Both had their old WRs set in the late 90s until being broken in the past decade. Which would you say is more challenging/more painful to run? I say 800 is more impressive and painful. Two nearly sub 50 laps versus a single 43 lap.
Both had their old WRs set in the late 90s until being broken in the past decade. Which would you say is more challenging/more painful to run? I say 800 is more impressive and painful. Two nearly sub 50 laps versus a single 43 lap.
For men, Rudisha's 800 is definitely more impressive or at least more unbeatable.
Someone runs 43.x every year for the most part, Gardiner did it in April twice. But very few run 1:41 or even 1:42 nowadays, save Amos who is inconsistent.
Going into the actual races / people and not just the times, both were run in an impressive fashion (Rudisha from the front without a pacer, van Niekerk from lane 8, both in Olympic finals) but Rudisha had a much longer history of dominance than WVN did before his record.
I think both are beatable in the superspikes era but I expect the 400 to go first. The Olympic 800 final was won in 1:45, we just don't have enough frontrunners on the pro circuit right now like Mu is recently on the women's side. Maybe if someone like Knighton moves up to the 400 or if Kerley comes back (seems doubtful) they could go for a 42.x. Who knows, maybe Warholm will scare it next week at Brussels or transition back to that event on an off-year.
Both are hard to break, but I'd say the 800m doesn't have the right talent to break it, I cant say for sure which is more impressive but I believe both are breakable tor people with the right speed. The world record holder in the 800m is going to be a sub 3:31 and 46 flat runner or a sub 44.5 runner with great endurance or somthing in between. No body fits that description currently.
Many people say 400m/800m types are rare, but I think that's just because nobody tries it, many 400m runners aren't pure sprinters.
According to WA scoring system the two WR performances are scored as follows:
800- 1301
400- 1321
The 400m wr is considered to be quite a bit more imprrssive than the 800m one. This however is obfuscated by the nature of the 800 and how much rarer all-out performances are in this event due to the prevalence of sandbagging whereas the 400 is an event with lanes assignments so yeah. And you could also argue the 800m field is just weaker right now.
There arent as many sub 1:42s as there are 43 highs/mids
I appreciate the thoughtful analysis however I disagree on key points.
The records are quite comparable; also difficult to support the sandbagging theory as this implies effort correlates 100% to finishing time.
Athletes are typically incentivized to win more than they are to set records.
If winning is impossible, the payoff tends to be by place.
And marks < 44 and < 1:43 makes for a fairer comparison.
400 WR is better. Based on the 400, the 800 should be sub 1:40.
Elite 800 runners should go out 45/46 1st 400, then come back in 48/49... The 800 WR should be 1:35ish.
400/800 wrote:
400 WR is better. Based on the 400, the 800 should be sub 1:40.
Elite 800 runners should go out 45/46 1st 400, then come back in 48/49... The 800 WR should be 1:35ish.
That’s essentially saying 800m runners should be low/sub 43 400m runners. A 1:35 800m would I kid you not be worth 41.x for 400m
Thats exactly what Im referring to when I say sandbagging lol. You just explained """tactical""" sandbagging. Point is, it produces slower times.
Also, no those times you gave are not equivalent performances. A sub 1:43 is worth 1235 pts and will land you in the top 40 all time. A sub 44 is worth 1250 pts and will land you inside the top 20 all time. A sub 44 is significantly more impressive.
I think they are both impressive. Keep in mind that there are different systems being employed. As far as grading them against some grading system, they are both great in a similar manner. However, one is a sprint and one is endurance. The 400 is a nervous system challenge, and the 800 isn't. So, while it may seem like a cop-out, I'd say it isn't fair to compare them since they aren't working out of the same systems.
You can compare them but it's all speculation.
If the human limits are 42.00 and 1:37.5 you'd know which one is more impressive the recruitment of energy systems in every event is different but you can compare them based on data and what you think is possible
Can't comment on 400m & 800m world records without mentioning female world records. I find women 400m & 800m world records equally impressive. I am also equally impressed with male 400m & 800m world records but 800m raced on one turn stagger, 800m male world record is less likely to be broken in near future. Guys go out first 200m sub-24.5 as often as ever, 800m. Guys hit 400m split sub-49.75 often, but not too many guys are willing to pass 600m & 700m, sub-75 & sub-87.5 currently. Three-thousand metre high school XC would help increase probability of new male 800m record. High school XC needs to look less daunting to 13 & 14 year old 25 second & 55 second 200m & 400m T&F athletes.
IAAF Scoring Tables rank the 400 world record as slightly better than the 800 -- 1321 to 1301.
I get more excited watching Rudisha's race. i actually re-watch that every few months.
van niekerk's record i've watched once or twice.
so i'm going to say 800m.
potato_salad wrote:
I get more excited watching Rudisha's race. i actually re-watch that every few months.
van niekerk's record i've watched once or twice.
so i'm going to say 800m.
I watch both every few months rudishas race is more exciting to watch yes, but I think 43.03 is superior.
800m
800m would traditionally be paced with some drafting to at least 400m. As Rudisha is well clear of the 2nd fastest ever in a non paced race his is clearly the better record
Let the GOAT tell you with his reaction:
400.
No draft, no lead out. All you. Operating at the limits of a human body speed wise.
You have to be a sub 10 flat sprinter like WNK, Norman etc. Or a sub 20 flat 200 guy. The best 400 guys are walking that boom or bust physical effort line
Not all world records are equal. 800 is great, but 400 is better.
Les wrote:
IAAF Scoring Tables rank the 400 world record as slightly better than the 800 -- 1321 to 1301.
Obviously because the more shorter is the distance, the more is difficult to improve a record.
Improving a 10.000m with 1/100 sec is not the same as improving 100m with 1/100 sec.
All WR for all distances are equality impressive.
400m is somewhat the thrown distance for sprinters. Remember, Usain Bolt didn't want train it any more when he started to break 100m times.
Maybe 800m is a distance more popular with more diversity of runners in the world.
(Peter Snell, Ruyn, Juantorena, Coe, Joakim Cruz, Kipketer, Rudisha, Amos, ...)
chockopudge wrote:
400.
No draft, no lead out. All you. Operating at the limits of a human body speed wise.
You have to be a sub 10 flat sprinter like WNK, Norman etc. Or a sub 20 flat 200 guy. The best 400 guys are walking that boom or bust physical effort line
Not all world records are equal. 800 is great, but 400 is better.
There are at least 3 guys who could realistically have a shot at the 400 WR right now. (Norman, Gardinier, Warholm)
There are 0 guys who have a shot at the 800 WR right now.
Therefore 800mWR > 400m WR