It’s been done, for 880 yards. On June 10th, 1966 in Terry Haute Indiana by a 19 year American named Jim Ryun. He spilt 53.3/51.6 for a WR 880 (1:44.3 800 but no WR credited to him).
But who else has broken the record with a negative split? It appears to be the exception that proves the rule, that it generally isn't the best way to do it.
He probably ran it that way because he was a little tire from running an 880 two hours earlier. By the way last 220 in 25.5.
Please read:
USTAF 880 yards Championships, Terre Haute, June 10 1966 1st 1:44.9 (world record) Ryun had never previously shown he had major ambitions at two laps and this was a shocking performance. He felt tired in a 1:51.0 heat and then just had two hours recovery. Nothing special looked on as he passed halfway in 53.3 but a 51.6 last lap fuelled by a 25.5 final 220 yards saw him break Snell’s 1:45.1 world record and win the race by three seconds. Snell had passed 800m in a then unprecedented record 1:44.3 during his half-mile record. No time was taken for Ryun but it was probably 1:44.1 and no one would run quicker until 1973.
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
And Coevy says only white Europeans/Australians can run sub 1:44 clean (and for sure 1:41.73).
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 :)
The 800-meter race is one of the most challenging and exciting events to race and coach in track. Tactically, there is no margin for error and it demands that athletes possess a combination of strength, speed, and endurance....
This linked article^ is one of the best sources explaining the matter. Please read the whole thing. Some key points that I take away from it:
The more recent studies indicate that the 800m uses more of the aerobic system than previously thought. However, so does the 400m. The 800m is found to be more close to the 400m than the 1500m in terms of it's energy profile, that is, what systems the body uses to race that distance all out. It was previously thought that the aerobic and anaerobic systems were used sequentially in a race, but they are actually used simultaneously, but their relative use changes throughout the race.
Since the 800m and 400m both have a significant anaerobic component to them, a runner MUST go out just a hair slower than max speed in order to maximize the anaerobic profile of the race. This means that the 800m is, like the 400m, a "decelerated race" AKA positive split. Thus athletes need to maximize development of both systems in their training.
The article argues that although the 800m and 1500m are often grouped together by coaches as complementary for the strengths of some athletes, the 1500m is better grouped with 3k/5k and 800m with 400m in terms of energy demand. In summary, the energy profile of the race determines the optimal pacing strategies.
Everything I stated above is geared towards running the fastest 800m possible, because the article I listed is about optimizing performance in the event, and this thread is about breaking 1:40. However if we zoom out there is room to address some other takes that people have said. One poster mentioned Borzakovskiy winning in 04, Wottle in the 70s, Mu negative splitting 1:55, etc. First, the women's 800m is a different event, both because the physiology is different and the energy profile is different just from the fact that the women's 800m takes a little more time than a men's 800m, tipping the scales to make it proportionally more aerobic than the men's 800m. So that is not the best example.
For all the great negative splits in men's races, it is indicative of the runner's strengths based on how they trained, as well as tactics, but is not optimal for the fastest time. Wottle and Ryun ran their fastest on negative splits because their aerobic systems were much more developed than their anaerobic systems, which was relatively undertrained. They couldn't go out faster than 52/53, because that was their limit just below the critical pace that would cause a lot more metabolic waste. Negative split WAS the fastest way they could run on the day, but one could argue that they'd have run a slightly faster lifetime best had they done different training that allowed their bodies to run a decelerated race. Even a guy like Nick Symmonds, who is widely seen as the guy with the least raw speed to ever run a fast 800m, still ran a positive split in his 1:42.
A lot of other great races have been run in a negative split, but these are tactical championship races, where winning>time. This is why 800m/1500m types have had success, and where I want to clarify that the 1500m strength training still carries a lot of value. When a race goes out in 53, there is more pace variation and room for acceleration, rather than each 200m being slower than the last in a Rudisha-type race. So a tactical 800m involving any sort of acceleration later in the race is effectively turned into a more aerobic effort. This benefits the 800m/1500m type runners. See more speed-oriented guys like Isaiah Jewett and Brandon Miller being capable of really fast times run from the front, but less successful in tactical affairs than Bryce Hoppel, another guy who wins messy races with 1500m strength but still ran his lifetime best in a positive split.
There are some good takeaways at the end, suggesting that with how similar the 800m is to the 400m, the US, for all its 400m success, is lacking in 800m performance on the global stage. This was written in 2015 but is more relevant now than ever. But to return to the original subject of the thread, if someone is going to break 1:40 the optimal way is by positive split, not negative or even split.
OI think it's a little sexist to say the women's 800 is a completely different event from dthe mens. Sure they're a little slower, but they're still exerting themselves just as hard. If a negative split works for them it would work for a man. I think a time trial would prove this. The negative split doesn't work well in a tight race with jostling and traffic.
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.
You still don't get it. Finishing speed is one thing but even as amateurs know, the speed you have - or don't have - determines how fast you can be over a given distance. You can't beat 2 mins for the 800 if you can't get well below 60 secs for the 400. That is about basic speed. It applies to everything. That is why some athletes are sprinters, others are middle distance - 800 or 1500 - and others long distance. There are differences in speed required for each category. Stamina does not decide everything.
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 :)
This linked article^ is one of the best sources explaining the matter. Please read the whole thing. Some key points that I take away from it:
The more recent studies indicate that the 800m uses more of the aerobic system than previously thought. However, so does the 400m. The 800m is found to be more close to the 400m than the 1500m in terms of it's energy profile, that is, what systems the body uses to race that distance all out. It was previously thought that the aerobic and anaerobic systems were used sequentially in a race, but they are actually used simultaneously, but their relative use changes throughout the race.
Since the 800m and 400m both have a significant anaerobic component to them, a runner MUST go out just a hair slower than max speed in order to maximize the anaerobic profile of the race. This means that the 800m is, like the 400m, a "decelerated race" AKA positive split. Thus athletes need to maximize development of both systems in their training.
The article argues that although the 800m and 1500m are often grouped together by coaches as complementary for the strengths of some athletes, the 1500m is better grouped with 3k/5k and 800m with 400m in terms of energy demand. In summary, the energy profile of the race determines the optimal pacing strategies.
Everything I stated above is geared towards running the fastest 800m possible, because the article I listed is about optimizing performance in the event, and this thread is about breaking 1:40. However if we zoom out there is room to address some other takes that people have said. One poster mentioned Borzakovskiy winning in 04, Wottle in the 70s, Mu negative splitting 1:55, etc. First, the women's 800m is a different event, both because the physiology is different and the energy profile is different just from the fact that the women's 800m takes a little more time than a men's 800m, tipping the scales to make it proportionally more aerobic than the men's 800m. So that is not the best example.
For all the great negative splits in men's races, it is indicative of the runner's strengths based on how they trained, as well as tactics, but is not optimal for the fastest time. Wottle and Ryun ran their fastest on negative splits because their aerobic systems were much more developed than their anaerobic systems, which was relatively undertrained. They couldn't go out faster than 52/53, because that was their limit just below the critical pace that would cause a lot more metabolic waste. Negative split WAS the fastest way they could run on the day, but one could argue that they'd have run a slightly faster lifetime best had they done different training that allowed their bodies to run a decelerated race. Even a guy like Nick Symmonds, who is widely seen as the guy with the least raw speed to ever run a fast 800m, still ran a positive split in his 1:42.
A lot of other great races have been run in a negative split, but these are tactical championship races, where winning>time. This is why 800m/1500m types have had success, and where I want to clarify that the 1500m strength training still carries a lot of value. When a race goes out in 53, there is more pace variation and room for acceleration, rather than each 200m being slower than the last in a Rudisha-type race. So a tactical 800m involving any sort of acceleration later in the race is effectively turned into a more aerobic effort. This benefits the 800m/1500m type runners. See more speed-oriented guys like Isaiah Jewett and Brandon Miller being capable of really fast times run from the front, but less successful in tactical affairs than Bryce Hoppel, another guy who wins messy races with 1500m strength but still ran his lifetime best in a positive split.
There are some good takeaways at the end, suggesting that with how similar the 800m is to the 400m, the US, for all its 400m success, is lacking in 800m performance on the global stage. This was written in 2015 but is more relevant now than ever. But to return to the original subject of the thread, if someone is going to break 1:40 the optimal way is by positive split, not negative or even split.
Good points. The 800m is something of an anomaly in track. It is an indeterminate mixture of speed with stamina. The requirement is for both but not necessarily in equal proportions, as some great runners have shown.
But who else has broken the record with a negative split? It appears to be the exception that proves the rule, that it generally isn't the best way to do it.
He probably ran it that way because he was a little tire from running an 880 two hours earlier. By the way last 220 in 25.5.
Please read:
USTAF 880 yards Championships, Terre Haute, June 10 1966 1st 1:44.9 (world record) Ryun had never previously shown he had major ambitions at two laps and this was a shocking performance. He felt tired in a 1:51.0 heat and then just had two hours recovery. Nothing special looked on as he passed halfway in 53.3 but a 51.6 last lap fuelled by a 25.5 final 220 yards saw him break Snell’s 1:45.1 world record and win the race by three seconds. Snell had passed 800m in a then unprecedented record 1:44.3 during his half-mile record. No time was taken for Ryun but it was probably 1:44.1 and no one would run quicker until 1973.
I remember this race. At the time it was stunning and came out of the blue. I don't think Ryun showed anything like it again over that distance. BTW, at the speed he was finishing it was calculated he probably equalled Snell's 800 mark of 1:44.3.
An even greater race, where Ryun finished in much the same way, was his 1500 record in the '67 Colosseum Relays. Over '66-'67 Ryun was in a class of his own. No one was close and he himself never equalled it.
Thanks for the post, I appreciate the exchange of arguments and I realize that the majority is on your side. As far as the 800m women are concerned, they are faced with exactly the same problems. A strong female 800m athlete's 400m PB is about 5 seconds slower than a man's. But that doesn't change the physiological aspects of an 800m race. A first lap in 55 (women) is therefore like a first lap in 50 (men).
such a brutal crowd here with all the vote downs for op. I go with the no question is stupid theory, even if it's a troll. If it leads to thoughtful responses, it's worth a thread. voted up.
Appreciating the positivity—every question’s a chance for good discussion, troll or not!
Lotta people are overestimating how much raw speed will be needed for this record. 1:40 will be broken by a fast endurance guy who "only" runs 45.5 as a 4x400 split. It will be a Hoey type, who will also possess the 600 and 1000 WRs, plus a 3:27.xx 1500.
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 :)
This linked article^ is one of the best sources explaining the matter. Please read the whole thing. Some key points that I take away from it:
The more recent studies indicate that the 800m uses more of the aerobic system than previously thought. However, so does the 400m. The 800m is found to be more close to the 400m than the 1500m in terms of it's energy profile, that is, what systems the body uses to race that distance all out. It was previously thought that the aerobic and anaerobic systems were used sequentially in a race, but they are actually used simultaneously, but their relative use changes throughout the race.
Since the 800m and 400m both have a significant anaerobic component to them, a runner MUST go out just a hair slower than max speed in order to maximize the anaerobic profile of the race. This means that the 800m is, like the 400m, a "decelerated race" AKA positive split. Thus athletes need to maximize development of both systems in their training.
The article argues that although the 800m and 1500m are often grouped together by coaches as complementary for the strengths of some athletes, the 1500m is better grouped with 3k/5k and 800m with 400m in terms of energy demand. In summary, the energy profile of the race determines the optimal pacing strategies.
Everything I stated above is geared towards running the fastest 800m possible, because the article I listed is about optimizing performance in the event, and this thread is about breaking 1:40. However if we zoom out there is room to address some other takes that people have said. One poster mentioned Borzakovskiy winning in 04, Wottle in the 70s, Mu negative splitting 1:55, etc. First, the women's 800m is a different event, both because the physiology is different and the energy profile is different just from the fact that the women's 800m takes a little more time than a men's 800m, tipping the scales to make it proportionally more aerobic than the men's 800m. So that is not the best example.
For all the great negative splits in men's races, it is indicative of the runner's strengths based on how they trained, as well as tactics, but is not optimal for the fastest time. Wottle and Ryun ran their fastest on negative splits because their aerobic systems were much more developed than their anaerobic systems, which was relatively undertrained. They couldn't go out faster than 52/53, because that was their limit just below the critical pace that would cause a lot more metabolic waste. Negative split WAS the fastest way they could run on the day, but one could argue that they'd have run a slightly faster lifetime best had they done different training that allowed their bodies to run a decelerated race. Even a guy like Nick Symmonds, who is widely seen as the guy with the least raw speed to ever run a fast 800m, still ran a positive split in his 1:42.
A lot of other great races have been run in a negative split, but these are tactical championship races, where winning>time. This is why 800m/1500m types have had success, and where I want to clarify that the 1500m strength training still carries a lot of value. When a race goes out in 53, there is more pace variation and room for acceleration, rather than each 200m being slower than the last in a Rudisha-type race. So a tactical 800m involving any sort of acceleration later in the race is effectively turned into a more aerobic effort. This benefits the 800m/1500m type runners. See more speed-oriented guys like Isaiah Jewett and Brandon Miller being capable of really fast times run from the front, but less successful in tactical affairs than Bryce Hoppel, another guy who wins messy races with 1500m strength but still ran his lifetime best in a positive split.
There are some good takeaways at the end, suggesting that with how similar the 800m is to the 400m, the US, for all its 400m success, is lacking in 800m performance on the global stage. This was written in 2015 but is more relevant now than ever. But to return to the original subject of the thread, if someone is going to break 1:40 the optimal way is by positive split, not negative or even split.
There have been many great 800m runners that were better in the 1500m than the 400m. That would include Coe, Cruz, Ovett, Cram, Wottle, Wohlhuter and more recently, Sahlman. Available race strategies are from natural ability and not training.
Seeing that Rudisha and Kipketer own a combined 17 of the top 25 performances in the 800 and the only others to break 1:42 ever also include Coe, Cruz and Amos all of whom are long retired (or banned in the case of Amos) I don't see how any current 800 runners are getting sub 1:40 anytime soon.
...And it's an event that doesn't gain benefit of super shoes. Emanuel Korir was on track to go sub 1:42 but like Brazier, is now plagued by injury and is 28 y.o now. Arop is not fast enough (46.1 400) nor strong enough and he is the current best at the event but you need to realize Rudisha could regularly drop a sub 1:42 performance each season and still couldn't go sub 1:40.
Unless a completely unknown super stud suddenly shows up I doubt if Rudisha's record falls soon let alone a sub 1:40! ...A sub sub 3:25 1500 might be more likely since the event is in the midst of some incredibly deep and very fast runners currently. And unlike the 8, the 15 does see the benefit of super shoes.
This is the "completely unknown super stud" if he can run 1:42.27 off 90% raw genetic talent. Imagine what he can do when he is 25 with years of training under him.
Lotta people are overestimating how much raw speed will be needed for this record. 1:40 will be broken by a fast endurance guy who "only" runs 45.5 as a 4x400 split. It will be a Hoey type, who will also possess the 600 and 1000 WRs, plus a 3:27.xx 1500.
Absolutely not. That's way too slow. You need 45 flat open speed at a minimum with low 44 being ideal.
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.
