The men's 800 meter WR is by far the softest record in all of track

To the starter of this thread. You are an idiot. Either you are an idiot because you forget to say softest mens record. Or you are an even bigger idiot because you didn't think of the women's steeple chase.

joe carter wrote:

old tymer wrote:

It is ridiculous to say that "most statisticians agree" that the 800 record is the weakest. I've never seen any such poll and I'm rather sure no one else has, either, since it doesn't exist.

For all the babbling about how "easy" it should be to run 1:41 or 1:40, the bottom line is that it (duh!) isn't easy, as a look at the all-time list will make clear. 1:41 will be broken before too long, but not all that soon, and not by that much.

Doing some back of the envelope calculations, the 800 record is pretty weak. It'd be interesting to see some real statistics put to work, but there'd be a lot of factors that would needed to be controlled. At the same time, saying that the 800 record is "statistically the weakest" says exactly that- nothing else.

Be careful. "Back of the envelope calculations" based on what? Everything depends on your assumptions and formulas--and there's little objective way to know if you're beginning with genuinely true assumptions.

My rule of thumb is to look carefully at the all-time list--what are the top 30 or 40 times? How recently have they been set? Is there a clear historical process of "improvement" going on, or are advances more random than that?

The answers aren't clear at all, but suggest that the 800 mark certainly will be broken one day--but when, or by what sort of runner, no one can honestly say.

I seriously hope you are kidding, OP. You do realize that the people cannot run anaerobically after a minute (probably even less time), right? It takes a very different type of runner to compete successfully at the 800 than at the 400. Sure there's guys like Juantorena out there, but he sure as hell wasn't running sub 1:40. The jump from 400 to 800 is huge in terms of the differences in energy systems required to compete well. I think WR will eventually be taken down, possibly by Rudisha, but to say that the 800 record is really soft suggests to me that you are an idiot, troll or not.

One way to determine how soft a record is would be to compare how many performances in the top 10 are within a certain percentage of the WR. If athletes have regularly been knocking on the door, then it's a "soft" record.

By that rationale and off the top of my head, I'd say the women's 400H and the men's marathon are the softest.

The 800 for both sexes is really tough; it's a rare year to see many 1:42's or sub-1:55's, though we've been lucky as fans lately.

nightline wrote:

One way to determine how soft a record is would be to compare how many performances in the top 10 are within a certain percentage of the WR. If athletes have regularly been knocking on the door, then it's a "soft" record.

By that rationale and off the top of my head, I'd say the women's 400H and the men's marathon are the softest.

The 800 for both sexes is really tough; it's a rare year to see many 1:42's or sub-1:55's, though we've been lucky as fans lately.

I agree.

Matt Scherer is another good example of a 400 meter runner moving up to the 800, and to see the capabilities there. Matt has run 1:45.79 and has an open 400 best of 45.19 and a relay split of 44.6 from the university of oregon.

That tells you a good idea of the transition between the two. Alan Webb with his almost unparalelled speed and strength at his peak has run 47's for 400 and 1:43.84 for 800.

Jonathan Johnson has run 46's for 400 and has a 800 best of 1:44.77

So whoever says that running 1:40 should be easy and do-able clearly does not know what happens between the distance of 400 and 800 meters. The record is breakable, definitely. But these comments act like it should be common that runners hit 1:41, 1:40.

Okay, we seem to be talking about men's records here, and if by weakest record we mean the one most likely to be broken in 2010, it's the 200-meter record.

Of course ONLY Bolt can do it. But for as long as I can remember, which is more than 35 years of following the sport, the 200-meter record time has never before been twice as much as the 100 time, and it is right now. It's pretty clear that Bolt, on a good dry track, can go under 19.14 (two times 9.57) and probably under 19.10.

doo doo wrote:

Stupid people are funny wrote:The only people capable of setting world records in the sprints are those descended from slaves.

Oh really? So everyone in West Africa was a slave...

Name me the last world record sprinter NOT descended from slaves?

Every black person outside of Africa is descended from slaves....well, at least 99%. There's been a few Nigerian sprinters of note, but Gay, Crawford, Bolt, Powell...all descended from slaves.

I agree with you about the 800 WR.

Whenever this subject comes up, I always claim that the 800 is the weakest WR.

25 seconds per 200, that's all it takes.

Anyone can run a 200 in 25.

Tons of people can run a 400 in 50.

Lots of people can run a 600 in 1:15.

All it takes is one guy to run 800 in 1:40.

I really hope we do see some 800 stars again soon. I used to love watching the event back in the day. Now its going through a neglected patch. Witness the Oly 800 - possibly the most blah final in Beijing.

Frankie Fredericks was not from West Africa. Namibia is quite different.

The problem lies in the fact that after ca. 55-72 seconds (according to mathematical estimates), the ratio of anaerobic/aerobic energy changes dramatically.

What do you need to be a good 400 m runner? You need to be optimally ca. 190 cm tall, because the taller you are, the more anaerobic power output your body produces. And tallness+high anaerobic power output equals long step length+high speed.

However, the aerobic energy system is very different. It needs small body dimensions, because big body mass consumes too much oxygen. And it doesn't allow such a high speed. In fact, the aerobic speed that a runner can sustain equals to the speed in the 5000 m.

So, when you cross the 55-72 sec. barrier, everything suddenly changes. You need a different body type, different energy systems. That's why a successful 400 m runner often fails in the 800 m. Juantorena was really a genetic freak.

so am i the first one that's gonna call troll?

what more can you expect from letsrun.com?

Count with me:

The average speed of Top 10 athletes in the 400 m: ca. 32.9 km/h=9,1 m/s

The average speed of Top 10 athletes in the 5000 m: ca. 23,4 km/h=6,5 m/s

1. 400 m in 44 sec.

2. 400 m in 61,5 sec.

44+61.5=1:45,50 min.

Let's examine the world record holders:

400 m in 43.18

5000 m in 12:37,35=6,6 m/s, 2. 400 m in 60,6 sec.

43.18+60.6=1:43,78

Not so far from the reality, hmm?

It actually shows that the 5000 m is run at a somewhat slower speed than 100% VO2 max.

...or that the anaerobic energy makes up only 40-50% of the total energy in the 800 m. But I primarily wanted to show you that it really isn't so easy.

However, as I showed in another thread, the 400+800 m are the most stagnating disciplines in current track. I don't think that the number of athletes that are close to the world record is the sign of its softness; to the contrary, the situation in the 400+800 m shows the exact opposite. The distribution of athletes is very unusual, with few individuals being far in the front of the densely cumulated rest. The fact that athletes, who ran their bests 20-25 years ago are still in Top 10, and even in the "densely cumulated rest", times haven't improved much, shows me that these distances are very underdeveloped. (Or that the performances here can be more difficult to improve with the current doping stuff.)

I would say that the female polevault would be the easiest to break just because the event has not been in existance as long as others. Just my opinion.

Czech Guy wrote:

Not so far from the reality, hmm?

It actually shows that the 5000 m is run at a somewhat slower speed than 100% VO2 max.

Maybe it proves that you cant calculate such things as human physiology

100m:

9.58

10th: 9.77 (.981)

20th: 9.82 (.976)

200m:

19.19

10th: 19.65 (.977)

20th: 19.75 (.972)

400m:

43.18

10th:43.65 (.989)

20th:43.81 (.986)

800m:

1:41.11... 101.11s

10th: 1:42.27... 102.27 (.989)

20th: 1:42.52... 102.52 (.986)

1500m:

3:26.00... 206s

10th:3:27.40... 207.4 (.993)

20th: 3:28.40... 208.4 (.988)

5000m:

12:37.35... 757.35s

10th:12:47.07... 767.07 (.987)

20th:12:49.87... 769.87 (.983)

10000m:

26:17.53... 1577.53s

10th: 26:31.32... 1591.32 (.991)

20th: 26:41.95... 1601.95 (.985)

Marathon:

2:03:59... 7439s

10th: 2:05:15... 7515 (.990)

20th: 2:05:48... 7548 (.986)

(I think this is bias toward the shorter events that cant be run more often.)

Not the best stats... but I'd say Bolt's records are the strongest (if that isn't obvious yet). And, the 1500m looks to be the weakest (all-time).

Using this metric... the 400m and the Marathon's WRs are of equal "softness" with the 800m.

Bolt's records are the strongest but since he's on the upswing, they may be the most breakable...not thj 100 so much but the 200 by a bit, for reasons some other guy said already.