I saw Justin Rinaldi (Alex Rowe & Peter Bols Coach, also posts on here frequently) say he saw Amos run 45.9 in a 400m in Spain so I assume Amos is in form.
I saw Justin Rinaldi (Alex Rowe & Peter Bols Coach, also posts on here frequently) say he saw Amos run 45.9 in a 400m in Spain so I assume Amos is in form.
Didn't Rick Wolhuter run 1:44 in 1974/5 with even splits? Sure the race, against the USSR, is available on Youtube.
Not sure about the physiology of 800 running but it is true that most WRs are set with a faster first 400 (Ryun's 1:44.9 880 yards an obvious exception. It always puzzles me, however, that in many races on the Diamond League circuit the first 200, from a standing start!, is often the fastest 200 of the race. This cannot be effective pacing, surely?
Now you are ewe. Brazier is an example, a good one at that. By taking one data point, I have outdone you. But I have also pointed out that it is entirely false to say that everyone tries to positive split because they don't realize that a negative split is the better way to go. I have also offered evidence as to the factors that make a positive split hard to avoid, ATP and drafting, and I didn't even mention muscle fatigue and aerobic/anaerobic, which are also reasons.
Coe 1:41.73 world record, inside 50 according to the commentator, then 52.
Here are all the other sub 1:50 800m world records, all of them but two being positive splits, most of those over 1 second positive.
mark b wrote:
Didn't Rick Wolhuter run 1:44 in 1974/5 with even splits? Sure the race, against the USSR, is available on Youtube.
Not sure about the physiology of 800 running but it is true that most WRs are set with a faster first 400 (Ryun's 1:44.9 880 yards an obvious exception. It always puzzles me, however, that in many races on the Diamond League circuit the first 200, from a standing start!, is often the fastest 200 of the race. This cannot be effective pacing, surely?
Some of that is racing for a good position in the pack as we all get told to sit on the shoulder of the leader (unless you plan on being the leader in which case you have to sprint even harder to get there!).
I recall the last WR set by a man with positive splits was Wottle.
Not sure if it was mentioned in this thread, but the phospagen system allows for a faster-than-average velocity for the first ~10s of the race, thus accounting for the preponderance of positive splits in the 800m.
That is why Rudisha's race in Hungary is notable...he didn't access this system, leading one to suspect that he's in great shape heading into Rio.
GlobalView wrote:
I recall the last WR set by a man with positive splits was Wottle.
No, it was Rudisha. Come on people, shape up.
Sorry, meant to say negative splits.
Gunior wrote:
His splits were not amazing. They were fine.
Delete your account
POSITIVE DOPER however.
YMMV wrote:
What the troll named bgh, and most others, don't understand is that the physical demands of each event change AND SO DOES THE PHYSIOLOGY OF EACH ATHLETE WHO SPECIALIZES IN THEM. Take two runners running 800m. One is a 400m runner, who can tolerate 17mmole lactate without breaking down in form or pace. The other is a 3000m guy, who cannot acquire more than 7 mmole, as he has not done the lactate-tolerance work and is not genetically predisposed.
If both do the first 100m in say, 13.0 sec, the physiological effect is very different. For the 3K guy, he sprinting all out, and will soon have to drop from the race. The 400 guy is comfortable and can continue, with a gradual slowdown, for an overall positive split, say of 26/28/28/30=1:51. The 400 guy wins of course.
If instead the 3k guy goes out in say, 14.0 sec the first 100, then his lactate is tolerable (under 7mmole), and he can continue without decrease of pace, as his superior aerobic engine dissipates any further addition of lactate. So running this way, he can run 28/28/28/28 and contend at the wire for the win. So two athletes, two strategies for the win.
Now the 800 specialist has the lactate tolerance of the 400 guy, and also the aerobic support of the 3K (or at least 1.5K) guy. So his best race will fall in between the two: 27/28/28/29. So you can see where the typical 2-sec. positive split for an elite 800 race comes from. For those who are chosen and train the event, it has a "special" characteristic, due to a higher lactate tolerance than found in distance events. Distance races do not start out near a sprint the first 100m, as it would impose too high a lactate load for the remainder of the race. For the 800 it can be done, due to the special training (and genetics, not all runners can build high lactate)
That was a very looooooooong way of saying: different runners can succeed with different pacing strategies. This has already been acknowledged on this thread I believe.
YMMV wrote:No top 400 runner will ever win against serious competition with even splits.
if by "top" you mean medal-contender in the 400, not since Juantorena (and very rarely) is a "top 400 guy" ever gonna win against "serious 800 competition" no matter what pace he runs. So kinda of a moot point. But if by "top 400" runner, you mean: say 45.x guy, then Rudisha and Borzakovsky, among others, have "won against serious 800 competition" before, so......you're wrong. Take your pick: moot point, or you're wrong.
TrackCoach wrote:
This has become a dumb discussion. Between running the half mile and coaching it; I have a 30 year connection to the event and I don't know of any serious athlete or coach who advocates negative splitting. When the gun goes off, you haven't spent any energy, why would you not make that your fastest 200? In world class races, when an athletes even or negative splits, it was not by design, it simply played out that way.
Wrong. Borzakovsky routinely ran even or near splits and did so purposefully. I watched him spot the silly leaders (going with your "tried and true strategy" and "logic") 20-25 meters at 200m and then mow them all down effortlessly, running 1:44 low while easing up a the end. so yes, people have used this strategy successfully. Ever hear of Dave Wottle, oh, 800m historian?
And far as the logic of "When the gun goes off, you haven't spent any energy, why would you not make that your fastest 200" , I don't think that even deserves a response.
You didn't comprehend that I was talking about pacing strategies in *different events*. When I said "top 400 runners" I meant IN THE 400 METERS. Top 400 guys don't run the 800, unless they are named Juantorena (or maybe Everett). The 400 is ALWAYS positive split when run to potential. The 800 is USUALLY positive split when run to potential (a few outliers do better on even split). The 1500 is USUALLY run even-split when run to potential.
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
Gunior wrote:
come on guy wrote:You are an idiot.
Those splits are highly unusual. 51.9 / 51.4.
Find me a faster second lap in a race that fast. I won't hold my breath.
Moron.
You are the idiot. The splits were fine. Nothing amazing about them. IF you were amazed, it manifests how puny your intellect is.
No, you are the idiot.
Please provide that long list of negative-split sub-1:43.5 800s, dunce.
Let's say that you're right. How then do you rationalize that since then he hasn't run within 2s of his 2012 WR at London? Wouldn't it be easy to use some juice to get back to that level?
No one is going to run 1:41 going 50 high then 50 low. The reason I know that, is cause no one has ever done it. Look at rudisha...runs 1:41 multiple times and none of them are even or negative.
Nick symmonds, the biggest come from behind guy since Borza never negative split a 1:43 or better race. He has WON races by even or negative splitting, but never run his PR. Just because you spot people 10-15-20 meters, doesn't mean you're going out and running negative. If symmonds runs 1:44.0 and is 15 meters off the pace at 400 when the race is out in 49.8 for the rabbit, he is out in 51 low...which means his next 400 in 52 high. Those are VERY even splits for an elite 800. Robby Andrew ran 1:44.71 WAY WAY back...and jock went out in 49.8. Robby didn't even or negative split that.
One reason it's real hard to do, is because as you pass people, it is usually in lane two. Meaning from 600-800 of the race, the guy coming from way back is running a further distance.
kanny wrote:
While I agree with your sentiment (I'm amazed by Rudisha's performance), there's no place for names, especially when you're standing on very unstable ground.
2012 Kenyan trials at ~6k ft according to Canova and verified by others via video:
800m 51.2/50.9
Rudisha : 24"8 - 51"2 (26"4) - 1'16"8 (25"6) - 1'42"1 (25"3). The first lap in 52" is not true, in any case this is a negative split, also if for 0.1 only [slightly bad math by Canova here].
Also, someone (Deanouk) mentioned that Kipketer ran a 52.0/50.7 in Monaco in '97, but I can't substantiate that.
come on guy wrote:You are an idiot.
Those splits are highly unusual. 51.9 / 51.4.
Find me a faster second lap in a race that fast. I won't hold my breath.
Moron.
Yes, I have mentioned Kipketer's negative run of 1:42.77 in Monaco 97, as have others tbf.
It certainly did happen as I have the race on DVD. The pacer went through the bell in 51.77 with Kip a stride behind. I'm away at moment so can't check, but pretty sure splits were - 24.7, 27.3, 26.1, 24.67!
He ran entire race on inside of lane 1, ran no extra distance at all, and received drafting from about 360 - 550m.
Another example of someone running an impressive negative split is Cram in the 86 Commonwealths, where his laps were 51.7/51.5 (25.0 last 200m)
He ran about 1.5m extra on 3rd bend, so it was more like 51.7/51.3.
I have read most posts on this thread with interest, but have always considered the best way to run an 800 is completely down to the individual.
Of course, statistically speaking the vast majority of elites have run their best times off positive splits. However, to conclude that this is the way everyone should run it for their optimal time is silly. Just as the effects of running at altitude will not affect everyone to the same extent.
Cram is on record (on several occasions) as saying that for him, even paced laps are the best way for running his best over 800m.
Other athletes too, over the years, have adopted this philosophy. I'm sure if Borzakovskiy believed a 2 sec positive split would enable him to run faster than his pb, he would have done so.
Rudisha looked to have run 51.9/51.4 here, which is impressive, but doesn't convince he is back to his best of 2012.
For me it was significant that he was in front and had a gap on field before 600m. He likes it this way and is more likely to tie up if he has other guys with him or around him with 200 to go.
Should be an intriguing series of races in Rio.
come on guy wrote:
Gunior wrote:You are the idiot. The splits were fine. Nothing amazing about them. IF you were amazed, it manifests how puny your intellect is.
No, you are the idiot.
Please provide that long list of negative-split sub-1:43.5 800s, dunce.
You are not intelligent. Even if Rudisha's splits are unusual, they are NOT amazing. Some of you do not have the requisite intelligence to understand that if Rudisha's first 400m is 51.9, he will have more in the tank than if his first 400m was 50 flat, all other things being equal.
That race shows me that Rudish is learning to race to his current shape rather than the shape he was in from 2010-2012 where he could just blaze away and hang on. I think he made that mistake when he was coming back from injury...thinking he could do what he has always done.
The efforts he puts in at 500 and again at 600m, while only subtle, are amazing. The guys behind him are running flat out before they know it and hence, he opens a 1 sec gap at race end.
The danger he has is that like the Kenyan trials, athlete will soon learn this and attempt to get in front of him just before 400m (which is not that difficult at high 51 sec pace) and this throws off his rhythm and he is unable to make those moves at 500/600m.
Kszczot is the only athlete I can see beating Rudisha if he has the lead down the back straight, as Kszczot likes to make a big move with 220m (watch the last two European finals) to go and we know that Rudisha tends to tighten up when challenged in the last 100/200m of the race.
It's going to be a great race.
Gunior wrote:
come on guy wrote:No, you are the idiot.
Please provide that long list of negative-split sub-1:43.5 800s, dunce.
You are not intelligent. Even if Rudisha's splits are unusual, they are NOT amazing. Some of you do not have the requisite intelligence to understand that if Rudisha's first 400m is 51.9, he will have more in the tank than if his first 400m was 50 flat, all other things being equal.
Moron, where is your long list of sub-143.5 800s run with a negative split.
Hint: if in the history of millions of 800m races, something has happened less than five times, it's amazing. Get a dictionary if you're still confused.