got on that actovegin right quick and now he's good
nothing to see here people.
wr yep
totally clean nothing suspicious
got on that actovegin right quick and now he's good
nothing to see here people.
wr yep
totally clean nothing suspicious
At 6 pages in and reading many posts I'd have to agree that while its nice, its not amazing.
After all, he's 2.5 seconds behind his personal best.
So while you may be amazed, its well within Rudisha's capability.
If he'd run back to back 50.4s I'd be amazed. Not so with this. He ran an even paced race at about 98% of his best.
TrackCoach wrote:
When Robbie Andrews was walking people down during his NCAA days, he never negative split and was only covering the last 200m in 27 seconds. There really is not such thing a kick in the 800m, in the end you are just trying to maintain form and keep your legs moving, not have anyone pass you and catch the guys who are fading. Pretty much the same as in the 400m, Elite 800m runners hit the 600 within about 2-4 seconds of their 600m PR, coming out the final turn at 700m, you are running on fumes. The 600m world record is 1:12, when Rudisha set the 800 world record, he hit the 600m mark at 1:14, which was one second off of his 600m PR. Even when he set the world record, he was running on fumes the last 100m. Now, it does not always looks like 800m runners are breaking down the last 100m, well that's the skill, training and mental toughness of an 800m runners powering to the finish line when your lungs, quads and core say slow down. You absolutely have to get out hard the first 400m and accept that you aren't going to cover the 2nd 400m as fast and it is going to hurt.
Blah, blah, blah.....with all due respect did you read ANYthing on this thread??? There are SEVERAL references to WC runners running negative splits on fast 800, and yes KICKING the last 400 or 200. So your "you absolutely have to get out hard the first 400m and accept that you aren't going to cover the 2nd 400m as fast " is, to use one of your words, "absolutely" garbage.
What were Ovett's winning OG 800m splits ??? 54.6/50.8 !!! How's THAT for a negative split ?? That's from a 1:44 guy who only broke 1:45 a couple times (i.e., it wasn't far off is PR) Schuman won the OG's with 53.6/51.5. Again, he was a 1:44 guy, so this wasn't too far off his PR. Wottle: 53.3/52.6.
So......people DO INDEED run their 2nd 400 faster sometimes (a LOT faster in Ovett's case), and sometimes to great effectiveness (for example: winning an OG gold medal, as 3 examples did abvoe), and do so running not that far off their PR. And that's anotehr reason Rudisha's time was not that extraordinary: he is a 1:40 guy, the fastest ever, so HIS running a 1:43 negtative split is not more impressive than the guys I mention above running 1:44-45 races running negative splits, since they were 1:43-44 guys as their absolute best.
The last paragraph of your post is true, the rest is kind of irrelevant. It wasn't an argument about people running effective or winning 800's while negative splitting. That has obviously happened before. Ovetts was the first I thought of during this.
But it is world records and PR's that are set like that that are rare.
There have been thousands and thousands of people who have gone out in the 400 in 52 seconds. I'd guess hundreds of thousands of times were out in 52.5 or faster. The amount of guys who have negative split those races is very rare. Well less than 1%.
The amount of guys who negative split AND that was their PR forever...id bet you can count on one hand...probably less (3 or under).
Was Rudisha's run "amazing"? Eh, maybe, but not really. It was very very good. It's also promising for his Olympic chances. Amazing, not really. But a great run none the less.
molespike wrote:
At 6 pages in and reading many posts I'd have to agree that while its nice, its not amazing.
After all, he's 2.5 seconds behind his personal best.
So while you may be amazed, its well within Rudisha's capability.
If he'd run back to back 50.4s I'd be amazed. Not so with this. He ran an even paced race at about 98% of his best.
I'm amazed that there are people on here nit-picking at my use of "amazing" to describe this race ...
It wasn't the greatest 800 ever, the most impressive ever, etc, but I stand by referring to it as amazing, for a few reasons:
(1) It wasn't simply a negative split, but was a fast 800 at that. As has been noted before in this thread, how many negative split 1:43s (or faster) have there been? Not many ...
(2) In the last 3+ years (nearly 4 now ... he had 2 quicker times in Aug 2012) , Rudisha has run faster than 1:43.35 ... twice. Both in 2014, a 1:42.98 in Monaco and a 1:43.34 in Glasgow. He hasn't had 1:40.9 ability in a long time, and likely never will again.
(3) It is the fastest time in the world so far this year. How often do you see a world-leading 800 this late into the year, run with negative splits?
Ovett's lap times in Moscow 80 were more like 54.9/50.5.
The leader went through the bell in 54.55 and he was at least 2m behind the leader.
For me, an "amazing" performance should be unique in some way. Yuri Borzakovskiy in Brussels 2001 has split something around 51.1/51.4. (not 100% about that). Rudisha's run definitely was not "amazing" (especially for someone who has run almost 2.5s faster before). But definitely an indication that an 2nd Olympic title now is possible.
I'm pretty sure that in most occasions a little bit slower first lap would result in a little bit faster finishing time.
Watcher of Olympics wrote:
Gold medal in Rio and GOAT
I think I would agree: if he really wins in Rio, he is the GOAT in the 800m.
(also I always think it's impossible to do a fair ranking at all, when others like Coe or Snell have competed over the full middle distance spectrum).
At the moment I think Kipketer is almost even to Rudisha. In an head to head while both in top-shape I think Kipketer would win more often.
Deanouk wrote: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)
no
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cceACL2S0UAelliott splits 51.03 at bell with cram 6m back as can be seen from 1m markings
that makes 394m in 51.03 which for 400 is 51.80
splits of 51.8 / 51.4
He ran about 1.5m extra on 3rd bend, so it was more like 51.7/51.3
no
more 51.8 / 51.2
this doesn't include the big stumble he had when clipping mckean at ~ 210m which cost coupla tenths so that goes to 51.6 / 51.2
then the huge amount he runs wide in 3rd bend with actual running in lane 2 !!!
at least 2.5m extra on that bend, making his final unimpeded splits for lane 1
51.6 / 50.9
for 1'42.5
using formula quoted previously for 2s +ve splits, that 1'42.5 wouda been quicker by
[ 2nd lap - 1st lap - 2.00 ] * ( 1/3 )
= [ 50.9 - 51.5 - 2 ] * ( 1/3 ) = 0.87s
= 1'41.6+
for a 2s +ve split race
in freezing windy weather !!!
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
no
the gold standard for any athlete is to run with ~ 2s +ve splits
that is what you convert any -ve or even split race to if no such race run by athlete
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
no
it's not
just look at splits of 1'40.91WR
near enough 2s +ve splits despite suicidal 23.4 opener
Big-Man clearly trying to ease of after 200m to run ~ 2s +ve splits
Just as the effects of running at altitude will not affect everyone to the same extent
it affects everyone
if someone ran 1'44-flat at 30,000', no one here woud say same guy woud run 1'44-flat at 0'
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
he can state all he wants
bottom line is in his big pb he ran serious +ve splits
these were 50.9 / 51.9
or 1s +ve splits, not including horrendous amount of extra on bends
cram superficially ran 1.0s +ve splits which is NOT even splits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tS_yfiW5x8no side-on shot at bell, but pacer crosses a line at 45.8
cram is far back at this point but accelerating & is ahead of barbosa at the bell
barbosa crosses same line as pacer at 46.2 or 0.4s back
therefore cram at bell who is ahead of barbosa is less than 0.4s behind pacer who clocks 50.61
cram's split therefore 50.61 + less than 0.4s or 50.9+
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
no
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaNZK3O8MLMthat his pb race with pacer thru in suicidal 49.06 !!
borza from track markings is ~ 14m back
or 386m in 49.06 -> for 400 of 50.8
therefore his pb race had splits of
50.8 / 51.6
that is 0.8s +ve splits
therefore the assertion borza was some sort of mystical -ve/even split preferrer is flawed
in this his big pb he had no choice but to run serious +ve splits
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
no
track markings indicate 52.1 / 51.2
still nowhere close to '12 but 1'42-low shape with unknown training break for it
For me it was significant that he was in front and had a gap on field before 600m
why a surprise ??
he made big push at 400 & no one in that field in his class who coud keep close
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
eh ??
like he did last year when he won gold !!??
Fastest negative split 800m in history.
So it's worth noting.
Accelerating after going out in 52 flat or better is quite a feat.
Star wrote:
Fastest negative split 800m in history.
So it's worth noting.
Accelerating after going out in 52 flat or better is quite a feat.
Except it is not. Wilson Kipketer ran 1:42.77 with negative splits.
What were Kipketer's splits?
Nope., wrote:
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)
This effect is even greater in the 400. No top 400 runner will ever win against serious competition with even splits. They would feel as if they are jogging the first 200 and losing the benefit of accumulating lactate to run a faster overall time.
Very long thread, and only one knowledgeable post.
I know. This was a fantastic job of explaining with science and strategy.
Star wrote:
What were Kipketer's splits?
I recall Kipketer's splits were like 52.5 and 50.3.
Jijierzu wrote:
Star wrote:What were Kipketer's splits?
I recall Kipketer's splits were like 52.5 and 50.3.
No. I have already posted his split times from the copy of the race I had!
They were 52.0 and 50.77. I wish people would actually bother to read all the posts.
He ran no extra distance, received good drafting from 360 - 550m.
said88 wrote:
Watcher of Olympics wrote:Gold medal in Rio and GOAT
I think I would agree: if he really wins in Rio, he is the GOAT in the 800m.
(also I always think it's impossible to do a fair ranking at all, when others like Coe or Snell have competed over the full middle distance spectrum).
At the moment I think Kipketer is almost even to Rudisha. In an head to head while both in top-shape I think Kipketer would win more often.
This is an insane statement considering that Rudisha owns the three fastest times in history and owns 6 out of the 10 fastest times in history.
If Rudisha goes all out from start to finish as he did in London in 2012, Kipketer has no chance.
Kipketer's PR is only .2s back and he has a handful of 1:41 times.
And Kipketer had a big kick.
I also think a top form Kipketer would have beaten Rudisha in London.
Star wrote:
Kipketer's PR is only .2s back and he has a handful of 1:41 times.
And Kipketer had a big kick.
I also think a top form Kipketer would have beaten Rudisha in London.
Kipketer's best times all came in the EPO era when there was no test for it.
I put Rudisha above him for that. Rudisha is the greater natural talent, with a more recognised progression.
Kipketer's dob changed from 1972 to 1970 during his career, he hovered around the 1:47 mark for most of his teens, and then huge progress about the time EPO arrived.
Deanouk wrote:
Jijierzu wrote:I recall Kipketer's splits were like 52.5 and 50.3.
No. I have already posted his split times from the copy of the race I had!
They were 52.0 and 50.77. I wish people would actually bother to read all the posts.
He ran no extra distance, received good drafting from 360 - 550m.
You will calm down. Who has time to "read all the posts"? You will chillax me boy.
CHEIKHA wrote:
said88 wrote:In an head to head while both in top-shape I think Kipketer would win more often.
This is an insane statement considering that Rudisha owns the three fastest times in history and owns 6 out of the 10 fastest times in history.
If Rudisha goes all out from start to finish as he did in London in 2012, Kipketer has no chance.
My statement definitely is not "insane". I have talked about top-shape. And therefore, the number of fast times isn't important at all. I think that the Kipketer from 1997 would win more often against the Rudisha from 2010 or 2012 when doing a series of races. For sure you can have different thinking, but insane is your last statement: "Kipketer has no chance". Have you ever seen him racing at his best?