I love the way you guys think it perfectly natural a runner who hasn't done better than 1:46x for the 800 should beat 3:26 for the 1500. Modern medicine sure is grand. It makes up for a real lack of speed.
The KEY to breaking 1:40 is to negative split it. 50.99/49.0 would be the ideal pace. If someone trains for the negative split, they will get the record.
All you people saying a 1:46 is a "lack of speed" are crazy. 1:46 is a CRAZY fast 800M time, that is a full on controlled sprint. You need to have at least 47 second 400M speed to manage that
We have watched 75 summers of 46-something 400m guys race 800m. Not one of the 46-something 400m guys have broken 1:41.7. I did not say sub-74 600m & sub-2:14 1000m indicates a man will break 1:40. I am saying Arop has to show us something! Either a low 1:40.xx 800m or fast 600m & 1000m.
And we now know vastly more about optimal training and nutrition than we did over those years with more progress occurring constantly. IMO 25-32 is not too old. I am saying Arop may end up showing us something, not that he will. IMO he is a legitimate contender who appears to not suffer from big head syndrome. What I am saying is Arop has all the attributes you would want. Regarding 400 PBs, one could argue that any runner venturing into 45.50 or under is now training muscle fibers for the 400/200 and will no longer be capable of running a fast 800, so perhaps 1:40.0 is impossible unless some super rocket fuel is developed in which case the performance won't be clean. Regardless, it will take an extremely rare individual to have the required combination of physical and metabolic traits.
This "we know so much more about training and nutrition than we did 40 years ago" talk is absolute nonsense. The only distance where training methods have improved significantly the last decades is the marathon.
The KEY to breaking 1:40 is to negative split it. 50.99/49.0 would be the ideal pace. If someone trains for the negative split, they will get the record.
No they won't. When has anyone run a second lap of 49 sec? If it was the way to beat 1:40 it would have been done.
All you people saying a 1:46 is a "lack of speed" are crazy. 1:46 is a CRAZY fast 800M time, that is a full on controlled sprint. You need to have at least 47 second 400M speed to manage that
No, you don't. Elliott ran 1:46x and never beat 50 for the 400.
However 1:46 is a slow 800 for an athlete expected to beat 3:26 for the 1500. Unless they are doped to the gills.
There weren't really a lot of chances for 1:42 guys to chase peak Rudisha, that's why he was always winning by 20+ meters
Look at the start lists in the 2010-2012 Diamond Leagues when he was running 1:41 lows. There's Abubaker Kaki, Alfred Yego a few years past his prime, Bosse a few years before his prime, and a bunch of guys with 1:43 high-1:43 low PBs.
A lot of folks here are mentioning Coe and Rudisha but ignoring Kipketer.
Kipketer's 1:41.11 is only .2 off of Rudisha's WR. Those two were just over ten years apart to cross paths but I imagine if they could've raced each other we'd be closer to 1:40 low WR.
BTW, there is a such thing as an 800 meter specialist. Not everyone should be classified as a 400/800 guy or an 800/1500 guy. Rudisha's was a low 45 400 guy which is plenty fast but not as fast as Amos or Korir. Coe owned 800 & 1500 WR at one point (so did Ryun!). ...But Rudisha was an 800 specialist (ok, he was exceptional at 600 also but not really a common event!)
Kipketer ran the first 400 in his wr in 48.10. Imagine if he had run one second slower.
All you people saying a 1:46 is a "lack of speed" are crazy. 1:46 is a CRAZY fast 800M time, that is a full on controlled sprint. You need to have at least 47 second 400M speed to manage that
No, you don't. Elliott ran 1:46x and never beat 50 for the 400.
However 1:46 is a slow 800 for an athlete expected to beat 3:26 for the 1500. Unless they are doped to the gills.
How many times did Elliott race 400m while in 1:46 shape?
The KEY to breaking 1:40 is to negative split it. 50.99/49.0 would be the ideal pace. If someone trains for the negative split, they will get the record.
No they won't. When has anyone run a second lap of 49 sec? If it was the way to beat 1:40 it would have been done.
However, the idea of running 800m with a negative split isn't necessarily unreasonable. Most athletes go into the race with the strategy that it's a fairly short race and that they can't waste any time fighting for a good position at the beginning. That's why the first lap is often too fast. The start and rapid acceleration in particular take up too much power. Basically a psychological problem.
Personally I believe in Horwill's 4 second rule and it follows that a theoretical sub 1:40 cannot be run by an athlete with a 400m PB of 46. It's not good enough or there is no reserve.
Now, if an 800m athlete with a 400m PB of around 44.5-45 (probably ideal, because faster is counterproductive for 800) runs the first lap in just over 50, he goes into the 2nd lap less tired. It's another "interpretation" of the distance and the training probably needs to be changed a bit. In the last few weeks before the record attempt, overdistance runs such as 900s or 1000s would be conceivable, which only reach goal pace at the end of the rep. Many runners do 3 x 600 or 4 x 400, which overemphasizes the first lap, not the second. Sorry for my English.
The KEY to breaking 1:40 is to negative split it. 50.99/49.0 would be the ideal pace. If someone trains for the negative split, they will get the record.
No they won't. When has anyone run a second lap of 49 sec? If it was the way to beat 1:40 it would have been done.
What an unbelievable stupid "argumentation": what hasn't been done yet is not possible. Before Bannister's sub 4 you definitely were amongst those stupid people who said a sub 4 Mile is impossible.
Actually 50.5 / 49.5 would be best. Really 50/50 is most efficient, but the half a second is accounting for the start acceleration time.
I agree. There was a thread about running an 800m world record with a negative split, very interesting. Most posts disagreed with the idea that it might be possible. I still think it is the best way to try it.
Actually 50.5 / 49.5 would be best. Really 50/50 is most efficient, but the half a second is accounting for the start acceleration time.
I agree. There was a thread about running an 800m world record with a negative split, very interesting. Most posts disagreed with the idea that it might be possible. I still think it is the best way to try it.
What if they started at the 400m position (running the first 300m in seperate lanes) ? Would it be an advantage - less rush at the beginning & less pushing against each other who taking the first/last position? Or a disadvantage - Longer distance at seperate lanes, more wind resistance?
Speaking of split times. I think a 400/800m type runner would have more use with a positive split (48/52) because he, most likely, are used to run with more lactate buildup earlier in the race without loosing technique/efficany. A 800/1500m type runner on the other hand would more probably want a negative split (or at least as even halves as possible) to utilize his endurance aka. "slow starter, doesn't like acceleration, builds into the race" approach?
Or does all the research shows that it is not possible to run world record races with a negativ splits when it comes to the 800m distance?
How many 800m races have had wavelights? How many 800m have been completely flawless from pushes and accelerations?
Actually 50.5 / 49.5 would be best. Really 50/50 is most efficient, but the half a second is accounting for the start acceleration time.
I agree. There was a thread about running an 800m world record with a negative split, very interesting. Most posts disagreed with the idea that it might be possible. I still think it is the best way to try it.
It’s been done, for 880 yards. On June 10th, 1966 in Terry Haute Indiana by a 19 year American named Jim Ryun. He spilt 53.3/51.6 for a WR 880 (1:44.3 800 but no WR credited to him).