If someone wanted to get 2:02 in the 800, what would you think their 400 PR would need to be? I know it would technically need to be 1:01, but it's unlikely that they'll get 2:02 with that. I was thinking around 57.
If someone wanted to get 2:02 in the 800, what would you think their 400 PR would need to be? I know it would technically need to be 1:01, but it's unlikely that they'll get 2:02 with that. I was thinking around 57.
I ran 54 (relay) and 55 (timed) when I got 2:02 in the 800.
You're right, a maxed out endurance type would hit 57. However, the anaerobic system plays a larger role, so perhaps 54-56 is more realistic. In an 800 you are going to fail if you run your first lap very close to your 400 pr (within 2 to 3 sec). 400 time + 5 to 6 for the first lap, and + 7 to 8 is typical for the second lap. With these numbers in mind high 58 - low 60 should feel comfortable for a 2:02 runner.
Probably 55
57 for a 20 or 30 year old with good stamina. Probably closer to 55 for a teenager whose aerobic system will be less developed. Of course there will be exceptions though
Hobby juggernaut wrote:
I ran 54 (relay) and 55 (timed) when I got 2:02 in the 800.
You're right, a maxed out endurance type would hit 57. However, the anaerobic system plays a larger role, so perhaps 54-56 is more realistic. In an 800 you are going to fail if you run your first lap very close to your 400 pr (within 2 to 3 sec). 400 time + 5 to 6 for the first lap, and + 7 to 8 is typical for the second lap. With these numbers in mind high 58 - low 60 should feel comfortable for a 2:02 runner.
Much of what you said is wrong. A maxed out endurance type could run 2:02 with something like a 58 or maybe even a 59 flat. As with any other distance, even effort is going to give you your best possible time. However, if you have to compete for positioning then your first lap may be faster than your second. If you are purely focused on competing, then your laps can be whatever you want.
stoog wrote:
As with any other distance, even effort is going to give you your best possible time.
Interesting theory. Unfortunately, all available evidence suggests disproves it. ~1-2s positive splits are best for 800m. Evidence: nearly every single sub-1:43 in history.
Greygoose wrote:
If someone wanted to get 2:02 in the 800, what would you think their 400 PR would need to be? I know it would technically need to be 1:01, but it's unlikely that they'll get 2:02 with that. I was thinking around 57.
I think the mean of the distribution of 400 times of people who run 2:02 would be centered around 54/55.
There will be people slower. There will be people faster. But, this is about the average.
StuddedUp wrote:
stoog wrote:As with any other distance, even effort is going to give you your best possible time.
Interesting theory. Unfortunately, all available evidence suggests disproves it. ~1-2s positive splits are best for 800m. Evidence: nearly every single sub-1:43 in history.
Evidence does not prove things. You are misusing the idea of evidence. You are also misusing logic:
1) "nearly" every sub 1:43 is not "all" sub 1:43 so your point is wrong. If even just 1 person disobeys your idea, then your idea is not true.
2) why are you using 1:43? Why not 1:42 or 1:56?
3) Correlation is not causation. There are several reasons why people do the 1st lap faster than the 2nd lap. What you are saying is maybe just 1 step less silly than saying "most race winners wear a Kenyan jersey so if I wear a Kenyan jersey then I will be a race winner"
Physics and biology says that even effort is the way to run your fastest time. For some reason, many people think the 800m is allowed to defy the laws of nature.
There's a good reason why sub 1:43 is a reference point versus 1:56. Sub 1:43 times are more likely to be run at optimum pace. Should 100m runners slow their acceleration to run optimum even splits?
For most high school athletes a 54-56 can get someone in the the 2:02 range.
stoog wrote:
StuddedUp wrote:Interesting theory. Unfortunately, all available evidence suggests disproves it. ~1-2s positive splits are best for 800m. Evidence: nearly every single sub-1:43 in history.
Evidence does not prove things. You are misusing the idea of evidence. You are also misusing logic:
1) "nearly" every sub 1:43 is not "all" sub 1:43 so your point is wrong. If even just 1 person disobeys your idea, then your idea is not true.
2) why are you using 1:43? Why not 1:42 or 1:56?
3) Correlation is not causation. There are several reasons why people do the 1st lap faster than the 2nd lap. What you are saying is maybe just 1 step less silly than saying "most race winners wear a Kenyan jersey so if I wear a Kenyan jersey then I will be a race winner"
Physics and biology says that even effort is the way to run your fastest time. For some reason, many people think the 800m is allowed to defy the laws of nature.
Ever seen a 400n race.
If theories and assumed physiology where all that's needed why would they carry out tests for all scientific studies.
This an interesting debate. I do analysis on all sub-1:44 800 metres runners. I choose that threshold because if a person shows up at Olympics or World Championship, said sub-1:44 800m runner has a realistic opportunity to medal. There are currently 130 sub-1:44 athletes from I believe six continents, so we can do realistic statistical analysis on sub-1:44 800m athletes. The sub-1:44 800m athletes with sub-47 400m PR for some reason need to race positive splits to PR. We know James Robinson was the exception.
stoog wrote:
As with any other distance, even effort is going to give you your best possible time.
What a horrible post.
No, this is not true of races with a significant anaerobic contribution. Definitely not true of the 800.
Would you apply this idiocy to the 400, too?
JokeBot wrote:
stoog wrote:As with any other distance, even effort is going to give you your best possible time.
What a horrible post.
No, this is not true of races with a significant anaerobic contribution. Definitely not true of the 800.
Would you apply this idiocy to the 400, too?
Yeah. For one thing, even effort is NOT going to result in anywhere close to even splits. If I run a 2 flat 800m with perfectly even splits, the first 200m is going to feel really easy and the last 200m is going to feel really hard. If I want to run "even effort," I am going to have to either sprint the first 200m or slow way down over the course of the final lap.
increasing effort wrote:
JokeBot wrote:What a horrible post.
No, this is not true of races with a significant anaerobic contribution. Definitely not true of the 800.
Would you apply this idiocy to the 400, too?
Yeah. For one thing, even effort is NOT going to result in anywhere close to even splits. If I run a 2 flat 800m with perfectly even splits, the first 200m is going to feel really easy and the last 200m is going to feel really hard. If I want to run "even effort," I am going to have to either sprint the first 200m or slow way down over the course of the final lap.
Exactly.
This post from "stoog" is what happens when distance hobbyjoggers try to talk about speed. They get very confused.
Greygoose wrote:
If someone wanted to get 2:02 in the 800, what would you think their 400 PR would need to be?
Minimum?
That would be 61.
Zat0pek wrote:
Greygoose wrote:If someone wanted to get 2:02 in the 800, what would you think their 400 PR would need to be?
Minimum? That would be 61.
Actually, the minimum would be 0. I think the OP should be asking for the maximum 400 time.
Anecdotally from myself, teammates, competitors, friends who have run in the 1:50-1:55 range.
Highschool athlete 400pr + ~7
800 guy 400pr + ~5
1500 guy 400pr + ~4
5000 guy 400pr + ~3
rough guess but in this case as others have said 54-58 depending on athlete
Classic teaching is 55 for 2, 50 for 1:50; 55 high to 56 low for 2:02 based on that.
Zat0pek wrote:
Greygoose wrote:If someone wanted to get 2:02 in the 800, what would you think their 400 PR would need to be?
Minimum?
That would be 61.
Read my whole post
stoog wrote:
Physics and biology says that even effort is the way to run your fastest time.
Proof?