sub 1:40 800m

I agree with what someone said earlier. I think a very good high school 400m runner who switches up to 800m in college has the best shot at it. Colin Campbell (won Arcadia 800m last year) jumped for most of his first two years in high school, then focused on the 400m his junior year and ran 48 low. His senior year he moved up to the 800m, ran 1:51.26 with very little endurance training (he also dipped just under 48 in the 400m). It seems like a sub 45 point high school runner could have a shot at it with a little endurance training.

hmmm wrote:

I'm not sure this has been mentioned or not, but I think a healthy Ngeny could have given it a run. The video of his 1000 record would make your jaw drop. Unfortunately we'll probably never know.

Good point. He was a 3:43 miler (only SLIGHTLY slower than El G) who had better pure speed than El G (like you said, he has the 1000 record, beating Coe's time).

Probably could have run 1:41. And he was a very skinny guy. You don't need to be big to run an 800 fast.

If Kipketer had had blocks he might have run 1:40.9 in his WR race. Let's start giving 800m guys blocks and then everyone can PR by .1 or .2. I'm a genius!

Interesting thing about the 1000, and this ties into Lancelot's percentages from the 1st pg. of the thread:

1981 Coes'record was 2:12.18

1999 Ngeny drops it to 2:11.96- only a 0.17% improvement!

Coe was God.

But let's also look at the 600 meters:

1981 1:14.9

2006 1:12.81 = a 2.79% improvement.

I've always felt the 800 wasn't "soft", it's just a really hard transtition from the sprints to distance, and few ever get really good at it.

Yo wrote:

The only reason you guys think Wariner is the one is beacuase he is white.

I think that Wariner is a good candidate for the 800 because he is a skinny dude with a long stride. It wouldn't be as difficult aerobically to carry that body around the track twice as it would for a more heavily-muscled 400 guy.

However, I'll agree with you that racism thrives on these message boards.

I think the reasoning that because you can smoke one 4, 2 at a significantly slower pace isnt very difficult, is faulty. I believe its much easier to bring a short distance guy down then it is to bring a sprinter up. I'm not saying a sprinter couldnt be trained to run a nasty 8, I just think it wouldnt be nearly as smooth a transition as many think.

Someone hit the nail on the head - its not that the 8 is weak, its just so specific. Theres absolutely no room for error and it has to be guns blazing the whole way. I honestly think the mile record is "weaker". 2 sub 150s would be ungodly though.

I think we'll see the most improvement in the 5/10k times in the upcoming years. 60 flats and then blasting the last 200 I think can be done. Eventually so will 2 sub 13s, though thats probably a bit down the road :)

Great thread.

hmmm wrote:

I think we'll see the most improvement in the 5/10k times in the upcoming years. 60 flats and then blasting the last 200 I think can be done. Eventually so will 2 sub 13s, though thats probably a bit down the road :)

.

Don't know about that....there has already been astronomical improvements in the 5k/10k in the last 15 years. I really don't think we will find someone more talented than Bekele very soon. HE could run around 12:34/26:12 if he had the pacers and ran the absolute perfect races, but i really don't see anyone faster than that for a very long time. He's one in a gazillion.

I know this might be looking for an easy way out, but how much time would be cut off the record if the race was run 800m in a straight line? Still run on a flat track surface, but cut out the curves; they have to slow the guys down. Would this record count?

Regarding the marathon. . . I do expect to see 2 hours fall someday.

Regarding the 800m record being over due, I disagree. You have a guy like Coe that is just a freak and then you get a guy like Kipketer that is probably the smoothest, most efficient runner ever to run 800m AND he's a specialist. I think you just got two outlier runners that set the bar really high. I don't think any of the folks around now have a chance in hell of getting close. It's been a while since we've seen a 1:42 (2003). Last year it took until almost Sept to see someone get under 1:44. It seems thee 800m has gotten soft lately.

It will be a long time until we see 1:41 again, much less a 1:40, but we will see a 1:40 (or at least I will b/c I plan on being around for 60-70 more years). There's no secret to it. You don't have to go down and get a 400m runner and move him up. You just need a guy with 45 second 400m speed, 3:35 or so endurance and there you go. Of course, that's easier said than done, but it's going to take someone with great speed and great endurance to do it. Someone like Coe but a lil bit better, or someone like Kipketer but a lil bit better.

And Felix Sanchez has run some 800ms, his best is 1:49 and I don't think he could get much under 1:44 if he tried.

Didn't they say the 4:00 barrier would be impossible to break?

Trackhead,

What was your criteria for grouping athletes into sprinter v. distance backgrounds?

I would argue a number of individuals you have in the distance category should be put in the sprinter category.

Kipketer and Bucher to name a couple. I'm sure their 400 times would be equivent to their 1500 meter performances.

Yep. Sub 1:43 itself is pretty elite territory.

If I remember correctly, it someone was under 46sec, I put them down as more of sprinter. The rest (most of whom had broken 4min for the mile or equiv.) I put as coming from an endurance background.

Bucher is definitely has a distance background:

46.32

1:42.55

2:15.93

3:38.44

14:06.77

and a world junior cross appearance

Kipketer has PRs of 46.85, 1:41.11, 2:14.96i, 3:59.7mile (in 1994)

Drunkard, all things being equal, you are probably right, still I believe there is plenty of room to go.

I would be interested to see, for example, the rate of improvement in the 5k over the past 50 years extrapolated to the upcoming 50 years. Where would the times stand in 2056?

The 800 straight line is also interesting, but I say no way in hell that would fly with anyone as being legit. Ideally you could build and indoor 800 with an awesome surface and perfect conditions.

If it's so weak, how come no one ever comes close?

straight from the horses mouth so to speak..... seb coe on british tv a few weeks ago during the commonwealths suggested that the future of 800m running could lie in the 400m/800m runners court

"You just need a guy with 45 second 400m speed, 3:35 or so endurance and there you go. Of course, that's easier said than done, but it's going to take someone with great speed and great endurance to do it."

I agree with Mtn Dew. Its not going to be a 400/800 or a 800/1500 runner. It has to be someone who can be competitive at the 400 and the 1500. Those two races should be what he uses to prepare for a WR 800m or sub 1:40.

Yo wrote:

The only reason you guys think Wariner is the one is beacuase he is white.

No, it's because he has a distance-runner body type, unlike most of the top sprinters in the world.

Yo wrote:

The only reason you guys think Wariner is the one is beacuase he is white.

As many people have pointed out, it's b/c Wariner is a lean guy with the body type of a mid distance runner.

Usatf.org has him listed at 6' 155lbs. That's the same size as Charlie Gruber. He's got a smaller frame than Webb. Look at the best 800m runners we have, he has a smaller build than nearly all of them. Khadevis Robinson is 6', 160, Derek Peterson is 5'11'', 160, Krumenacker is 6'2'', 170. Now take those numbers for what they're worth, but it seems to me that Wariner has a body type of a 800/1500m guy, not a 200m/400m guy. The other 200/400 guys we have are mostly 180-200lbs.

That being said, I don't think Wariner could challenge 1:41 but I think he could do well on the national state and do something like 1:45 or so.