I have 23.0 200m speed can I run 1:44

I stated 880 yards because if his story is true, I believe he's past age 60. All US high schools discontinued 880 yards circa 1981. 2 lapper includes 880 yards and 800m. If not James Robinson, are there any 800m specialists from US not named? Before 1990, there was a small number of individuals globally who officially raced sub-1:44 800m. Are there a few Kenyans with secret hand timed sub-1:44 800m before 1990? Old Man 2 Lapper already crossed Mike Boit off the list. The gentleman with duel RSA/ITL citizenship, Marcello Fiasconaro?

cecil9sm wrote:

23 will only get you 49 at the quarter. The classic early 880 guys who were under 1:45, Peter Snell and Jim Ryan were sub 48 which means their 200s had to have been low 22 s and probably 22 flat.

Web search says that Snell's 200m PR is 22.3.

Statto, no offense but your statement I don't think it is necessary to feel anything in particular at any particular pace. is false. You most certainly do have to feel smooth at 400 m. at a certain pace to run your best at 800 m. Also, for what it's worth- 23 point from a standing start, 49/50 relay split, 1:49 open 800 m., and 4:05 mile. I generally think I was pretty close to maxed out at the 800 m. (and I say that thinking that I never maxed out at the mile) and am astonished that some guys with similar 400 speed reportedly an so much faster at 800 m.

Statto wrote:

observer_of_things wrote:

Departing from old man 2 lapper speculation and back to the thread ...

To be a sub 1:44 runner, you need to be able to hit the 400 split in 50 point feeling nice and smooth. You really need 47 speed for that to happen which means 23 won't cut it.

Interestingly, some of those with less speed ran with more even pace. I don't think it is necessary to feel anything in particular at any particular pace.

Does 1:44 mean sub 1:44?

True for Snell, but I don't think he ever rain the distance in a race, so it was likely to be a training time - no blocks of course - and on the shitty tracks of the early 1960's. I think he was possibly faster than that - maybe close to 22 flat - on a better track and in competition. His amazing kick (see Compton 1963) and dominance over two laps in his era, running 1.44.3 on grass, with the closest runner half way down the straight behind him, may support that.

Statto, in response to your earlier question, to be a 23 guy and run 48-mid for 400 may be genuine or not -it suggests more endurance than I would expect from someone who is primarily a one-lap runner. I would think the differential would be closer to 2secs per 200 for shorter distance athletes. To run 1.44 for the 800 off 23 speed suggests absolutely world class endurance, of the kind I might expect to see in a top 1500 or even 5k specialist. But if anyone is running close to 3.26 for 1500 I would be looking for signs of a syringe these days. Too many disappointments there.

oldtiger76 wrote:

Statto, no offense but your statement I don't think it is necessary to feel anything in particular at any particular pace. is false. You most certainly do have to feel smooth at 400 m. at a certain pace to run your best at 800 m.

Also, for what it's worth- 23 point from a standing start, 49/50 relay split, 1:49 open 800 m., and 4:05 mile. I generally think I was pretty close to maxed out at the 800 m. (and I say that thinking that I never maxed out at the mile) and am astonished that some guys with similar 400 speed reportedly an so much faster at 800 m.

Statto wrote:

Interestingly, some of those with less speed ran with more even pace. I don't think it is necessary to feel anything in particular at any particular pace.

Does 1:44 mean sub 1:44?

My claim that you don't have to feel anything in particular at any particular pace was a general claim. My comment about slower sprinters tending to run more evenly paced should have made it obvious.

400/800 runners will tend to run 50/54 perhaps and feel comfortable at 50

800/1500 runners may run 52/52. They don't have to feel the same at 50 and they don't have to run that pace during an 800m.

oldtiger76 wrote:

Statto, no offense but your statement I don't think it is necessary to feel anything in particular at any particular pace. is false. You most certainly do have to feel smooth at 400 m. at a certain pace to run your best at 800 m.

Also, for what it's worth- 23 point from a standing start, 49/50 relay split, 1:49 open 800 m., and 4:05 mile. I generally think I was pretty close to maxed out at the 800 m. (and I say that thinking that I never maxed out at the mile) and am astonished that some guys with similar 400 speed reportedly an so much faster at 800 m.

[/quote]

Many people run sub 4 without being about to run faster than 1:50. Some are around 1:52. These kinds of runner will have smaller differences between 200 and 400 and 800 as well.

Statto, I'm just saying that when you hit 400 m. in an 800 m. race, truly run right, you have to feel a certain way (i.e. not over a certain line) in order to run a fast 800 m.

Not a former world class 1500m/one mile runner wrote:

I stated 880 yards because if his story is true, I believe he's past age 60. All US high schools discontinued 880 yards circa 1981.

But isn't that assuming he's American? Other countries may have kept using yards past then for local competition.

2 lapper includes 880 yards and 800m. If not James Robinson, are there any 800m specialists from US not named? Before 1990, there was a small number of individuals globally who officially raced sub-1:44 800m. Are there a few Kenyans with secret hand timed sub-1:44 800m before 1990? Old Man 2 Lapper already crossed Mike Boit off the list. The gentleman with duel RSA/ITL citizenship, Marcello Fiasconaro?

Unless 2-lapper claims to have ran a sub-1:44 880, there's no reason the sub-1:44 can't be after 1990 if he ran those 880's in a country that still used yards and miles locally. That means a whole army of possible kenyans.

Kenya went metric in the late 1960's, but as a former British colony they may have copied the UK's either/or option where both imperial and metric were official. I'd have to hear from an actual Kenyan whether and when they started using metric only.

before 1990 there is still konchellah, ereng, kiprotich, kibet, and kipkurgat. Circumstantially, om2l has freely confirmed/denied a lot of guesses but remained silent on the Kenyan question.

SlowTwitcher wrote:

Given world class aerobic and anaerobic systems is 23.0 sufficient speed to run 1:44

Can we name someone to have done this?

Also is this 1. 44 flat or point?

I'd say very unlikely.

Frank Horwill wrote:

dontthinkitcanbedone wrote:

No. I was much faster over 200 (and 400 than you - 21.7 / 46.6) and couldn't break 1:46. Even if you have a world class aerobic system I doubt you can get much below 1:48 if at all if you can only run 23 for 200.

Your 400 seems good in comparison to your 200, but your 800m doesn't.

Aside from 400m specialists would there be many who could run 44.6 but couldn't break 1:42. A 46.6 400m implies 1:41 (very good endurance), 1:43 (good endurance) or 1:45 (mediocre endurance).

Lots of guys can run 46/47 and not break 1:50 no matter what they do. Bennie Brown worked his tail off, couldn't do it. Neither could Lee Evans who actually ran cross country. I ran 47.1 and sub 1:47 - but no way could I have run under 1:46 and I think I may have a good idea who the 21.7 guy is. Maybe anyway. Anyhow, I guess I had mediocre to terrible endurance. Not! Very few guys who can run 45s can ever hope to be able to break 1:50. I think I could have been a bit better at 400 but being white the coaches pushed me to the 800, you know how it goes, as un pc as that might be to say.

Late poster wrote:

SlowTwitcher wrote:

Given world class aerobic and anaerobic systems is 23.0 sufficient speed to run 1:44

Can we name someone to have done this?

Also is this 1. 44 flat or point?

I'd say very unlikely.

Yes, Cram.

Good call deanouk

Are we sure cram could not run sub 23

Late poster wrote:

Good call deanouk

Are we sure cram could not run sub 23

Not according to Cram himself in an interview with AW in October 1985, just after his best ever season, one in which he ran 1:42.88 for 800m.

He said that he had worked hard on improving his speed that year, and was very pleased with his 48.1 tt over 400m (his best ever time over the distance), and the fact he was able to run low 23's with a rolling start in timed 200m runs.

SlowTwitcher wrote:

Thank you for all replies, really interesting discussions.

For those wondering I have PBs of 48.6, 1:48, 3:48 making me believe that 800 is the event I am most suited towards rather than 1500. The 200m is from blocks done on one sprint session a week

To go back on topic:

I think you should consider moving up to the 1500. Your times suggest very good lactic tolerance and weak endurance. If you have good aerobic talent and put in the work you could very well run in the 3:30s while your 800 might max out at 1:46.

Straight up? No, not really. I don't personally know a single sub-1:50 guy who can't go under 23, much less 1:44. To give you an example; my high school 4x8 ran 7:43 last year going 1:57, 1:56, 1:54, 1:54 and 3 of us ran 23.xx in the open 200 that year (the one who didn't was a 4:11 guy)...we're not even a foot speed based team, we focus mainly on XC and the mile. My roommate right now ran 1:52 last year and has run 22/49 before. Nick Symmonds was an example of a guy who was not very good at 200/400 for his 800 times, and he could still run 21.xx in the 200 for a 1:42 800. 1:44 is a time that you need world-class aerobic and anaerobic systems already, as well as solid foot speed; that's a very fast time, that'll get you into any meet except some of the fastest Diamond League meets. I would say if you can't run at least 22.xx, 1:44 is physically impossible, and most 1:44 guys can run 21.xx. However, if you struggle with 200s and 400s but want to run 1:44, then that's a great thing to focus your training on! Shoring up weaknesses is one of the best ways to drop those crucial few seconds that separate a good runner from a great one. Good luck!

SlowTwitcher wrote:

Given world class aerobic and anaerobic systems is 23.0 sufficient speed to run 1:44

World class aerobic and anaerobic systems? No, just what you already have and used properly.

The speed endurance training should mimic the race, i.e. controlled decelleration, i.e. not trying to fight acidosis that will just make your races harder.

I ran 22.8 in the 200 and the fastest I ever ran an 800 was 1:53. You seem delusional if you think things can translate that way. There are plenty of 21 point runners out there that can't break 2:00. Anaerobic events can't really be compared to aerobic events. But the speed can't hurt either.

joedirt wrote:

I ran 22.8 in the 200 and the fastest I ever ran an 800 was 1:53. You seem delusional if you think things can translate that way. There are plenty of 21 point runners out there that can't break 2:00. Anaerobic events can't really be compared to aerobic events. But the speed can't hurt either.

To be fair that just mean you lacker endurance, I know plenty of 5k guys that can run 1:53 but would struggle to break 24. Your example of a 21 runner being unable to break 2:00 is another example of this. The reason is not having to much speed but rather not enough endurance. If given 100k and 6months to train I’m certain 99% of 21flat runners would easily break 2. And 50% could probably run 1:50 with enough motivation to endure a few years training.