What does this 600m trial equate to in an 800?

I ran like a 1:28 600m and the next meet split a 2:00.1 in a relay (4x8). So I would say a 1:24 is = ~1:56'ish

bumpity

Add 1 sec. to your 3rd 200 = 4th 200.

In HS, we used to add 30 seconds if you were 1:5x type, and then take this # -+ 1 second for splits in upcoming race.

If you ran 1:22, this implied 1:22 + 30 -> 1:52, so the athlete would expect to run 55/57 -> 1:52.xx

bumpity. looking for more opinions. I'm also very interested in what the other times listed equate to as well. This is just so I can monitor my 800 fitness until the indoor season starts, while doing other things. Like, if I'm concentrating on endurance stuff and I get a bit slower, I want a base line of current fitness for when I move back to 800/mile specific stuff.

Any other opinions would be great.

Off the Grid wrote:

In HS, we used to add 30 seconds if you were 1:5x type, and then take this # -+ 1 second for splits in upcoming race.

If you ran 1:22, this implied 1:22 + 30 -> 1:52, so the athlete would expect to run 55/57 -> 1:52.xx

did you find that method to be accurate. How often did the actual race times fall within, say, 1-2 seconds of your predictions?

I'm very interested in that method.

It usually worked pretty well. A lot of guys 1:57-2:01 and it was helpful

We had one guy run 50/30. He ended up running 45.xx, AR 2-3x indoors in various events and OG relay gold. In HS he was our #2 man on JV XC, but could NOT run that last 200. I saw him run 53/59 @ Rutgers Relays in '85. And he trained w/ John Marshall regularly. He did not think he belonged in the 8, even though he ran 600m in 1:15 indoors, which would imply 1:45 at least.

so, would it be a good rule to equate these times with the corresponding 800 times, give or take a bit. ( with your +30 second rule)

1:22 - 1:52-53

1:23 - 1:53-54

1:25 - 1:55-56

1:26 - 1:56-57

1:27 - 1:57-2:00

This sounds reasonable...up to 1:27-1:29...then its a bit much to expect the athlete to keep going. 36% of the 600m time? 1:25 = 85 seconds, so 136% of that is 1:55.6, which sounds reasonable.

I'm an athlete, not a coach, but this was a good rule of thumb, frm my observations.

None of these rules actually work because you have to take into account the athletes strengths/weaknesses and how they train. My 600 and 800 pr's were around the same time and they're 1:21 and 1:56

i think, with the 1:24.5, im in a bout 1:55 shape, maybe a bit better. I'm a strength guy at 800, but I've improved my quarter time to better than its ever been however. In the trial, I kept my splits even and wasn't completely wasted at the line. So, at 56 pace, I didn't fall off at 600 really. I couldn't have done another 200 in 28, but I don't think i would have slowed down much above 30.

hmmmmm.

anymore opinions out there?

Just run one and shut the f*** up.

Personally...

1:23= 1:56 as a speed guy

1:25= 1:57 as a distance guy

No doubt. Why don't you just run the next 200 and find out--my coach once said, "I don't know what you're capable of until you go out and do it."

Don't waste your time asking everyone out there what your time might be--get out there, race, and find out what your time is.