27 might be his best time running but he probably has not run it often. His 56 in the 400 suggests that his 200 time is better than 27.
That is the issue with pretty much all distance guys. Pretty much none of them every run an all out 400 much less a 200. You get times from workouts or races when they were 14...
Pretty much no one is running an 800m much faster than 3-4s off their 400m pace. Everyone will slow down by at least 1 second from 200/400. That gives the monster of 2:00/57/27.5. Those aren't realist splits for most people. 2:00/55/26 would be a guy with very good endurance. A lot more 2:00/52/24.5 type guys out there. Especially in HS.
Talent is 25 or lower. Are you a ham and egger or are you a talented athlete?
Sub-25 200m, you're a talented athlete as a male.
Slower than 25, maybe you can be an ultra guy.
I'd say I'm a 26 low to mid guy, any bread and butter workouts that anyone could suggest?
I had a 1:54 guy and we used to start and/or end workouts with a 500 at about his 1 mile race pace.
You achieve different things before rather than after.
Make sure you're getting mileage in to give you the strength for that last 200.
I was a 200 guy and my coaches had me doing low mileage. I just didn't have the strength for that last 200. I had speed and a good kick (I was a 23.xx 200 guy and 50.xx for the 400).
I ran :56 in a relay. :26 with a running start. 2:04 in a relay. 4:27/9:32.
I think consistent 25s would be needed for a sub 2:00. We had a couple of guys run 1:59-2:01 and they were both 25s 200m guys. I once ran a very high :25 but it was with a very fast running start and stop watch may have started late or finished early lol.
27 might be his best time running but he probably has not run it often. His 56 in the 400 suggests that his 200 time is better than 27.
Why? My 200 was 28.0 and 400 58.5
Yes I trained specifically.
Some od the top distance runners can run 400 at little more than double their 200 time.
This stuff should be common knowledge but very few posters here understand the differences in speed endurance between different runners.
Regarding elite distance runners, fully developed aerobic runners, especially elite, are different than underdeveloped HS kids. The poster's son has a better PR in the 3000 than the 1500. I suspect if the 3000 is 8:13 than his 1500 is better than 4:13. I believe the same for the 200 vs the 400.
On a serious note, I’d say that it’s about 26 so you can run 56 comfortably
This seems reasonable to me. Outside of some very specific outliers who are just peaked for 800 distance, most people need to be able to run ~58 for the first lap and then hold on for a 60/61. As others have mentioned, reality often leads to some strange discrepancies as I was able to run a 24 high at the end of practice freshman year in college but could only run 2:02 for the 800 and my 1500 dropped off even more at 4:22. However I started as a sprinter and was running low 12s and mid 25s in middle school so I was definitely coming from a speed-focused background.