Some thoughts on why the current women's 800 meter times make zero sense

Women are relatively weak in the 800 and in addition semenya etc made some others rather run th 1500. So stronger fields also yield better marks in mile/1500.

OK. So they will be a biiit slower - because: ovaries - and also because their 400m PBs are slower. If we are contrasting with men... and the men are 3-6 seconds off their 400m best, the women will have more of a differential as it's a proportion of their PB in a way, and let's be realistic, women are really slow! But I do agree there is some kind of pacing issue.

I would love to see what people think the optimal split is.

The additional time that women are out there must be taken into account also. World class men run 800 meters about 15 seconds faster than women. If women were to race as anaerobically as men, how would they handle the additional 15 seconds? My example is intended to be in layman's terms so that I can be understood so please be kind in recognizing this, but the basic premise remains. This is one reason that men & women should have some differences in training.

Weaker fields.

Other events steal away the talent from the 890m pool, especially the 400m hurdles.

Glamour Girls wrote:

Weaker fields.

Other events steal away the talent from the 890m pool, especially the 400m hurdles.

*800m*

Please list 5 meets where this happened. It has not. You saw one meet. Every other meet disproves your assumption.

A paced (DL or similar) top women's 800m will go 57-58 - 1:58-59. Often the pacing is a bit too ambitious and splits in the end are 57-63 or so. But last year both Reekie and Kipyegon ran sub 2 with about even split.

A well paced DL women's 1500m will go like 62-63- 2:05-6 -> 3:56-59, often with the third lap a bit slower. So it will be considerably slower than a 2:00 800m.

I think your on to something.

Athing Mu runs "great times" for the 800m, or does she?

50.03 relay split. I watched the video of her race.

I wonder why she doesn't go out in 55-56 in every 800m?

Is the 800m field too soft? 14 year-old Mary Decker would be giving these women all they could handle.

you're vice your.

Knight Templar wrote:

50.03 relay split. I watched the video of her race.

I wonder why she doesn't go out in 55-56 in every 800m?

This comment would make sense in May after we've established a pattern of how she run 800s under her new training program. There is no "every 800" since she's only run one indoor 800m with this new found 50.52 400m speed (a 2:01 off limited training as per A&M's head coach.)

We'll see soon enough I guess.

Going out in 54 may result in a 2:04 finish.

Knight Templar wrote:

I think your on to something.

Athing Mu runs "great times" for the 800m, or does she?

50.03 relay split. I watched the video of her race.

I wonder why she doesn't go out in 55-56 in every 800m?

Is the 800m field too soft? 14 year-old Mary Decker would be giving these women all they could handle.

In HS we had a kid who looked like an 800m guy (i.e. like 5'8/130lbs ran like a 16:30 on a sort of legit XC course) who could run a high 49 out of the blocks. He always went out in a mid 56 and came back in 60/61. he much have ran 1:56 high to 1:58 4 a half dozen times. Some people just don't have the strength to keep going at at the differentials you might expect. Until she can go out in 58 and come back with a 60, whats the point of going out in 56?

I sort of doubt many female runners have legit 50s type speed. My impression (the ones from smaller nations tend to show up on 4x400 teams) is that most of them are 53s type girls which is why you see a lot of 1:58 and not many 1:55s.

just the facts wrote:

The additional time that women are out there must be taken into account also. World class men run 800 meters about 15 seconds faster than women. If women were to race as anaerobically as men, how would they handle the additional 15 seconds? My example is intended to be in layman's terms so that I can be understood so please be kind in recognizing this, but the basic premise remains. This is one reason that men & women should have some differences in training.

I think this would be a good explanation to what the OP is asking.

We know races 1500m and up are best run with even splits.

400m-800m are run with positive splits.

But you can run a Fast 800 with near even splits. You can't run a fast 400 with near even splits.

May for women running the 800, the positive split difference would be smaller since they running for a longer time, as you said.

Another thought is that elite 800m women don't as often come form a 400m racing background.

And many are 800/1500 types who do run more even splits when you look at the history of elite 800/1500 types.

Coe may being an exception since he really did start with the 400 and moved on up.

Star wrote:

Another thought is that elite 800m women don't as often come form a 400m racing background.

I agree. My thoughts are that not as many 800 women come from a 400 background for the very reason we stated, they are out there 15 seconds longer taking an ever-so-small additional aerobic component.

I know physiologists would cringe but this is the only way I can make it clear; if both genders can last about 1:30-1:40 primarily anaerobically (atp-cp) , this would leave the men :10-:15 seconds to deal with and the women :25-:30. :25-:30 is a tough road for a 400 runner. This is the reason you don't see many men, who moved from 400 to 800 excelling at 1000. Every energy system has it's ceiling.

Interestingly, when Jearl Miles-Clark made the successful move from 400 to 800 (AR-1:56+), she said in an interview that she hated the training differences and she loathed thinking about that Wednesday long run.......which was 4 miles.

Knight Templar wrote:

Is the 800m field too soft?

They imposed that pesky women-only rule

Also, enforcing the "no doping" rule has more effect on those who don't have natural high T. Maybe they're doing that too.

I have made the argument before that the women's 800 is the weakest track event. Maybe tied with the 3k steeple.

Semenya got beaten handily at the 400 and 1500.

The 1500m women in championships can and have closed the last 800 in 1:57.

Everyone was suprised at woman running 8:44 for the steeple. I would expect in the near future to see a 1:53 from someone.

The 800 is strange in that, at least from an energy standpoint (and this is somewhat hypothetical) the faster you run the faster you should be able to run. Looking at creatine phosphate levels (15-20 seconds) and maximum anaerobic exertion-- the faster you can go, the further you get out of each system. So I agree w/ the posters who said the women are going to be more harmed by the longer race.

I also think the fields are relatively weak, comparatively, to the rest of the women's events. And finally, I'm not sure the right training or pacing is being done.

Anecdotally, I ran 4:20 for the mile 15 years ago. I don't run anymore, and haven't for a good 5 years. I you threw me in a woman's diamond league race I'd be lucky to run a 54 second quarter or a 4:20 1500 meters--I wouldn't even be on the homestretch when the winner finished! But I'd walk away with an easy W in almost any woman's 800, and that' s a strange thought. ..

ex-runner wrote:

I have made the argument before that the women's 800 is the weakest track event. Maybe tied with the 3k steeple.

Semenya got beaten handily at the 400 and 1500.

The 1500m women in championships can and have closed the last 800 in 1:57.

Everyone was suprised at woman running 8:44 for the steeple. I would expect in the near future to see a 1:53 from someone.

No strengh in depth at 400 or 800. The best 400 women should be low 22 for 200 and the best 800 women should be sub 50 for 400 and both should have the endurance not to slow down too much in the home strait.