Is 9.58 really worth 1:37 for 800m?

The whole comparison is completely ridiculous. You are using two numbers that are not neccesarily relevant.

For example take two years ago, or one year ago, and take their 100 and 800 and use them as base numbers for the future.....or take today's 100 and 800 and use them as base numbers. You'd get very drastic differences 25 years from now, by taking two different sets of data only 1 or 2 years apart as the 100 has evolved and the 800 has not.

grand slam wrote:

Don't you think there are 400m guys out there who know they're not going to beat Merritt or Wariner who haven't thought about moving up to 800m, if it's an automatic guarantee they'll run great 2 laps? Of course there have been.

Juantorena, Everitt, Borza- all were excellent 400m runners, yet none of them have run faster than 1:42.6. I really don't think it's as easy as that.

The 800m is run around the world as much as the 400 or 1500m, and it makes no sense that all the talent go to the 1 lap or metric mile, giving the 800 a wide bearth.

The 800m is one of the most difficult events to train for and it's no good for a 44 sec 400m guy moving up to the 800 in their late 20's, because they simply wouldn't have the years of background endurance at their disposal.

Hence my point. It's already too late if you're a 44 guy, as you've likely sacrificed a lot of time and endurance towards that raw speed. You need to have incredible top speed to get under 46--enough to really warrant heavy weight lifting, year-round sprint workouts, etc. All of which are counterproductive to distance running speed. If Wariner moved up to 800m right now, I'd be floored if he could break 1:45. Utterly floored. As I said, if we could go back in time, make him run high-school cross country, and put him on a steady diet of six-month training cycles with some speed and some endurance (lots of alactic strides, lots of cruise intervals and aerobic threshold work, lots of running form work too), we might have been able to squeeze a 1:39.99 out of him.

The next great 800m champion--and the one who will break 1:40--will probably be a clutzy, lanky type who has freakish natural 400m speed--46.x (without heavy lifting and a "traditional" sprints pedigree) by the time he gets to college. Why a clutz? So he doesn't do football in high school! It also wouldn't be too outrageous to think that he'd come from the US. Because it's so difficult to make it as a 400m runner here, there's more incentive to move up in distance.

grand slam wrote:

Juantorena, Everitt, Borza- all were excellent 400m runners, yet none of them have run faster than 1:42.6.

Borzakovskiy's PR is 1:42.47

Hi Deano,

I can't believe you have posted without giving coe a plug, but you did give a nice lead in for your buddy ukathleticscoach

A couple of things, why randomly pick jan 1979 as your baseline? Maybe the 100 has been lagging. Were all performances equal in Jan 79?

I don't think you can simply add .37 for each 100 to make a comparison for other distances - as different energy systems are involved.

Furthermore - just a few thoughts

At the end of the day, he is a one and a half metres (roughly) ahead of gay and the same ahead of Johnson in teh 200. We can say he is the best sprinter ever (probably) but can't say his performnces are any better than bekele's.

No way is it worth a 1.37 - perhaps it has just caught up to the 800.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Good site:

If you look at the Purdy Points for various distances you'll see the 800m is the most "off" the world record.

http://run-down.com/statistics/calc.php

WR for the 800m is likely weak. The combination of 400m speed and distance running endurance required to run a fast 800m is hard to come by. The best 800m runners are likely 2nd tier 400m guys clinging to false hopes.

Alan

No, Coe & Kipketer were not 400/800m sprinters. They were middle distance runners who were fast over 400m. A lot of 400m guys are actually as you said 2nd tier 100/200m guys and the 400 is the top of their sprint range

Just because you can sprint fast - tha main requirement for 400m does not mean your aerobic capacity etc is any good or ever will be. I'm bored trying to expain this - suffice to say not many 400m runners who have tried to move up have had much success

The main reason the 800m guys are running slow now is they followed Kipketer, the exception to the rule - that you should race under & over distance to optimise you prime event. For 800m that means doing 400m's and 1500m. The 400's can maybe be done in training, the 1500m needs to be in a race

First of all, why not use 9.95 and 9.58?

because 9.95 was at mexico - it comes out at basic 10.03

9.58 ( + 0.9 ) comes out at 9.62 basic

Secondly, when and why did you invent that formula? Can you please explain the logic for me?

just 1st stab

100m to 800m is factor of 8

it's worth factoring in a exponential into these sort of problems, so increase ratio a factor of ^8 & dampen down by dividing by the distance ratio increase of 8

like i said, only 1st stab thrown out for discussion...

I disagree ukathleticscoach.

The main reason the 800m guys are running slow now is they followed the coe myth - noting to do with kipketer

ventolin^2 wrote:

because 9.95 was at mexico - it comes out at basic 10.03

9.58 ( + 0.9 ) comes out at 9.62 basic

Ah. Could you point me to the conversion tables you used for the wind and altitude conversions? Also, Hines had wind of +0.3 that will need to be factored in.

thoughts wrote:

I disagree ukathleticscoach.

The main reason the 800m guys are running slow now is they followed the coe myth - noting to do with kipketer

They also don't have the talent of Coe or Kipketer

Actually if you are talking very low mileage then I agree with you. I'm sure that was exagerated a bit. It's a balance there are milers running 100 miles a week at college to run slow times when they clearly need more speedwork and less plodding

One thing I've noticed on the 800m is; I can't remember the last time I saw a serious attempt at the record

thoughts wrote:

I disagree ukathleticscoach.

The main reason the 800m guys are running slow now is they followed the coe myth - noting to do with kipketer

They also don't have the talent of Coe or Kipketer

Actually if you are talking very low mileage then I agree with you. I'm sure that was exagerated a bit. It's a balance there are milers running 100 miles a week at college to run slow times when they clearly need more speedwork and less plodding

One thing I've noticed on the 800m is; I can't remember the last time I saw a serious attempt at the record

riley at home baby gone west wrote:

What would be wellnow's reasoning behind what or why the 800 has not evolved? Also what other events are on your list of non-evolvers?

wellnow wrote:

Sub 1.40 You have to take wind resistance into accout, which is very much higher in the 100m

The 800 hasn't really evolved. A good debate would be to question why not?

Nobody since Kipketer has chased the record. Kipketer could maybe have run 1.40 if he hadn't contracted malaria.

In the last 16 or so years, we have had a few super athletes in the 1500, 3000, 5000, etc but only Kipketer at that level in the 800. If there were 2 or 3 800m runners of his ability, we might see sub 1.40

I think that eventually in 50 or more years time, there will be sub 44 second 400m runners who are too slow to get a medal in major championships, and they will have to move up to 800. Then you (not me) will see guys running 1.37 or quicker.

An excellent answer; so you see it as a pressure from with in the event as we are seeing in the marathon today?

Thank you. Yes, the marathon record was stagnant for years until lots of East Africans started to race that distance.

The tactics involved in the 800 are unique. It's such a difficult distance to race in terms of pace judgement and tactical positioning that runners of similar ability are never sure of the outcome compared to other distances.

Also, Kipketer was paced to his 1.41.1 and no man has raced that way since that day 12 years ago.

Obviously the key here is what year you start the analysis.

9.95 was the WR from 1968 to 1983.

If you start with 1981, the WR for 800m was 1:41.73 and has not improved much.

Maybe the 100 is just catching up to the 800 and 9.58 is worth 1:41.11

Maybe 9.58 is worth 1:42 because the 100 needs to improve more to catch up with the 800 record.

Um, kinda hate to say it but if anyone of the hundreds of 400m runners who got smashed this year by Merrit and Wariner had moved up and run 1:42.6 they would have destroyed at the world championships and i might add have been like the 10th fastest person in human history at the event. Not really all that bad if you ask me. I was not really a big proponent of the move up idea just kinda making a case for it over a 1500m guy moving down but I think you have done some to convince me grand slam, thanks.

wellnow your thoughts applied to Ritz's new 12;56, does this fit your theory of running performance improvement?

Arcane Denial wrote:

grand slam wrote:

Juantorena, Everitt, Borza- all were excellent 400m runners, yet none of them have run faster than 1:42.6.

Borzakovskiy's PR is 1:42.47

Correct, and not only that, he only went 45.84 in the 400. He even gave up the 800 virtually for an entire year to work on speed and failed to break his 400 pr. So i wouldn't really consider him an excellent 400 runner when talking about the really fast 400 guys.

Borzakovskiy has also run about 3:40 for 1500m, much better than his 400m best.

on the runs wrote:

Borzakovskiy has also run about 3:40 for 1500m, much better than his 400m best.

iaaf lists his best outdoors as 3:43, and indoors as 3:41.5. You can call that "3:40" if you want (convert it to outdoors), however, that time is certainly not "much better" than his 400. How on earth did you come to that conclusion??

A 3:40 would convert to 3:58 mile. That's 15 seconds off of the WR.

His 400 pr is 2.66 of the 400 wr. 2.66 * 4 = 10.64 seconds, ie, his 400 pr would be equivalent to around a 3:53 mile if the 400m and mile wr's are equivalent.

Now of course that is part of this whole debate (are world records equivalent in different events?).

So, if you don't like that analysis, how about this:

On the all time performer list, 45.84 is 1.14% outside the top 300 all time (that is far back as my performer list goes).

3:40? It is a full 2% outside the top 300 (and that doesn't even include all the top miles run not converted to 1500).

He is much further outside the top 300 all time performers in the 1500 than he outside the top 300 all time in the 400m.

His 400m time is superior.