The finishes in the 800 are often just as close in the sprints, so why not take every possible advantage by getting up to full speed sooner. The WR would be 1:40 or less if they used blocks.
The finishes in the 800 are often just as close in the sprints, so why not take every possible advantage by getting up to full speed sooner. The WR would be 1:40 or less if they used blocks.
So you're saying blocks could cut 2 seconds off an 800m time?
Or to put it another way, without blocks the 100m WR would be 11.5 seconds.
Yeah, you're a real genius.
Do you know anything about the physics of blocks? Following your logic, if a 5k or 10k race has a close finish does that mean a block start would sway the outcome?
At 50sec./400 (or less for the first 400), blocks would likely make a few tenths of a difference in the outcome. The query seems reasonable.
IAAF rule 161: starting blocks are not allowed for distances longer than 400 m.
I was watching an old episode of Get Smart, with Don Adams, from the late 60s and the episode revolved around a track meet at the LA Coliseum, between the "Free World" and the "East" and yes, the milers started out of blocks!
Maybe in the days of cinder that seemed like a good idea. But if you think about why blocks are banned for 400 and over... you have less than a minute to remove them- too much room for chaos.
rule reader wrote:
IAAF rule 161: starting blocks are not allowed for distances longer than 400 m.
and is a two command start-marks, gun
kunikos wrote:
Maybe in the days of cinder that seemed like a good idea. But if you think about why blocks are banned for 400 and over... you have less than a minute to remove them- too much room for chaos.
That's false. They use blocks in indoor 400's, where they have less than 25 seconds to remove them before lap 2 starts. You also only have to remove them from the first 4 lanes or so.
Obviously it is against IAAF rules, as stated above, to use blocks in the 800. However, the question is, would they help if they were allowed? I think for collegiate and world class runners they may help. These guys usually split 53 or faster, IF a high school runner running a 53 second 400 used blocks now one would question it, so why not guys in the 800 who are running the first half of their race just as fast?
top 25 dumbest posts ever
Intriguing thoughtful original post.
Most responses reflected rigity in thinking.
Best answer: Yes it would make a difference but its not allowed.
I always wonder why some people use blocks at all. I watch a high school girl run 58.xx with blocks and a high school boy go out in 57 for the 800 without blocks.
At the world class level- women run 49-51 witih blocks, men go out in 49-51 without.
I don't think they would help an 800. I think that the rules say you can't use them. But, if you look at some very old video you will see 800 runners using them. I believe they were "banned" after that. We're talking early 1900's.
you have to remove the blocks form lane 1 and 2 in 49seconds.. i think most officials would be capable of such a feat
fsdfsdfsdfsd wrote:
Most responses reflected rigity in thinking.
Now that you put it that way, I have changed my mind. Rigity?!
Bangpop Gotr wrote:
rule reader wrote:IAAF rule 161: 1. starting blocks are not allowed for distances longer than 400 m.
2. and is a two command start-marks, gun
and..
3. If you had starting blocks you would limit the number of athletes in a race to the number of lanes. You do occasionally get 9 runners in a championship final with 8 lanes. In many meetings you also get more athletes than lanes and they start on the curved line.
Would it make a difference? It shouldn't do - an 800m runner runs the first lap significantly slower than their 400m PR.
smarter than the other dumbass wrote:
So you're saying blocks could cut 2 seconds off an 800m time?
Or to put it another way, without blocks the 100m WR would be 11.5 seconds.
Yeah, you're a real genius.
No, I'm not saying that. DO you even know the 800m WR? Who's the dumbass here?
You fail to address my question, anyway.
As a lot of the reasonable thinking people here have pointed out, elite runners are going through the first 200 in 25.x and the first 400 in 50.x -- many, many runners slower than this for the flat 200 and 400 use blocks, so why not get the extra boost by hitting race pace that much sooner?
It's not about the speed it's about the effort.
You are not going all out at the beginning of an 800 no matter what level you are.
If you are looking to go out in 3 seconds slower than your 200m PR you don't need blocks to get there.
And there is no real energy saved hitting that split with blocks that would be reserved for the finish.
Also, getting to that 200m mark a tenth of a second faster does not guarantee that you'll keep that tenth of a second advatantage in the end.
In a 400m race you are barely off of the throttle for the first 200m so it is usefull to get an efficient, balanced start.
mcordi wrote:
I always wonder why some people use blocks at all.
IAAF rule 161 also says that you must use blocks in distances up to 400m.
X Runner wrote:
It's not about the speed it's about the effort.
You are not going all out at the beginning of an 800 no matter what level you are.
If you are looking to go out in 3 seconds slower than your 200m PR you don't need blocks to get there.
And there is no real energy saved hitting that split with blocks that would be reserved for the finish.
Also, getting to that 200m mark a tenth of a second faster does not guarantee that you'll keep that tenth of a second advatantage in the end.
In a 400m race you are barely off of the throttle for the first 200m so it is usefull to get an efficient, balanced start.
Exactly. It isn't about speed, it's a question of effort level. Some high school girl running 58 in the 400 is going all out while a guy splitting 57 is not.
No-one's really grasped the point here.
What do blocks do? They help you reach top speed as quickly as possible. They don't allow you to run faster.
In an 800m, you don't need to reach top speed straight away, as you have time to accelerate later on.
Blocks are only essential in races where you need to be at top speed for 85% of the race(for argument's sake) as opposed to the 80% you would be at top speed for without blocks while others pull away from you.
If one person used blocks in an 800m against someone who didn't, they'd be up to 800m speed more quickly, but the effort required to get there would be the same as someone who reaches 800m speed 0.5sec later, and so it would make no difference. The latter person would simply catch them up and then the benefit is completely lost.