I have 55 relay legs and have ran a 58 open 4 after running the 1600 this season. It hurt A LOT. I'm going to be fresh on the 800 this week so should I go balls out and split in between 56-59 or let my teammate handle the first 4 and kick him the next 4? He usually dies coming into the 2nd 4
Get off letsrun and go ask your coach!!
okay coach
+. Always + in the 800. He who dies the slowest wins.
Ca$hclay wrote:
+. Always + in the 800. He who dies the slowest wins.
No, there is nothing special about the 800. Treat it like any other distance. If you want to run your fastest, then even effort is the strategy. Because it is a fast race, your first lap will be 1-2 seconds slower than your 2nd lap.
cammy wrote:
Ca$hclay wrote:+. Always + in the 800. He who dies the slowest wins.
No, there is nothing special about the 800. Treat it like any other distance. If you want to run your fastest, then even effort is the strategy. Because it is a fast race, your first lap will be 1-2 seconds slower than your 2nd lap.
Nonsense. Every distance should not be paced the same way. The 800, similar to the 400, should have a positive split of around 2 seconds, which is how every one of the fastest in the world have run it.
cammy wrote:
Treat it like any other distance.
Huh? You don't treat all distances the same and the 800 is a very unique race. Although it was a long time ago, I have raced many 800s and trained with some fast 800 meter runners. All of them, including myself, + split our 800 PRs. While I do believe that relatively even (within 1-2 seconds) pacing is important, if you want to run your fastest time in the 8, your 2nd lap will always be slower than your 1st.
Don't take my word for it though ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKEOjWEzVGsCa$hclay wrote:
cammy wrote:Treat it like any other distance.
Huh? You don't treat all distances the same and the 800 is a very unique race. Although it was a long time ago, I have raced many 800s and trained with some fast 800 meter runners. All of them, including myself, + split our 800 PRs. While I do believe that relatively even (within 1-2 seconds) pacing is important, if you want to run your fastest time in the 8, your 2nd lap will always be slower than your 1st.
Don't take my word for it though ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKEOjWEzVGs
There is nothing unique about the 800. Just because you ran a PR with a positive split does not mean that is the best choice. It's physics. Even pacing always wins.
If you are slowing down, then you misplaced yourself. It's that simple.
cammy wrote:
Just because you ran a PR with a positive split does not mean that is the best choice.
How about the fact that every single current elite 800m runner ran their PR with a positive split?
Positive and even splits seem the way to go. I'm hoping to get under 2:10 tomorrow so if it's a fast race then I guess positive will be the way to go unless I take control of the race I'll try my best to hit positive splits with little seconds in between to try to make it as even as possible. What were your guys splits when you ran sub 2:10?
If your goal is just under 2:10, I'd probably aim for the first lap in 63. If all goes well you'll run a 65 second lap for 2:08. If you're really not able to handle it you'll crash to something just under 70 for a 2:13 or something like that.
How you hit that 63 makes a difference too. If you go 29/34 you're gong to be out of it. If you hit something like 30.5/32.5 you're probably OK.
Nick Symmonds
Yuriy Borzakovskiy
Very fast times have been run - and championships won - using even to negative splits.
Star wrote:
cammy wrote:Just because you ran a PR with a positive split does not mean that is the best choice.
How about the fact that every single current elite 800m runner ran their PR with a positive split?
How about the fact that every single current elite 800m runner runs ALL of their races with a positive split thereby rendering your so-called point meaningless?
majorkey wrote:
I have 55 relay legs and have ran a 58 open 4 after running the 1600 this season. It hurt A LOT. I'm going to be fresh on the 800 this week so should I go balls out and split in between 56-59 or let my teammate handle the first 4 and kick him the next 4? He usually dies coming into the 2nd 4
Important point: In a crowded race, even IF physiologically a negative split would be better, you will have to run significantly longer than 800m to run around all of the folks that you let go in the first lap. The race is too short to make up very much distance. Stay w the pack.
Nope... wrote:
Nick Symmonds
Yuriy Borzakovskiy
Very fast times have been run - and championships won - using even to negative splits.
Their FASTEST times were run with a positive split.
Everyone who specializes in the 800 runs a positive split to run fast.
Nick Symmonds' splits for his WC Silver medal run were 50.26/53.29 for a 1:43.55 time.
His 1:42.9 PR was split 50/52
When you start a distance race, your first 20-30 seconds are "free" and you can run a couple seconds faster without any negative consequence. Once that is gone, you can't make it up. Running even pace after that would result in a positive split. In the mile you can have a slightly faster 1st lap than the 2nd and 3rd, but the 4th should still be faster than the 1st. All races longer should be negative split.
Race pace guru... wrote:
When you start a distance race, your first 20-30 seconds are "free" and you can run a couple seconds faster without any negative consequence. Once that is gone, you can't make it up. Running even pace after that would result in a positive split. In the mile you can have a slightly faster 1st lap than the 2nd and 3rd, but the 4th should still be faster than the 1st. All races longer should be negative split.
No there is no free 20 or 30 seconds. You have completely made that up.
Star wrote:
Their FASTEST times were run with a positive split.
Everyone who specializes in the 800 runs a positive split to run fast.
Nick Symmonds' splits for his WC Silver medal run were 50.26/53.29 for a 1:43.55 time.
His 1:42.9 PR was split 50/52
Your point is still wrong. They run nearly all of their races with positive splits whether they PR or not so that argument is meaningless.
Also, what all or most runners do does not mean it's the best thing to do. Do you know the difference between correlation and causation? Look at all of the slow distance runners who keep trying to sit and kick against Farah.
If you are slowing down, then you mispaced yourself. This holds across ALL distances.
cammy wrote:
Star wrote:Their FASTEST times were run with a positive split.
Everyone who specializes in the 800 runs a positive split to run fast.
Nick Symmonds' splits for his WC Silver medal run were 50.26/53.29 for a 1:43.55 time.
His 1:42.9 PR was split 50/52
Your point is still wrong. They run nearly all of their races with positive splits whether they PR or not so that argument is meaningless.
Also, what all or most runners do does not mean it's the best thing to do. Do you know the difference between correlation and causation? Look at all of the slow distance runners who keep trying to sit and kick against Farah.
If you are slowing down, then you mispaced yourself. This holds across ALL distances.
This ^
x 1000
Yes but it's extremely hard to run negative splits at the HS level.. The elite guys seem to always run positive splits. Especially the 400-800 runners who use it to their advantage knowing that the distance runner moving down will suffer from a fast first lap. Unless you have Nick Symmonds kick which is extremely rare. Positive/even splits are the way to go man..