Why is the 800 so weird?

First of all, nobody can even decide if it's a sprint or mid distance event. From my perspective it's a sprint but I've been in weird running nerd situations where this has been debated for hours with no consensus.

Ive heard debate, but never that is was a sprint? Totally different energy systems. Heck the 400 is a long sprint? But if you are saying you need a unique set of skills that includes being able to run real fast i would agree. But 2 min event isnt a sprint. Fred Kerley can move down to the 100, not Clayton Murphy.

800 requires both aerobic strength AND explosive speed, one can't make up for the other.

Yes and before you finish you get suddenly drowned in lactic acid in a way that doesn’t happen in longer distances.

This is another oddity of the event. It's tough to decide what kind of runner is even made for the event. Should a 1500 runner move down? Jake Wightman has run very well, as did Coe, Ovett, Cram, Auoita, and others. But then runners like Jakob and Nuguse top out around 1:46. Should sprinters move up? Juantorena did to great effect and Fiasconaro, as I mentioned, started as a 400 runner and Korir has made a world final but it's difficult to imagine many of the current crop of 400 runners taking that extra lap.

It almost makes me wonder if there's a sort of physiological gut check that comes with a ~50 second opening lap. Some runners seem to be let through the checkpoint and can muster up something while others just can't hold on or even get up to speed. Would love to know a more scientific explanation if one exists!

My belief is that the transition happens the faster/fitter you get. This is why people argue over it, because people think it ought to be one way or another.

You can sprint an entire 100m if you aren’t disabled. It might not be fast but you can essentially go full gas the whole time.

Take your average person and they’d likely have an 800m time around 4:00. The average top end sprint speed is around 14-15 mph, meaning they’d be running half of their top end sprint speed. Not sprinting. This means top end speed definitely isn’t the problem, it’s endurance. Someone who can’t break 3:00 in the 800m let alone 4:00 is not going to train like a sprinter to get better, they are going to need to work on building an aerobic engine.

On the other hand, take an athlete that has a top end speed of 20 mph, and has years of aerobic work so they run the 800m in 1:55. Their 800m pace is faster than the human average top end sprint speed. They also run about 24 and 52 for 200/400m. This athletes best bet at improving is doing what sprinters do. 50s, 150s, plyometrics, heavy lifting etc. because to be a better 800m runner they need to be a better sprinter.

The worlds fastest ever 800m was ran in 1:40.9, and the worlds best run 1:41-1:44. Rudisha went out in 48 seconds for his world record. Youre already very talented if you can run that pace for 400m (a sprint) alone, and you won’t look out of place running 12 seconds in a 100m at a highschool track meet.

My training philosophy for an 800m runner has turned into “You want to become a sprinter with a good aerobic base” and I think that’s the best way to describe it. You could look up a 200m/400m training program, do the 3-4 weekly track sessions but with a 20 minute warmup and cooldown jog, and do 30-60 minute aerobic runs on your non track days and you wouldn’t be disappointed in how you run at 800m.

I believe we've stagnated in the men's 800 overall because most coaches train to the event versus training the athlete.

I think since you have to work your aerobic system hard as well as your anaerobic/alactic/power systems hard in training, it poses a somewhat unique, high injury and high burnout risk. Sprint training rarely leaves you gassed for an entire day, meanwhile some mile repeats will leave you on the floor all afternoon. But sprint training is a lot of pounding at maximal forces that stresses all your bones, tendons, muscles, ligaments, etc. So you get the "best" of both worlds.

You have to find runners who are fast enough, speed-wise, and capable/willing to do the tough aerobic work. They have to do this for months. Then they have to do gut-busting specific sessions. And they can't get hurt.

I just think it's a lot to ask and it's not too surprising that only some select "freaks" can truly excel.

Minor quibble; 1964 was the first year Snell averaged (just) over 100 miles per week.

“I could never run more than three consecutive weeks of 100 miles but over 10 weeks I logged a total of 1012 miles – the greatest amount of distance running I’ve ever done.” – Peter Snell

At the 1964 Olympics Snell was in the best shape of his life and quite capable of breaking his 1962 WR of 1:44.3; unfortunately the final 1) was run at a fairly moderate pace (52x for the first 400) and 2) Snell got boxed and had to let the entire field pass him then go around on the outside before kicking away to win--running a 1:45.1 (then the 2nd fastest time ever) with slightly negative splits.

a similar question exists in the 400. Lee Evan’s time of 43.87 at the 1968 olympics would win the exact same medals today.

in fact, sub 44 is still just as prestigious as it was back in the day, versus things like sub 10 and sub 20 which are still prestigious but common enough to see at a local high level college meet.

I never thought about it this way but I think you are correct. It is probably the only event where your training must straddle two different systems in balance with a high injury risk. You do essentially need a baseline sprinter who is interested in running cross country mileage.

It is still interesting to me that the 800 seems to be a unique "goldilocks" event where you really have to walk the tightrope of effort. Copper also makes a good point about the basics of human speed/endurance and I think there is definitely something physiological about the ~2 minute effort of the event that makes it tough to get right.

It also seems like it has to be approached differently by elite men and women. With the women's race being about 15 seconds longer, there's more need to be able to handle the rush of lactic acid.

Maybe there's some exercise physiologists here that can expand on that more eloquently than I can.

The difference in elapsed time is not sufficient to require significantly different training. I don't imagine men would train any differently were they told that in the future they'd be running a 900 instead of an 800. Yes, obviously, the change would favor 800/1500 runners over the 400/800 men.

one thing is the difference between isolated pro meets, fast one-offs, vs. world events where you might have to run 3 rounds. you can see where the guys who can run a single WR challenging 800 1:40-low often aren't the same as the ones who can squeak a Q or q 1:45-1:46 repeatedly at olympics or worlds from more of a match race. the US has had some great male "squeakers" recently who cant handle a speed race or picking up a knock. but who can churn out rounds and chase a medal.

but yeah it's kind of a tweener race run fairly fast but not incredibly so.

Are we still doing this? "Was ran?"

This is generally my take on the 800m as well. A good way to think about it is that the 800m, once a certain level of ability/fitness is achieved, becomes a long sprint. In no event other than the 60m does a runner not slow down at all, though in the 100m it is negligible. at an elite level, the 200m follows suite. However in lower levels of competition of the 200m, and all levels of competition of the 400m, an athlete aims to run the race at the fastest sub-maximal pace they can sustain until the wheels fall off and continuously slows down throughout the race. same thing is seen in the 800, athletes run at the fastest submaximal pace they can sustain all the while slowing down until failure. You don't see that in 1500+ events because they're so dominated by the aerobic system that even or slight negative splits aren't just possible but advisable. the 800 is weird.

Thinking about Tigist Assefa Powell

His split at 400 in his 1:40.91 was 49.28.

What i think is interesting about the 800m is the athletes that excel in it. Of course you can have a variety, its probably the moet diverse event in all of track and field. But if I was recruiting for the 800m, I'd be looking for guys who almost look a little wild. Like tall, lanky, even slightly uncoordinated looking. I feel like you have to be a little wild looking in your frame and aura to have great potential, or at least those types excel. Look at Joaquim Cruz, Rudisha, Ovett. I feel like the best 800m runner in the world might be some kid who tried out for the basketball team but is a little too awkward to make it, but has the limbs and height