1:41.20 Marco AROP 20 SEP 1998 CAN Stade de France, Paris (FRA) 10 AUG 2024 1292
5 1:41.46 Djamel SEDJATI 03 MAY 1999 ALG Stade Louis II, Monaco (MON) 12 JUL 2024 1284
6 1:41.61 Gabriel TUAL 09 APR 1998 FRA Stade Charléty, Paris (FRA) 07 JUL 2024 1279
7 1:41.67 Bryce HOPPEL 05 SEP 1997 USA Stade de France, Paris (FRA) 10 AUG 2024 1277
8 1:41.73 Sebastian COE 29 SEP 1956 GBR Firenze (ITA) 10 JUN 1981 1275
8 1:41.73 Nijel AMOS 15 MAR 1994 BOT Olympic Stadium, London (GBR) 09 AUG 2012 1275
10 1:41.77 Joaquim CRUZ 12 MAR 1963 BRA Köln (GER) 26 AUG 1984 1274
Yes really makes me wonder what Coe was using to his advantage back then.
The whole challenge of the 800 is holding it together over the final 200. And you can never be sure you'll hold form and speed. That's what makes each race interesting.
If eating a bunch of baking soda with a buffer to get past the stomach eliminates this factor, yes it's nice to see faster times, but that will lose all meaning pretty quick. You'll see.
Who'd a thunk a simple trick like that would make the 800 so easy, all those decades nobody knew. But there it is.
What, are you claiming they're all on Maurten bi carb? EPO is far cheaper in poor countries
And the science on how to get away with it is much better in rich countries.
With bicarb or with something more serious, men have been running incredibly well on 800 for the last 2 years. So, what about women's 800? Apart from the odd exceptions, hardly anyone goes under 1:57.
Let's not forget that a lot of the best women ten years ago was actually semi-hermaphrodites in the sense that they had internal testicles/testosterone.
This post was edited 15 seconds after it was posted.
The whole challenge of the 800 is holding it together over the final 200. And you can never be sure you'll hold form and speed. That's what makes each race interesting.
If eating a bunch of baking soda with a buffer to get past the stomach eliminates this factor, yes it's nice to see faster times, but that will lose all meaning pretty quick. You'll see.
Who'd a thunk a simple trick like that would make the 800 so easy, all those decades nobody knew. But there it is.
Yes, the 800m is built perfectly for bicarb
Bicarb is not a ped. It would be banned if it was. So it isn't bicarb that is producing better and better performances.
i think Jakob is the best over 1500 but guys like Nuguse, Hocker, and Kerr are only there because of bicarb allowing them to keep up (and win). Jakob is clearly faster than everyone and Nuguse mile time is only because he rode Jakob's coat tails.
But it allows everyone else to respond to Jakob better. I don't think Jakob is either on it or he's not a "responder" because he's already built to push through.
Women are faster than 10 years ago. Here are the 20th, 50th and 100th times for 2015 and 2025 (so far) for comparison
20th: 1:59.06 to 1:58.13
50th: 2:00.63 to 1:59.40
100th: 2:02.07 to 2:00.24
----------------------------------------------
My point is that we don't see the same revolutionary improvement in the W800 that we've seen happening in the M800 or W/M1500 in the last 2 years. Why?
We don't even have in M800 a Rudisha- (or Jakob-) like figure who might be pulling the whole field with himself. At the same time, Mu, Moraa, Hodgkinson produced great times in recent years but almost nobody is getting closer to them. There might be a few exceptional performances here and there but no consistency. At the same time, tons of men are running 1:42s on a regular basis.
It's clear that the 800 is the event where women are the farthest from men but whatever new "technology" men are using should also improve women's performance to a certain degree, at least.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.