Has anyone, in any race 800+, ever run a lap other than lap 1 in under 50.0?

curtis beach ran an 800 in 1:46.99. i think 400 splits were somewhat even, but between 200 and 600 he had a 400 that was like 47 or something crazy under 50. not sure if that counts

beach should switch to 800 wrote:

curtis beach ran an 800 in 1:46.99. i think 400 splits were somewhat even, but between 200 and 600 he had a 400 that was like 47 or something crazy under 50. not sure if that counts

my mistake it was 1:47.99 and it was a 49.8 middle 400

I know this doesn't qualify, by Mo can damn close to cracking 50.0 on the last lap of the Euro Champs a few weeks ago.

yes, Yes, YES!!!!

Kenyan 17 yr old 2013 YOUTH CHAMPION Alfred Kipketer opened with a 48.63 first lap and held onto to win the title at this this championship in 1:48.01!

VIPAM wrote:

yes, Yes, YES!!!!

Kenyan 17 yr old 2013 YOUTH CHAMPION Alfred Kipketer opened with a 48.63 first lap and held onto to win the title at this this championship in 1:48.01!

Is the first lap somehow different than lap 1?

Itay wrote:

http://youtu.be/W46lXS32wmo

I know it's not what you asked for. But because of the run reminded here..

Itay wrote:

http://youtu.be/W46lXS32wmo

I know it's not what you asked for. But because of the run reminded here..

That's was unbelievable. What a talent.

although not under 50, Mo closed a 14:xx race in 50.9 back in June.

Unless it is the Penn Relays, the Olympics or the WCs, the splits are inaccurate. The Penn Relays acutally uses a process and trained timer to caputure splits and the Olympics & WCs use auto splitters, but it is only for the athletes they focus on. Most people get their splits from the announcer, hand time or from video, all of which inaccurate. Announcers usually look at the leader or the rabbits and judge how far back to annoucne splits. Hand timers usually judge based on when an athlete is on the mark as opposed to as the reach the mark and video frame rate is going to off 10ths of a second. Mo's 5K close is the fastest I have ever seen in a 5k and there have been a couple of 1500s where the 400m before the last 200 was about 50 point, but I don't think there have been more than 1 or 2 where the actually last 400 was sub-50. Filbert Bayai use to go out at an insane pace in the 1500m, but it was never faster than 51x and Ryuns and El G fastest close was 51x.

Peer Mediator wrote:

Sir Bastion Newbold wrote:

José Luis González vs. Steve Cram, Praga 27-6-1987 European Cup 1500m

Gonzalez ran 49.67 on the last lap to just pip Cram - they only really get going down the back straight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj8EJxCTQso

Where did you get 49.67 from?

Look at the video at 3:00mins in. Both Cram's and Gonzales's torsos are above the finish line with the clock at 2:55.4. Gonzales's winning time was 3:45.49, so his last lap was between 50.0 and 50.1, with Cram on 50.1.

Cram runs slightly further, wide on the penultimate lap, so he was intrinsically faster on the last lap and it was possibly worth just under 50 flat, but Gonzales certainly didn't run 49.67.

González performed impressively and beat Britain’s legendary Steve Cram, the then reigning world champion over 1500 metres thanks to one of the fastest last laps ever seen in this classic event.

“I ran the last 400 metres in 49.67 seconds which, at that time was the fastest final lap ever in a major 1500 metres race. I knew that I could run really fast (from the bell), because I had done really well in training during the previous days in my hometown Toledo, I had been running 300 metres repetitions in 36.5 seconds. For this reason, when I was on the start line, I was positive that hardly anyone could beat me. The race was very slow at the beginning and I was constantly watching Cram, although there were some other top quality athletes like East Germany’s Jens-Peter Herold in the field. Cram pulled away with 250 metres left but, despite the fact that it took me much more work than I had expected, I always thought I would beat him. Eventually, I had a narrow five-hundredths-of-a-second victory.”

crazy raisin wrote:

Yes... lots of 800's have opened in under 50...

"OTHER THAN LAP 1"

Fair enough, but he is wrong. For a start they wouldn't have given him a split to the nearest hundredth. You can only work it out to the nearest tenth using the video of the race, which, despite what another poster wrote, is the most accurate way of finding a split and gives you a time to nearest tenth. Some running clocks on the screen can be out by a couple of tenths, in which case you adjust by looking at how far behind the official split the frozen image is at 800 or 1200, for example.

The fastest Gonzales possibly could have been was 49.9. As he is on the line at 2:55.4, and finishes in 3:45.49 , then it would imply it was 50.1to the nearest tenth. So we have a range of 49.9 to 50.1. I tend to plump for the middle possibility of 50.0.

JLG was either misinformed or simply wrong when he said 49.67.

Thanks for sending the quote and link.

but wait wrote:

Hold on for a sec- going back to the video of cram and JLG which (without kipchirchir Komen's 1100m split) seems the only serious candidate at this point, they are at the start of the black screen in the background at 2.55.50 (hard to see the finish line, and at 2.55.40 they are before). Then, they are in the middle of the black screen at 3.45.40.

Maybe its the delay in FAT at the finish (.24 slower than hand time right?), but it looks like point to point based on the clock it could be 49.85-49.90? Maybe I am missing something?

I have my own version of this race which is much clearer. The finish line is before the black screen. Both Cram & Gonzales's torsos are in line with the white finishing line while the clock is still at 2:55.4 and they are both past this line when the clock ticks on to 2:55.5. But yes, it could be 49.9.

Actually, split times taken from videos of the race with a running clock are very accurate, within 0.1 anyway.

Look at Farah's 50.89 last lap in the recent European team cup here: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XCmEqSGpjY

Ignoring the fact that they were able to give a split of 50.89, the onscreen clock shows his torso in line with the finishing line at 13:19.0. It then has his torso at the same point (in line with the finish line) at 14:09.9 (before then ticking on to give 14:10.00). The onscreen clock and the visual image of Farah's torso on the line, gives a split of 50.9; which is about as perfectly accurate as you get.

Sometimes there is a slight residual error. Thus, if the torso touches the finish line in 3:35.0, but the official winning time comes up as 3:35.24, then you need to add on 0.2 to his time at the bell on the previous lap to work out his last 400 split.

So someone who hits 1100m on the screen in 2:41.5 and ends with 3:35.0 (using the on screen clock) runs a last lap of 53.5, even though the official splits were probably 2:41.7* (these splits aren't always given at 1100m officially) and 3:35.24.

It isn't under 50 (in fact, it doesn't look to be under 51) but this just reminded me how awesome Steve Cram was in his heyday. The second lap is phenomenal, he runs the majority of the first bend in lane 2 and doesn't really get going until 300m to go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSI1ZPIvtu8

Would you count the lap from 200m to 600m as a lap other than lap 1?

Even so, Rudisha only clicked 50.90 for that lap.

* wrote:

Would you count the lap from 200m to 600m as a lap other than lap 1?

Even so, Rudisha only clicked 50.90 for that lap.

Interestingly both Coe in his 1:42.3 WR and Kipketer in his 1:41.1 WR ran that same 400 section from 200-600 in 50.8.

* wrote:

Would you count the lap from 200m to 600m as a lap other than lap 1?

Even so, Rudisha only clicked 50.90 for that lap.

Peer Mediator wrote:

Interestingly both Coe in his 1:42.3 WR and Kipketer in his 1:41.1 WR ran that same 400 section from 200-600 in 50.8.

Interesting.

So, relative to the first and last 200, Coe was sagging a bit where Kipketer was more even. Curious.