200/400/1600m requirements to run 2:00 800m

200- doesn't matter

400m: 56

1500m: 4:10

3000m: 8:59

all those times= about a 1:59 800m if you're an aerobic guy rather than a speed guy.

200- doesn't matter

400m: 56

1500m: 4:10

3000m: 8:59

all those times= about a 1:59 800m if you're an aerobic guy rather than a speed guy.

You are completely wrong.

I'd say 10:00 for the 3200, and about 4:35 for the mile.

I guarentee a lot of the people who run 1:59 can't run a 1500 in 4:10.

Overdistance times don't predict underdistance times very well especially when you change energy system dominance.

no wrote:

200- doesn't matter

400m: 56

1500m: 4:10

3000m: 8:59

all those times= about a 1:59 800m if you're an aerobic guy rather than a speed guy.

You are completely wrong.

I'd say 10:00 for the 3200, and about 4:35 for the mile.

I guarentee a lot of the people who run 1:59 can't run a 1500 in 4:10.

You need a 52 sec 400m or a 15:15 5k.

My PB is 2:00.7; coming from the distance side;

200 26

400 56

1600 4:19 (4:00 1500 conversion)

I would say those are minimums; better speed should get you under. The general rule that holds fairly true:

400m time +4s x 2 = 800 time

add 4s per 400m moving up to 1500, 3000

You've run 4 flat for 1500 and can't break 2 minutes? What's your 3k PR, 8:01?

If you can run 56 for 400 and 4.00 for 1500 then u should break 2minutes.

If you can run 52 for 400 and 4.30 for 1500 then u should break 2minutes aswell.

He's only 0.8 FU@KING SECONDS AWAY, cut him a break.

800m times are pretty hard to predict. Had a friend in high school who was always terrible in XC (about 17:00 for 3 miles), never ran a particularly fast 400m in track (something like 56 or so), but somehow became one of our better 800 runners his senior year and was consistently running 2:00.

Generally though I think this is about right for a more distance oriented guy:

400m - 55

mile - 4:35

Or something more like this for a guy moving up from the 400:

400m - 50

mile - 4:55

MITMAN wrote:

If you can run 56 for 400 and 4.00 for 1500 then u should break 2minutes.

If you can run 52 for 400 and 4.30 for 1500 then u should break 2minutes aswell.

Good post. I'd say more like 4:20 for the 1500 in the second case though.

Maybe. wrote:

800m times are pretty hard to predict. Had a friend in high school who was always terrible in XC (about 17:00 for 3 miles), never ran a particularly fast 400m in track (something like 56 or so), but somehow became one of our better 800 runners his senior year and was consistently running 2:00.

Well, I meant SIMULTANEOUS ability, not across the span of a year. Surely he could have bettered 17:00 or 56 during the week that he ran that 2:00 800m

gtrfvecdsx wrote:

He's only 0.8 FU@KING SECONDS AWAY, cut him a break.

Turn off your caps lock, dildo, I was kidding. And just in case you haven't run 2:00.07 OR 1:59.99, those hundredths of a second are a lot when you're in that range, especially when you're in high school.

In high school I ran 1:59 off the stick and 2:02 in the open (on the same day). My 400 PR was 53.8 and my 1600 PR was 4:44.

Well I'd say better than a 53 for the 400 or 4:01 for the 1500, actually a decent amount faster in either one, as those were my fastest times and I never even ran under 2:03, let alone 2 minutes.

When Dave Wottle ran 1:44 and won the 1972 Olympics he only had the lead during the final stretch of the race.

He ran 26.X for every 200M split, so its quite possible to have a rather slower than normal 200/400/1600M as long as you have the endurance to hold pace for two laps.

If you're a distance guy:

400 ~ 56

1600 ~ 4:30

If you're a sprinter:

400 - 53 at least

The 800 is kind of a strange event in that it can be approached from many different angles and two runners who appear equal in ability can run totally different 800 times. I knew a 48 guy who only ran 1:59, and I knew a 50.0 guy who ran 1:56 in his first season running the 800. The next year he ran 49.5 and 1:52.

I think that in general, a BALANCED 2:00 800m runner can hit about 54.5 for 400 and 4:08 for 1500m (4:27.5 mile). That being said, some one with a faster 400 and slower mile might still be able to do it, as well as slower 400 and faster mile.

For the record, I ran 2:01 as a freshman in HS and had a 400 PR of 53 and 1600m PR of 4:39 at the time. My 3200 was 10:40 and I don't even want to know what my XC times were like (probably like 18 min). Clearly I was heavily toward the speed side at that time and as I matured, the distance times came down a lot more. As a soph my 800 was 1:59, but 400 was 51, 1600 4:24, and 3200 9:45.

I agree with many of the above posters- it all depends on you.

I was a 1:58 guy in HS, but my other PRs were 52.X, 4:37 and 9:53. I was a bit speed-heavy (2 hard track workouts and 25mpw will do that to you), but I also ran with a 4:25 guy who could only run 2:01. He also was running 9:20s, so he was coming from the other end of the spectrum.