New Event: indoor 4x800 a la carte

So you mean 3200m relay.

I'll tell you right now it'd just be a bunch of 200m sprinters. Probably most efficient at 16x200.

bugaboo wrote:

So you mean 3200m relay.

I'll tell you right now it'd just be a bunch of 200m sprinters. Probably most efficient at 16x200.

For what level are you talking about? You definitely aren't going to find that to be the case at many, if any, high schools. And most colleges probably don't have 16 200m guys that would be the most optimal choices, either. For example, usually the #15/16 "short" sprinters aren't going to be faster combined over 400m than the fastest 400m guy.

watchout wrote:

For what level are you talking about? You definitely aren't going to find that to be the case at many, if any, high schools. And most colleges probably don't have 16 200m guys that would be the most optimal choices, either. For example, usually the #15/16 "short" sprinters aren't going to be faster combined over 400m than the fastest 400m guy.

even if what you are saying is true for smaller teams and lower quality competition, the OP's idea still doesn't make much sense at any reasonably high level of the sport.

the world record for the 800 is over 1:40.00. many high school level boys can run 400 meters in less than half that amount of time (50 seconds). so it would be really unusual for any team to have a runner go for more than 400 meters, and more likely every runner would run 200 meters (assuming that each exchange has to take place at the start/finish line).

I thought you meant there were still four runners but they could break it up however they wanted, so like they could each do 2 400s and have appx 230 rest in between.

b runs wrote:

I thought you meant there were still four runners but they could break it up however they wanted, so like they could each do 2 400s and have appx 230 rest in between.

oh. that is more interesting. i see now that the original post says something like "the total distance run by team AND ATHLETE is the same".

so we really are still talking about a 4 x 800. the change is that the 800 doesn't have to be run all at once.

i'm still guessing though that the 16 x 200 approach is clearly the best. it's tough to imagine many people being able to run a 2nd consecutive 200 (i.e. if they ran a 400m long segment) faster than they would run that same 200 meters after 60 seconds+ rest.

some teams might find it advantageous to have a distance runner type take less rest in order to allow a sprinter type an extra 20+ seconds rest (e.g., runners A, B, C, D each run one 200 leg in order followed by B, A, C, D or some such thing).

good luck to the officials trying to keep track of such a relay!

I never said that, given sufficient supply of the same caliber of athletes for each event, 16x200m wouldn't be the most efficient. My point was that it would be hard to find an example where ONLY using 200m runners (and 16 of them) is going to be easy to find where they are of the same caliber as, say, elite 400m runners that might be in the same program.

Let's start with high school. The average sized public high school in the United States has approximately 1,000 students (+/- ~150). So let's say there are ~500 boys and ~500 girls at the average sized public school. Now, average boys turnout for track is often around 10%, which means the average sized high school in the United States probably has about 50 boys and 50 girls. Of all the events in track, the 100m has about 12% of the total results and the 200m has about 10%. If you want to say that 100m guys are willing to step up to the 200m on this hypothetical relay and have similar performances to their 100m races, that means that about 22% of the team is going to be 200m types. Throw in the 400m guys (~9%), and you're talking about 30%, give or take. 30% of 50 is 15. So, not only does the "average" sized high school not have 16 different athletes that would consider competing in a 200m race, but even the JV and Frosh/Soph squad guys are going to be involved on this relay. Now, the question would become, would the slowest two kids be able to combine, each running 200m, for a faster time than the fastest 400m runner on the team? I don't know, I think that's asking a little too much. I mean, you're already a guy short! And, I don't know about you, but I've seen some 24.high/25.mid type JV runners and Frosh/Soph runners. Actually, I've seen a WHOLE lot of those types - they probably make up almost a quarter of the athletes that compete in the 100m/200m races. Don't you think that, on an average sized team, you aren't going to find an athlete that can run 50-51 for 400m? Because that would be an improvement.

Now, for colleges? Just how many athletes do you think get scholarships for track? And just how many walkons do you think there are? Take the University of Washington, for example (chose them because it was quick and easy to get their rosters for the past two years, and because they are bound to be above average for all of colleges given that they are Division 1 and that they are part of a premier conference). There were 57 athletes on their 2010 roster, including 10 sprinters. There were 52 athletes on their 2009 roster, including 9 sprinters. So, for an "above average" sized college, you have roster numbers comparable to the "average" sized high school. Yes, they'll get some decathletes or jumpers to help cover, but it is silly to propose that the optimal choice would be to bring in non-sprinters for a relay.

As for the professional level? Well, again, I don't know the exact numbers that Nike or Adidas or Reebock or Asics or anyone else signs under contract, but I'm not sure it would be all that much beyond a dozen elite sprinters? But yes, I would agree that it would still be optimal on the professional level to have 16 guys run 200 meters.

This would be compounded even further if you started considering 300m legs and the like, of course. Because at that point, I'm pretty sure I'd rather have my top dozen athletes or take on as much as they could before "losing steam" in most cases. Because that pair of 22.mid guys can probably run 34.mid for 300m, but could the #14/15/16 200m guys really average 23.low? Or that pair of 23.mid guys that can probably run 36.low for 300m vs. those #14/15/16 200m guys that probably couldn't average 24.low?

Again, it would be silly to think that the #15/16 guys on most teams would really be better than having other, FASTER, guys run slightly longer legs.

I'd expect the most optimal for most teams is probably something more similar to mostly 300m legs with maybe a 400m and maybe a couple 200m, depending on the team's strengths and depth. Really, you don't lose much speed extending from 200m to 300m -- maybe 2.5-3.0%. And when you're comparing the best on the team to essentially the worst (in that discipline), more often than not that difference will be quite a bit greater. 3% is roughly the difference between US Top-100 and US Top 1,000-1,250 in high school, for example... and it would be quite an accomplishment indeed if a program had their #15/16 guys as top 1,000-1,250 in the entire nation...

watchout wrote:

And, I don't know about you, but I've seen some 24.high/25.mid type JV runners and Frosh/Soph runners. Actually, I've seen a WHOLE lot of those types - they probably make up almost a quarter of the athletes that compete in the 100m/200m races. Don't you think that, on an average sized team, you aren't going to find an athlete that can run 50-51 for 400m? Because that would be an improvement.

But you lose the faster time the 50-51 guy could have run for 200m.

Say you have 2 :25 guys who will cover the 400 in 50 seconds including their handoff and one guy who could either do that alone or run a 23 second 200.

50+25 = 1:15/600m

vs

25+25+23 = 1:13/200m

b runs wrote:

I thought you meant there were still four runners but they could break it up however they wanted, so like they could each do 2 400s and have appx 230 rest in between.

Yeah, that's what I meant. You still have 4 runners per relay and each runner has to run 800 meters. But, your team can break it up however you think best. Handoffs would have to be in the outside lanes at your own risk.

I know it seems like every team would just run 200's but there is a risk of blowing a handoff or going to fast and not recovering. 4X200 all-out with 2:00 rest is pretty damn hard.

Also, I think you would have to use chip timing to count laps and distances run by each runner.

check you marth wrote:

watchout wrote:

And, I don't know about you, but I've seen some 24.high/25.mid type JV runners and Frosh/Soph runners. Actually, I've seen a WHOLE lot of those types - they probably make up almost a quarter of the athletes that compete in the 100m/200m races. Don't you think that, on an average sized team, you aren't going to find an athlete that can run 50-51 for 400m? Because that would be an improvement.

But you lose the faster time the 50-51 guy could have run for 200m.

Say you have 2 :25 guys who will cover the 400 in 50 seconds including their handoff and one guy who could either do that alone or run a 23 second 200.

50+25 = 1:15/600m

vs

25+25+23 = 1:13/200m

Not if that 50-51 400m guy was already one of the 200m guys you were counting... though I suppose you are right, that would mean only one of those JV guys would be getting replaced.

I think I'll stick with my original assessment though: it's too much to assume a team can put 16 competitive guys out there, rather than 12-13 guys running slightly longer. And not just because high school or even college teams don't usually have 16 guys that run 100m-400m, but because the better athletes and competitors usually won't be slowed too much by running another 100m or so.

new race wrote:

b runs wrote:

I thought you meant there were still four runners but they could break it up however they wanted, so like they could each do 2 400s and have appx 230 rest in between.

Yeah, that's what I meant. You still have 4 runners per relay and each runner has to run 800 meters. But, your team can break it up however you think best. Handoffs would have to be in the outside lanes at your own risk.

I know it seems like every team would just run 200's but there is a risk of blowing a handoff or going to fast and not recovering. 4X200 all-out with 2:00 rest is pretty damn hard.

Also, I think you would have to use chip timing to count laps and distances run by each runner.

Oh, only 4 runners can be used but can run multiple legs? And each runner has to total 800m in the end? Well, that changes everything.... in that case, it would definitely depend on the athletes strengths and weaknesses.

Sorry. I guess my OP wasn't clear.

4 guys. Each runs 800 meters (give or take a few for handoffs). The team can split it up however they want.

Well, unless you want people running back and forth between every leg, you're probably going to end up running either 200 or 400 per man.

I'd think everybody running 4x200 with a break is the way to go. I know I could knock out workouts like 8x200 @28/29 w/ 2 minute recovery when I was only in 2:05/2:06 shape, so it seems this'd be the fastest way to go. I'd probably be good for about 1:54/55 (total time) when I was only in 2:05 shape. And if the guys really worked on their hand offs, they could save time there. I'd think a 4x800 could run close to 30 seconds faster than their legit 4x800 time using this method.

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if I repeat someone's suggestion.

I like the idea - with one major caveat:

Number of runners on a team has to be limited. 4, 6, 8, whatever, but it has to be limited. I'd rather see it limited to 4. But like the OP suggests, the distances run could be modified to fit the strengths of the team.

For example, let's say you're a school like SUNY Binghamton. You've got one of the best milers in the country, maybe a couple of good 800 guys and a pretty good 400 guy or two. Have the baller go 1200-1600m at a pace that some other schools might not be able to go for 2x800 and then just fill in the rest. There's still strategy on how to actually put the race together, but not the inevitable clusterf*ck of trying to do a 16 man relay.

OK, I just read the thread. I like the idea of everyone runs 800m but breaks it up how they want. Very cool.

It would be most like the 3000m relay in short track speed skating. You know how the four skaters always circle inside the track and push each others' butts to "hand off." The difference is that in speed skating, each team member can skate different distances. They usually tag off after every lap and a half or so, but they are not required to. And often the final leg (Apolo Ohno) will skate 2-3 laps to finish it off.

again, this seems interesting at first glance. but once you take into account the size of most tracks (200m), it seems really unlikely that any combination other than every person running 4 x 200 would be competitive.

if any of you run at, or ever ran at, a high level for any race from 400m to the mile, you have done workouts that involved repeat 200s, 300s or 400s with relatively little rest. in that context, relatively little rest means equal to or less than the amount of time you spent running the previous interval. so if you're doing a workout that is 8x400, you aren't getting more than 60 seconds rest. 8x200 you are likely getting 30 seconds rest or less. 60 seconds would be a lot of rest.

in this relay idea, if each guy runs 4 x 200, without altering the order at all, then each guy will have just about 60 seconds rest between each 200m segment. that's a pretty decent amount of recovery time.

personally, my 800 best was 1:46 (1:46.0 is 26.5 per 200). if you let me run 4x200 instead, with 60 seconds rest between each 200 and a running start on at least 3 of the legs, i could comfortably average 24.0 per 200 (1:36 total). could i run faster by doing 400, 200, 200, or 200, 200, 400? highly unlikely.

Here is an unwritten Letsrun rule:

If you are the OP, do not change your name mid-thread.

You started out as "new event" and then became "new race."

Now as far as the new event (or new race) is concerned, the fastest way for someone to run 800m in less than 7 minutes is somewhere between 8X100 w/ 35s rest to 4X200 w/ 70s rest.

The 100's would be would be faster paced but higher risk with the additional handoffs.

I would do this:

Each of the four guys run 100m two times each to get out fast.

Then go 200, 100, 200 and each finish with a 100m leg.

So they each have 6 intervals.