I wonder just why the 800 is such a stagnant event. 2 sub-1:42 runners in the 80s (Coe and Cruz), 1 in the 90s (Kipketer) and none in the 00s. Is it the event or the fact that the bar has been set so high by those three?
Les wrote:
I wonder just why the 800 is such a stagnant event. 2 sub-1:42 runners in the 80s (Coe and Cruz), 1 in the 90s (Kipketer) and none in the 00s. Is it the event or the fact that the bar has been set so high by those three?
It could be because with that kind of time you have almost no room for error. In any distance shorter than that it's a sprint so stragegy is just a managed sprint but any distance above it you can still race more with strategy and have some room for error if the pace slows for a second or two in the middle.. In the 800 if you think to much about winning (not losing more importantly) and you back off the pace needed even for a second your chance is likely gone to go under 1:42. At that pace you can't make up time so you gotta be on it the entire way.
That and the fact that few people have that balance between aerobic and anaerobic which the 800 is. Most people lean more to one. Great 800 guys (1:43 and better) are unique.
wait....so you're older than 40 and you act like this?? i thought it would take a teenager to act so childish.
ventolin^3 wrote:i have been watching/attending top class sport since before you were born
i've watched virtually every big euro meet on satellite of past 25y
Les wrote:
I wonder just why the 800 is such a stagnant event. 2 sub-1:42 runners in the 80s (Coe and Cruz), 1 in the 90s (Kipketer) and none in the 00s. Is it the event or the fact that the bar has been set so high by those three?
It's probably the hardest race to pace, and also the hardest track race tactically. These two factors make everyone anxious about what pace to run and where to position themselves.