You said I was wrong when I said the 800 requires a given level of speed and not just endurance. You are wrong. That isn't obfuscating.
I haven't spoken "fondly" of Juantorena. He came from a communist nation. In his era doping was pretty much the norm for the Soviet bloc, so you can draw your own conclusions.
That is not what I said. All events require a certain level of speed (some more, some less.) What I have been saying is 1:46 is not a measure of "speed" it is a measure of "stamina". Two 1500m men may both have 800m PBs of 1:46, while one of them can run 100m in 11.5 and the other in only 12.0; the one with the 11.5 100m PB has more speed than the one who can run only 12.0. A distance of 800m is a distance where "stamina" (the ability to sustain an intense effort) is the determining factor. This may seem like simply an exercise in semantics but it is important to use the correct terms for the characteristics they apply to, otherwise when we discuss/argue performance we won't be on the "same page" which leads to confusion. Another example is how many (most?, all?) of the young middle distance runners talk about doing "strength work" when they run intense intervals - maybe they know what that means but such misuse of terminology only confuses serious discussions of training and performance.
You miss the point. 1:46 is a measure of speed - or its lack - in relation to a 3:26 or so 1500. The only runner who got close to that was Lagat (of the positive EPO A sample).
Constant pace in the 800 isn't economical, as it requires a constant and considerable increase in effort to maintain pace. That appears to be less efficient than starting fast and holding on - if possible.
I do not understand that. Given is an 800m runner with 45s speed. If he runs the first lap in 49, it is more physically demanding (higher lactate levels) than if it were a 50.5. For this reason, all second laps are significantly slower. Ross Tucker's study only provides empirical evidence of what we can all see: the athletes start like firefighters in the event of a disaster, and there is a stressful battle for the best position in the inner lane. That's part of the event. It is therefore very difficult to run the individually optimal first lap, which at the same time leaves the highest possible reserves for the second lap. The previous world records were achieved under these circumstances. Ross Tucker gives no physiological explanation, right?
But we are talking about a world record that would theoretically be possible with a negative split, precisely because an athlete plans it and because the race allows it. When was the last 800m race with the announcement of a world record attempt? With organized pacemakers? Wave light technology?
World record attempts are usually run according to positive splits; it isn't competitive pressure of the kind you describe that produces these. It is a tactical choice. Sometimes we see competition produces the reverse, of negative splits - such as in Tokyo and Moscow '80.
If something is achieved a particular way 99% of the time by the very best athletes - in this case, 800m world records - it is a safe bet that it is the best way. Everything else is people just talking out of their hats.
It in no way resolves the discussion but as a young athlete I ran a lot of 800 races (I was a 1500 runner as well) and it was always easier to run a faster time with positive splits. Most of my competitors found the same.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
it is most likely the first under 1:40 hasn't been born yet.
sub 3:24.99 might exist. I doubt anybody current can do it, but I'd rate Laros the top prospect if one does exist. He might never break 3:28, but there is enough unknown about his ceiling, that you can you say world record is possible, when you look at his early age endurance + speed combination. Everybody else who is good is enough of a known quantity that I can confidently say sub 3:25 is not possible for them.
Disagree on this one. You’re basically saying a sub 1:40 is at least another 20 years away. I would say within the next 10 years we’ll see a sub 1:40. It just takes one super talent to totally turn things upside down. Just look at how quickly Kiptum (God rest his soul) turned things upside down in the marathon. Rudisha ran his 1:40.91 back in 2012 so it’s already been 12 years since then. Another 10 or so years it will be well over 20 years since that time.
This post was edited 17 seconds after it was posted.
EVEN split is optimal efficiency. What everyone fails to grasp is that this is HARD to do. That's why 24 of 26 were positive. But I bet some of them were not that heavily positive.
Even split is harder - which is why it isn't typical. So it isn't "optimal efficiency".
Think about a car. Do you get the best mpg if you speed up and slow down? No, constant velocity to cover the same time/distance gives the best mpg. But practically it's hard to do it perfectly.
Even split is harder - which is why it isn't typical. So it isn't "optimal efficiency".
Think about a car. Do you get the best mpg if you speed up and slow down? No, constant velocity to cover the same time/distance gives the best mpg. But practically it's hard to do it perfectly.
Not the best analogy, as the human body is a lot more complex than a car, and the 800m is arguably the most complex event since it requires a trickier combination of energy systems than the other events. 1500m and up are primarily aerobic, while 400m and down are primarily anaerobic.
This whole "even or negative split is best" argument seems to be fueled by a lot of distance specialists (the overwhelming majority on this board, so their takes are always validated by at least a few others) who fail to listen to us on here who have actually specialized in training for, racing and coaching the 800m. Even or negative splits are most optimal for true distance events, but in the 800m, a slightly positive split is best.
Think about a car. Do you get the best mpg if you speed up and slow down? No, constant velocity to cover the same time/distance gives the best mpg. But practically it's hard to do it perfectly.
Not the best analogy, as the human body is a lot more complex than a car, and the 800m is arguably the most complex event since it requires a trickier combination of energy systems than the other events. 1500m and up are primarily aerobic, while 400m and down are primarily anaerobic.
This whole "even or negative split is best" argument seems to be fueled by a lot of distance specialists (the overwhelming majority on this board, so their takes are always validated by at least a few others) who fail to listen to us on here who have actually specialized in training for, racing and coaching the 800m. Even or negative splits are most optimal for true distance events, but in the 800m, a slightly positive split is best.
Tokyo 2020. 800m Women. Gold (Mu, 1:55), Silver and Bronze, all for negative splits. Juri Borsakowski (1:42) and his coach thought even or slightly negative splits are the way to go. There are more examples. I don't buy your conclusion for the 800.
Not the best analogy, as the human body is a lot more complex than a car, and the 800m is arguably the most complex event since it requires a trickier combination of energy systems than the other events. 1500m and up are primarily aerobic, while 400m and down are primarily anaerobic.
This whole "even or negative split is best" argument seems to be fueled by a lot of distance specialists (the overwhelming majority on this board, so their takes are always validated by at least a few others) who fail to listen to us on here who have actually specialized in training for, racing and coaching the 800m. Even or negative splits are most optimal for true distance events, but in the 800m, a slightly positive split is best.
Then I would be more than happy to have a detailed explanation as to why a slightly positive split is the best for the 800m? Because you possess so much knowledge in this field :)
Disagree on this one. You’re basically saying a sub 1:40 is at least another 20 years away. I would say within the next 10 years we’ll see a sub 1:40. It just takes one super talent to totally turn things upside down. Just look at how quickly Kiptum (God rest his soul) turned things upside down in the marathon. Rudisha ran his 1:40.91 back in 2012 so it’s already been 12 years since then. Another 10 or so years it will be well over 20 years since that time.
Rudisha was the perfect 800m runner. A one in 5 decades kind of talent, like Bolt for the 100m. There is no reason to think someone more talented will appear anytime soon. He probably could have done a bit better like low-mid 1:40 in a perfect time trial that day in London but still nobody is close to that level of talent. The WR (let alone 1:40) will not be beaten until new shoes/tracks/PEDs that specifically help the 800m, appear.
The marathon is a recent event compared to track races. It's been famous and really contested only for a decade or two and shoes have helped a lot improving the WR who was held by old former track specialists not in their prime. Sub 2h will happen a lot sooner than sub 1:40.
Even split is harder - which is why it isn't typical. So it isn't "optimal efficiency".
Think about a car. Do you get the best mpg if you speed up and slow down? No, constant velocity to cover the same time/distance gives the best mpg. But practically it's hard to do it perfectly.
Cars don't have lungs and muscles that are subject to fatigue. Wrong analogy.
it is most likely the first under 1:40 hasn't been born yet.
sub 3:24.99 might exist. I doubt anybody current can do it, but I'd rate Laros the top prospect if one does exist. He might never break 3:28, but there is enough unknown about his ceiling, that you can you say world record is possible, when you look at his early age endurance + speed combination. Everybody else who is good is enough of a known quantity that I can confidently say sub 3:25 is not possible for them.
Disagree on this one. You’re basically saying a sub 1:40 is at least another 20 years away. I would say within the next 10 years we’ll see a sub 1:40. It just takes one super talent to totally turn things upside down. Just look at how quickly Kiptum (God rest his soul) turned things upside down in the marathon. Rudisha ran his 1:40.91 back in 2012 so it’s already been 12 years since then. Another 10 or so years it will be well over 20 years since that time.
You won't want to hear this but a factor that cannot be discounted from the improvements in recent decades has been doping. Your mention of Kiptum only reinforces that. Many suspected him. So if 1:40 is achieved in the years to come I would say without a doubt that doping had to play a part.
Not the best analogy, as the human body is a lot more complex than a car, and the 800m is arguably the most complex event since it requires a trickier combination of energy systems than the other events. 1500m and up are primarily aerobic, while 400m and down are primarily anaerobic.
This whole "even or negative split is best" argument seems to be fueled by a lot of distance specialists (the overwhelming majority on this board, so their takes are always validated by at least a few others) who fail to listen to us on here who have actually specialized in training for, racing and coaching the 800m. Even or negative splits are most optimal for true distance events, but in the 800m, a slightly positive split is best.
Then I would be more than happy to have a detailed explanation as to why a slightly positive split is the best for the 800m? Because you possess so much knowledge in this field :)
Why do you need a "detailed explanation" when the fact is that almost all wr's over the distance were achieved with a positive split? If a negative split was better it would have been the rule. It isn't.
Disagree on this one. You’re basically saying a sub 1:40 is at least another 20 years away. I would say within the next 10 years we’ll see a sub 1:40. It just takes one super talent to totally turn things upside down. Just look at how quickly Kiptum (God rest his soul) turned things upside down in the marathon. Rudisha ran his 1:40.91 back in 2012 so it’s already been 12 years since then. Another 10 or so years it will be well over 20 years since that time.
Rudisha was the perfect 800m runner. A one in 5 decades kind of talent, like Bolt for the 100m. There is no reason to think someone more talented will appear anytime soon. He probably could have done a bit better like low-mid 1:40 in a perfect time trial that day in London but still nobody is close to that level of talent. The WR (let alone 1:40) will not be beaten until new shoes/tracks/PEDs that specifically help the 800m, appear.
The marathon is a recent event compared to track races. It's been famous and really contested only for a decade or two and shoes have helped a lot improving the WR who was held by old former track specialists not in their prime. Sub 2h will happen a lot sooner than sub 1:40.
So you don’t think Bolt’s world records will be broken until at least the year 2059?
Rudisha was the perfect 800m runner. A one in 5 decades kind of talent, like Bolt for the 100m. There is no reason to think someone more talented will appear anytime soon. He probably could have done a bit better like low-mid 1:40 in a perfect time trial that day in London but still nobody is close to that level of talent. The WR (let alone 1:40) will not be beaten until new shoes/tracks/PEDs that specifically help the 800m, appear.
The marathon is a recent event compared to track races. It's been famous and really contested only for a decade or two and shoes have helped a lot improving the WR who was held by old former track specialists not in their prime. Sub 2h will happen a lot sooner than sub 1:40.
So you don’t think Bolt’s world records will be broken until at least the year 2059?
That's not what is implied by what I said.
I think Bolt was the most talented sprinter of the last 50 years. Who knows if somebody more talented will show up in the future. The WR will be beaten one day, but not necessarily by someone more talented, possibly thanks to technological improvments (including peds).
And I woudn't bet on it for the next 10 years, whether it's for the 100m or the 800m.
That is not what I said. All events require a certain level of speed (some more, some less.) What I have been saying is 1:46 is not a measure of "speed" it is a measure of "stamina". Two 1500m men may both have 800m PBs of 1:46, while one of them can run 100m in 11.5 and the other in only 12.0; the one with the 11.5 100m PB has more speed than the one who can run only 12.0. A distance of 800m is a distance where "stamina" (the ability to sustain an intense effort) is the determining factor. This may seem like simply an exercise in semantics but it is important to use the correct terms for the characteristics they apply to, otherwise when we discuss/argue performance we won't be on the "same page" which leads to confusion. Another example is how many (most?, all?) of the young middle distance runners talk about doing "strength work" when they run intense intervals - maybe they know what that means but such misuse of terminology only confuses serious discussions of training and performance.
You miss the point. 1:46 is a measure of speed - or its lack - in relation to a 3:26 or so 1500. The only runner who got close to that was Lagat (of the positive EPO A sample).
1:46 is a measure of "stamina" (or its lack) in relation to a 3:26 or so 1500.
If you want an example of how speed comes into play in a 1500, Makhloufi's 2012 London win is one, where he closed the final 200m in 25.x and final 100m in 12.x.
A poster here once claimed that Olaf Beyer would have broken 1:40 if he hadn't had a supposed football injury after Prague 78.. This was on the grounds that he ran 1:43 after just turning 21 and beating Coe and Ovett who were both older.
Might have been Hoady, although I doubt if he would claim that about a white runner, even in order to.denigrate Coe and Ovett.
A poster here once claimed that Olaf Beyer would have broken 1:40 if he hadn't had a supposed football injury after Prague 78.. This was on the grounds that he ran 1:43 after just turning 21 and beating Coe and Ovett who were both older.
Might have been Hoady, although I doubt if he would claim that about a white runner, even in order to.denigrate Coe and Ovett.
This thread is done. I have stayed away but the best you gals & guys can say now, Olaf Beyer?
What is wrong with you? Did anyone say one race can or cannot race sub-1:40 800m? There are men from every continent capable of f.a.t. sub-46 400m. There must be a cultural issue with east Asians regarding relatively few fast 400m & 800m guys.
A poster here once claimed that Olaf Beyer would have broken 1:40 if he hadn't had a supposed football injury after Prague 78.. This was on the grounds that he ran 1:43 after just turning 21 and beating Coe and Ovett who were both older.
Might have been Hoady, although I doubt if he would claim that about a white runner, even in order to.denigrate Coe and Ovett.
This thread is done. I have stayed away but the best you gals & guys can say now, Olaf Beyer?
What is wrong with you? Did anyone say one race can or cannot race sub-1:40 800m? There are men from every continent capable of f.a.t. sub-46 400m. There must be a cultural issue with east Asians regarding relatively few fast 400m & 800m guys.
Hoady says only an East African can run sub 1:41.73
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.