400 speed is overrated when it comes to the 800/1500

A lot of 400-based 800 guys never learn to pace or change gears properly. Borzakovskiy is a rare example of one who pretty much figured it out. Rudisha hasn't shown his gears, but he knows how to pace properly (or his rabbit buddy does, anyway) and he is good enough with just that because of superior fitness.

It's not the speed, it's how you use it. You may have a bigger gun, but shoot it from too far away you'll still miss.

A large part of the argument you present is based on the false assumpion that Andrews has 47/48 400 speed. He ran 49.13a in high school in the lone 400 race he has on record. The odds that it went perfectly for him are low. If he ran 49.1 in the single open 400 we know he ran his senior year, than the odds are very strong that he could have gone at least ~48.7 as a senior in an ideal race. But as a senior, he was a 1:48.7 guy. By his frosh year of college, he was a 1:45.5 guy. That's 3.2 secs improvement in the 800, so we can expect 1.6 secs improvement occurred in the 400. To be safe, we'll say 1.5. 48.7-1.5=47.2. I wouldn't be surpised to see him dip under 47 in a solid race. So his 400 is most likely in the 47 flat range, at the very least. Not 47/48. More like 46/47. Loxsom's is closer to this than looking solely at relay splits would suggest (obviously, because of the running start).

You have to have (at least) decent 400 speed to be a good 800 runner. You have to have (at least) good 400 speed to be a great 800 runner. You have to have (at least) great 400 speed to be an fantastic 800 runner. And you have to have fantastic 400 speed to be in contention for a WR in the 800.

Your 400 speed can't be of too much lower a caliber than that caliber which you wish to be in the 800. I've never heard of a guy who maxed out at 50.0 in the 400 yet could hold a 52.0 for two laps to run an (internationally relevant) 1:44 800.

Obvously if you have a matchup between two guys who run around ~1:45, whose 400 speed is half a second faster is inconsequential.

long dong silver wrote:

A large part of the argument you present is based on the false assumpion that Andrews has 47/48 400 speed. He ran 49.13a in high school in the lone 400 race he has on record. The odds that it went perfectly for him are low. If he ran 49.1 in the single open 400 we know he ran his senior year, than the odds are very strong that he could have gone at least ~48.7 as a senior in an ideal race. But as a senior, he was a 1:48.7 guy. By his frosh year of college, he was a 1:45.5 guy. That's 3.2 secs improvement in the 800, so we can expect 1.6 secs improvement occurred in the 400.

Not true.

Generally, when 800/1500 runners improve their PRs in their chosen events, their strength increases dramatically, but their speed increases little if at all.

A good example would be Steve Ovett, who never improved on his 47.5 best set as a teenager despite several relays and open 400s when he was much faster over the longer distances.

you can get a numerical idea from this :

http://www.jundo.co.uk/

let's consider an elite, with say 7'30 ability & see how his 800/1500 potential varies with increasing 400 ability

7'30 with

52 ->1'49.5 , 3'34.7

51 ->1'48.2 , 3'33.4

50 ->1'46.9 , 3'32.1

49 ->1'45.6 , 3'30.9

48 ->1'44.3 , 3'29.6

47 ->1'43.0 , 3'28.3

46 ->1'41.7 , 3'27.0

45 ->1'40.3 , 3'25.7

( tangent :

50 line is ~ plethora of marginal sub-elite kenyans

49 line is ~ elite but not top kenyan ( keitany, songok, rotich, kibowen, etc )

48 line is ~ choge

47 line is ~ asbel ( if he runs 1500 to potential )

46 line is ~ coe ( if again he'd run the 1500 to potential based on his 1'41 )

45 line is ~ rudisha ( that 1500 potential is just theoretical as he is not a 1500 runner, let alone a 7'30 guy )

interesting thing here is that a 1s improvement in 400 doesn't translate to 2s improvement over 800 as simple proportion dictates - it's ~ 1.3s improvement

similarly a 1s improvement in 400 doesn't translate to 3.75s improvement over 1500 as simple proportion dictates - it's again a ~ 1.3s improvement !!!

lol lol lol lol wrote:A good example would be Steve Ovett, who never improved on his 47.5 best set as a teenager despite several relays and open 400s when he was much faster over the longer distances.

ovett ran 1'44.0 & 8'13.5 in '78 which was probably his peak

now i saw both those races & certainly the 800 is on youtube, & he was worth much better in both - the 800 was a tactical affair with a near suicidal opening from coe & in the 2 miles he just followed a tired henry round waiting to kick off him - if henry had gone a little quicker, ovett wouda followed ( but not if henry had been in 7'32 shape ! )

i have little doubt he couda gone on the circuit that year, ideally :

1'43.50 - 1'43.75 / 8'10 - 8'12

off those

1'43.75 / 8'12 ->47.3 , 3'30.3

1'43.75 / 8'10 ->47.4 , 3'29.8

1'43.50 / 8'12 ->47.1 , 3'30.0

1'43.50 / 8'10 ->47.2 , 3'29.6

which agrees with assertion that he didn't significantly improve on his teenage 400pb ( he shouda also gone 3'29 in '78 )

That´s because when you train teenagers to become mid distance runners you devote a large part of their training to pure speed training. Then, when they get older the training shifts over to more mileage and stamina training.

That´s why most world class mid distance runners set their 400 PB early in their career. I was a 3,47 1500 runner and I ran that when I was 23. My 400 PB, however, was set when I was 18.

To say that 400 speed is overrated is pure nonsense. If you don´t develop your leg speed properly when you´re a teenager, you will never become a really good mid distance runner.

True to a certain extent, but they don't all have the same leg speed. A lot are slower over 400m than you think

It's amazing how many 800m runners don't have listed 400m times hence guys like Andrews imagined 47 seconds!

Its speed endurance as well as aerobic stength you need for the 800m

You do need speed though!

I don't think 400 speed is overrated.

Your 800m ability is completely limited by your 400 speed which is harder to develop than strength and aerobic fitness.

Yes, once your 400 speed is comparable to another you really have to weigh in other factors more evenly.

The point your leaving out is that if your not a 49s guy, you will not run sub 1:46. If your not sub 48, your not running sub 1:44 and so on. It might be curious to look at sit and kick races (i.e. the 800ms where they go out in 55 and come back in 50) and see if they favor the faster runners or the endurance ones.

well. wrote:That´s why most world class mid distance runners set their 400 PB early in their career. I was a 3,47 1500 runner and I ran that when I was 23. My 400 PB, however, was set when I was 18.

Um, actually most world class mid distance runners set their 400 PB early in their career because they stop running the 400...

I agree to an extent. I can probably hit a 57 flat for 400 all out. I don't think anyone that runs 55 flat(no faster) all out can beat me in the 800. I always outkick them. But I run out of room to catch the 52 range guys. (Unless theyre sprinters that suck at the 800.

Mrr82 wrote:

well. wrote:That´s why most world class mid distance runners set their 400 PB early in their career. I was a 3,47 1500 runner and I ran that when I was 23. My 400 PB, however, was set when I was 18.

Um, actually most world class mid distance runners set their 400 PB early in their career because they stop running the 400...

Um, actually most of them don´t improve their pure speed a lot after their teenage years. Their improvement come in other areas. Besides, there is a limit to how much you can improve your sprint speed before it starts to have negative effects on slower speeds (a sprinter have lousy running economy at slower speeds).

there is a limit to how much you can improve your sprint speed before it starts to have negative effects on slower speeds[/quote]

This statement was pulled out of your a** presumably based on a "study" of one or two not-well-trained people. You can develop 400 speed while also improving your "slower speeds".

OP's post seemed to contain two theses: 1) some 800 guys are more 400/800 guys, and some 800 guys are 800/1500 and that 2) when guys with similar 800 PRs meet up the fact that one has a little bit better of a 400 PR doesn't matter much.

How have two such uncontroversial propositions elicited this many replies?

asdfa wrote:

It might be curious to look at sit and kick races (i.e. the 800ms where they go out in 55 and come back in 50) and see if they favor the faster runners or the endurance ones.

Good idea. Let's go with championship races. They are not always 55/50 but there is no rabbit, so it's best we've got. Let's look at the 800 final for the last 3 global championships, and what pr's we find from their IAAF bios. As I start to write this, I don't know whether I will be proved right or wrong, but here goes:

2009 WC Berlin

1 Mbulaeni Mulaudzi - RSA - 1:45.29 / prs - no 400/1:42.86/3:38.55

2 Alfred Kirwa Yego - KEN - 1:45.35 / prs - no 400/1:42.67/3:33.68

3 Yusuf Saad Kamel - BRN - 1:45.35 / prs - no 400/1:42.79/3:31.56

4 Yuriy Borzakovskiy - RUS - 1:45.57 / prs - 45.84/1:42.47/3:43.24

5 Amine Laalou - MAR - 1:45.66 / prs - 47.57/1:43.25/3:29.53

6 Nick Symmonds - USA - 1:45.71 / prs - no 400/1:43.76/4:01.21 mile (I think this is wrong...)

7 Bram Som - NED - 1:45.86 - prs - 46.87/1:43.45/3:50.20 1500

8 Marcin Lewandowski - POL - 1:46.17 / prs - 10.64 in the 100/no 400/1:43.84/3:40.24

9 Jackson Mumbwa Kivuva - KEN - 1:46.39 - prs - 48.38/1:43.72/3:42.6

10 Yeimer López - CUB - 1:47.80 / prs - 45.11/1:43.07/no 1500

2008 OG Beijing

1 Wilfred Bungei - KEN - 1:44.65 / prs - no 400/1:42.34/no 1500; 600 - 1:14.94, 1000 - 2:18.60

2 Ismail Ahmed Ismail - SUD - 1:44.70 / prs - no 400/1:43.82/3:41.97

3 Alfred Kirwa Yego - KEN - 1:44.82 / prs - no 400/1:42.67/3:33.68

4 Gary Reed - CAN - 1:44.94 / prs - 46.45/1:43.68/no 1500

5 Yusuf Saad Kamel - BRN - 1:44.95 / prs - no 400/1:42.79/3:31.56

6 Yeimer López - CUB - 1:45.88 / prs - 45.11/1:43.07/no 1500

7 Nabil Madi - ALG - 1:45.96 / prs - no 400/1:44.54/3:34.47

8 Nadjim Manseur - ALG - 1:47.19 / prs - no 400/1:44.75/3:45.06

2007 WC Osaka

1 Alfred Kirwa Yego - KEN - 1:47.09 / prs - no 400/1:42.67/3:33.68

2 Gary Reed - CAN - 1:47.10 / prs - 46.45/1:43.68/no 1500

3 Yuriy Borzakovskiy - RUS - 1:47.39 / prs - 45.84/1:42.47/3:43.24

4 Abraham Chepkirwok - UGA - 1:47.41 / prs - no 400/1:43.72/no 1500; 1000 - 2:18.18

5 Wilfred Bungei - KEN - 1:47.42 / prs - no 400/1:42.34/no 1500; 600 - 1:14.94, 1000 - 2:18.60

6 Amine Laalou - MAR - 1:47.45 / prs - 47.57/1:43.25/3:29.53

7 Mbulaeni Mulaudzi - RSA - 1:47.52 / prs - no 400/1:42.86/3:38.55

8 Mohammed Al Salhi - KSA - 1:47.58 / prs - 45.75/1:43.66/no 1500

Generally we're finding that the top guys tend to not have 400 prs. They either have good 1500 pr's or seem to be pure 800 guys. Out of the guys who DO have fast 400 times (sub-46), they finished 4th & 10th in 2009; 6th in 2008; 3rd & 8th in 2007. No exactly blowing the doors off of people, even in a race where the winner went 1:47.09! You'd expect that 45.75 guy to be up there more, right?

Generally we're finding that the top guys tend to not have 400 prs. They either have good 1500 pr's or seem to be pure 800 guys. Out of the guys who DO have fast 400 times (sub-46), they finished 4th & 10th in 2009; 6th in 2008; 3rd & 8th in 2007. No exactly blowing the doors off of people, even in a race where the winner went 1:47.09! You'd expect that 45.75 guy to be up there more, right?

Speed based guys have the disadvantage of having to gut through tons of heats to make the final, which would give the edge to those with more stamina.