Most of You OVERRATE Damage cause By Negative Splits in 800m

Maybe some athletes are able to run their most optimal 800 with a negative split?

gernu wrote:

So Wilson Kipketer ran something like 52.3 and 50.5 for a 1:42.8 in 1997. Jim Ryun ran like 53.3 and 51.6 for a 1:44.9 at 880 yards. There are many others. Did those negative splits make their final time slower? Maybe yes but not by that much, certainly not even close to a full second.

I think that possibility exists but typically then the difference between the 1st and 2nd lap will be less than one second. So for instance a 2:00 800m might be run well with a 60.4 followed by a 59.6. It does appear that most athletes would do better to run the 59.6 opener and then the 60.4, however.

I was responding to Sham but inadvertently quoted myself.

I honestly think it depends on how you train for the event/ what abilities you bring to the table.

You take someone like sage Canaday (funny person to bring up while talking about 800s, Ik) who had 57 and 2:00 speed in college. Typically someone who is running 2 flat will be opening in 58.x. I don’t think it’s physiologically possible to finish an 800m race with a reasonable time going out at a second slower than all out 400 pace. I may be wrong but I’d guess sage ran his PH with pretty even splits.

Now take me, good ole copper. I have around 51 second 400m speed at the moment. Opening in anything slower than about 56 really isn’t all that scary for me. My speed does come at a cost of endurance though, as I’m not a genetic freak that can have sub 50 speed with sub 15 strength at the same time. So I’m not capable of running two 56s in a row. Probably more like 56.5-59 would be my ideal splits.

You see an even bigger gap in those 45.x type 800m guys. I seem to always see them run 4-6 second differentials.

You don’t need to be a genetic freak with sub 50 speed and sub 15 strength to be able to run back to back 56s. I did it in my 800 pb without coming close to either of those. Someone who can run sub 15 and sub 50 should be able to run under 150 off even splits.

The issue with the 400m and 800m is that they require pretty precise calibration to run optimally. Out a half second too fast and you’re toast. You need to really understand your physiological limits to perform well

i think the accurate take is that most people (probably 80/90%) of runners are better off with a positive split. This means that some people will actually run fastest w a negative split. What group you fall in comes down to genetics and training, like most things in running.

gernu wrote:

So Wilson Kipketer ran something like 52.3 and 50.5 for a 1:42.8 in 1997. Jim Ryun ran like 53.3 and 51.6 for a 1:44.9 at 880 yards. There are many others. Did those negative splits make their final time slower? Maybe yes but not by that much, certainly not even close to a full second.

Agreed. I remember my junior year of high school I ran 1:57 off of a 60 second opening lap. It was a big PR, and I was shocked I ran so fast off of a big negative split like that. A week later, at the state championship, I went 58-60 for a 1:58. Clearly, the negative split was not such a bad thing.

It really depends on what kind of runner you are.

400/800 types are used to running faster and will feel more comfortable going out in a faster 400 and have the muscle fibers where that’s more optimal

800/1500 guys will be closer to even splits or slight positive, around 1-2, maybe 3 seconds.

Longer distance guys will usually run extremely even or negative splits.

Would be interesting to look at the top 20~30 800 times run and see the average split difference. Might have time to compile that later today.

yessirskiii wrote:

Would be interesting to look at the top 20~30 800 times run and see the average split difference. Might have time to compile that later today.

Without checking I will go with 28/30 positive splits or even 30

Its the same thing but to a lesser extent as 200 splits in 400m. Same physiological principle at work.

It is not impossible to run fast negative-splitting an 800. That might be overrated, I agree. To say people will improve 2-4 seconds is excessive. 1-2 seems reasonable. There’re very few athletes who can/will run their fastest times with a negative or even-split 800. So if a male athlete runs 1:42 or 1:43 on a negative split you might have a generational athlete on your hands. Brazier can definitely run 1:43 with a 52-second opening 400 (might even have done this indoors?), but he is a special athlete. I doubt you can find any top athlete who achieved their best times with negative split 800s.

gernu wrote:

gernu wrote:

So Wilson Kipketer ran something like 52.3 and 50.5 for a 1:42.8 in 1997. Jim Ryun ran like 53.3 and 51.6 for a 1:44.9 at 880 yards. There are many others. Did those negative splits make their final time slower? Maybe yes but not by that much, certainly not even close to a full second.

I think that possibility exists but typically then the difference between the 1st and 2nd lap will be less than one second. So for instance a 2:00 800m might be run well with a 60.4 followed by a 59.6. It does appear that most athletes would do better to run the 59.6 opener and then the 60.4, however.

Someone would do the exact same if they went out in 59.6 followed by 60.4 vs going out in 60.4 followed by 59.6.

briswiss wrote:

gernu wrote:

I think that possibility exists but typically then the difference between the 1st and 2nd lap will be less than one second. So for instance a 2:00 800m might be run well with a 60.4 followed by a 59.6. It does appear that most athletes would do better to run the 59.6 opener and then the 60.4, however.

Someone would do the exact same if they went out in 59.6 followed by 60.4 vs going out in 60.4 followed by 59.6.

Yes but it might be more efficient to do the former. If that was not understood l, may it be understood now.

gernu wrote:

briswiss wrote:

Someone would do the exact same if they went out in 59.6 followed by 60.4 vs going out in 60.4 followed by 59.6.

Yes but it might be more efficient to do the former. If that was not understood l, may it be understood now.

I would argue that the latter is actually even splits as the first 400 is with a standing start and the 2nd 400 is with a rolling start.

Yes pig you are arguably correct.

Even Steven is the best. Usually if u go out too hard the first 400m the 🐻 jumps on your back with 300 to go

Your number one example is Kipketer negative splitting 1:42.8.

His PR is 1:41.1.

1.7 seconds faster.

More than 135 men have run sub 1:44.

I believe that every single one of their PRs was a positive split.

No one who focuses on the 800 as their main event has a negative split PR unless they are inexperienced or are lacking speed.

If you are racing and equal and he goes out at an optimal positive split and you try to go out even, you will never catch him.

See this race:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIgGRX39Co

Robby Andrew’s NCAA 800m win.

He is in last place at the 400 then passes everyone the second lap to win.

His splits?

51.1/53.4

Not even close to even, let alone negative splits.

who are the many others?

typical... a bold claim, then only a single data point to back it.