Why have 800m times progressed much slower than any other distance?

Coe himself believes his capability if you transplanted him into the 2012 800m would be low 1:41s.

Try .6 not 0.06. That persuaded me not to read the whole post.

You can pick a dead-end time interval for many events. 100 meters for example only ticked off 3 hundredths, about .3 percent of the ~10 second WR, during the two and a half decades between Hines 9.95 and Lewis 9.92.

Coe's record was an extreme outlier that even he couldn't get near again. Imagine Van Niekerk running 43.35 once this year and then never beating 43.7 the rest of his life.

The 800 WR has moved farther in the past 10 years than any longer track event. Even steeple has lost contact with its former performance level. 3000, 5000 and 10,000 may have peaked forever.

Where did you get the idea that tracks and shoes are better?

I would think the answer is obvious.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Try .6 not 0.06. That persuaded me not to read the whole post.

You can pick a dead-end time interval for many events. 100 meters for example only ticked off 3 hundredths, about .3 percent of the ~10 second WR, during the two and a half decades between Hines 9.95 and Lewis 9.92.

Coe's record was an extreme outlier that even he couldn't get near again. Imagine Van Niekerk running 43.35 once this year and then never beating 43.7 the rest of his life.

The 800 WR has moved farther in the past 10 years than any longer track event. Even steeple has lost contact with its former performance level. 3000, 5000 and 10,000 may have peaked forever.

Well then you should have read the whole post. The point I was making wasn't so much about the WR improvement - I was just highlighting it as it got me thinking about the general lack of progression.

The 100m time you referred to (I assume you meant Jim Hines) was set at altitude. I specifically stated I was talking about sea level times in relation to the 400m.

I even mentioned that Coe's WR was an outlier. Again my point is the general times and I gave the top 5 rankings as examples. It is misleading however to stress Coe's WR as an outlier given that 400m runners run virtually flat out every race and 800m races rarely and back then were usually tactical outside of specific WR attempts. Coe was so far ahead of everybody else at his peak that a WR by him would virtually have had to have been a WR solo attempt. As far as I know, he only ever made two WR attempts at 800m and both times shattered the WRs in 1:42.4 and then 1:41.7. He also ran 2:12 and 2:13 for the 1,000m which translate as 1:41 and 1:42 for the 800m.

800m runners today race far more often, always in paced races looking for fast times, and the best race against the best far more often. Given this, it's even more striking that the top times have progressed so little since the 80's.

Even the comparison I made between 84 and 2016 didn't tell the whole story because I listed the top 5 'rankings' in 84, but the top 5 times of 2016. Cruz ran under 1:43 himself I think at least twice in 84.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The 800 WR has moved farther in the past 10 years than any longer track event. Even steeple has lost contact with its former performance level. 3000, 5000 and 10,000 may have peaked forever.

That's simply because of EPO.

It's of course highly likely that the improvements in WRs in distances longer than 800m were largely due to EPO, it doesn't explain so much why even today with EPO testing that 1500m runners are running faster than 80's guys and 800m runners barely, so that even a 10000m runner like Farah can run over a second faster than double Olympic champion Coe over 1500m, yet Coe's 800m WR is still in the top 5 of all time let alone untouchable as a WR.

800m runners today are running 1/3 second faster than the top guys of the 80's, whereas 400m runners are running a second faster. 800m runners should be 2 seconds faster not 1/3 second faster.

*let alone untouchable as the British record.

Robo. wrote:

I would think the answer is obvious.

Well I guess so. I've always said that the 800m is the 'cleanest' distance in that the main PEDs work on the sprints and the longer distances respectively.

As far as I know steroids haven't changed much since the 80's, although I believe HGH is more effective these days.

Perhaps 1/3 second a lap is about what we would expect from better shoes, tracks etc and the greater improvements in the sprints and the longer distances can be explained by PEDs.

Another factor is likely the decline in white running since the 80's. Historically, the 800m is by far the event that white athletes have competed best in.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Try .6 not 0.06. That persuaded me not to read the whole post.

You can pick a dead-end time interval for many events. 100 meters for example only ticked off 3 hundredths, about .3 percent of the ~10 second WR, during the two and a half decades between Hines 9.95 and Lewis 9.92.

Coe's record was an extreme outlier that even he couldn't get near again. Imagine Van Niekerk running 43.35 once this year and then never beating 43.7 the rest of his life.

The 800 WR has moved farther in the past 10 years than any longer track event. Even steeple has lost contact with its former performance level. 3000, 5000 and 10,000 may have peaked forever.

Try 0.6% not 0.6. That persuaded me not to read your whole post.

The 800m was never a time trial event. At this point runners have squeezed almost every sensible amount of time out of a tactical effort as they can. Unlike races below (1,2,4) or races above (15,5k) the 800m provides a difficult limbo in which you aren't able to run you're own race without running someone else's as well (think London 2012.) Think about it similar to the steeple, Jager could chase sub 8 every race, but that isn't necessarily going to work because he's more likely to fall off and drag the field to a good time than he is to drop everyone and win by a margin. It's likely most of the 1:42/1:43 guys we're seeing today would've been 1:41/1:42 guys had they been given the same opportunities to dominate like decades ago.

Lastly, there are a few things that aren't being done that could easily improve 800m performances.

1. More Strength Training

Being a 4/8 or just 8 runner is much more common than being an 8/15 runner. If everyone on the line is a 4/8 runner and the #1 seed has a 400 PB that's two seconds faster than the rest of the field ... I already know who I'm betting on.

2. Getting Out Harder and Longer Staggers

This one is controversial, but I believe one of the main issues in the 800 comes in runners who inevitably bite off more than they can chew( think 2012 and 2016 final: Alfred Kipketer, Abubaker Kaki) and ruin everyone else's race, including their own. A 2 turn stagger would easily make these runners reevaluate their options. To build on that, I believe the ones who DO end up dominating need to hone their potential in a Rudisha-esque way. A first quarter of 48/49 should be the goal for someone with a 400 PB of 45 or better.

3.Improve 500/600m Record

These are some of the weakest records and end up hovering right around the 8. If the world record for the 600 is 48 high pace, how can you expect a runner to even come close to that in a race let alone one that's 200m's longer. The 600m WR should be at least a second faster if not two, once that happens we'll be sure to see a sub 1:40

Tony T. wrote:

Try 0.6% not 0.6. That persuaded me not to read your whole post.

They're the same thing brah. That persuaded me not to read anything except your apology.

Moran Tony T: OP said ".06%", it is clear what I meant by the correction, except apparently to morans

EPO=Distance believers: The 800 is the event that logically should be helped most by having more blood cells as it requires the highest rate of gas exchange.

People get confused by which events are "more aerobic" because they think proportionally rather than absolutely. A 5000 may have a higher ratio of aerobic:anaerobic respiration, but an 800 still involves more aerobic respiration despite also involving much more anaerobic respiration. More of everything.

Not to mention you have to exhale all that CO2 resulting from clearing the acid.

Marathon should be helped the least. Do you even breath hard at marathon pace?

Percentage calculation definitely isn't an easy task , but with calculators partly available in 2017, it should be possible, I think.

From 1981 to 2017, none of the mens distance World Records (track) has improved by more than 4%. The 800m record has improved by 1.39% (or by 0.81% if you take the end of '81 as basis).

The main reasons why the 800m record hasn't improved as much as the others might be that Coe's two records were the best distance records at the time and that the use of EPO is more helpeful in the long distances.

said88 wrote:

Percentage calculation definitely isn't an easy task , but with calculators partly available in 2017, it should be possible, I think.

From 1981 to 2017, none of the mens distance World Records (track) has improved by more than 4%. The 800m record has improved by 1.39% (or by 0.81% if you take the end of '81 as basis).

The main reasons why the 800m record hasn't improved as much as the others might be that Coe's two records were the best distance records at the time and that the use of EPO is more helpeful in the long distances.

Snell ran 1:44.3 on grass in 1962. Grass has a cushioning friction which makes it nice to run on but it at the same time it slows you down (slower kick back). Snell's time could have been as good as 1:42 high on a Mondo, but defensively a time of 1:43.5 would suggest an improvement of 2.6s over 55 years. Which is even less. It is all about lactic acid.

I believe that blood transfusions were not banned until post 1984 (after the notorious cycling incident at the 1984 games http://articles.latimes.com/1985-01-19/sports/sp-8183_1_federation-board). Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong! There has always been talk, whether that be unsubstantiated rumours or not, that Coe used blood transfusions to enhance his performances. Many feel his bout of toxoplasmosis is linked with this. Not sure why his time wasn't busted apart in the late 90s / early '00s though - perhaps the 1500m / mile were favoured in this era.

The 800m WR may be the weakest record on the books at a major distance. For one thing it was set by David Rudisha leading wire to wire. It almost certainly would be faster if he'd had a rabbit through 600m. There is also a very significant slow-down between between 400m and 800m pace. I could see a future generation of 800m runners taking huge chunks off that record and putting the rate of improvement since the 80s more in line with other distances.

3hr-marathoner wrote:

The 800m WR may be the weakest record on the books at a major distance. For one thing it was set by David Rudisha leading wire to wire. It almost certainly would be faster if he'd had a rabbit through 600m. There is also a very significant slow-down between between 400m and 800m pace. I could see a future generation of 800m runners taking huge chunks off that record and putting the rate of improvement since the 80s more in line with other distances.

Almost entirely incorrect.

The fact that the record has only been improved incrementally over the last 20 years since Kipketer shows exactly what it is: an extremely tough record. The 800m is a popular event and has had no shortage of talent from all over the world partaking. Maybe more than all the other events.

Rudisha is a once in a generation talent like Bolt. No doubt he could run ~1:40.5 in the right race in 2012, but that is like saying the 100m record is weak because Bolt took it down to 9.58 in a championship after rounds.

3hr-marathoner wrote:

The 800m WR may be the weakest record on the books at a major distance. For one thing it was set by David Rudisha leading wire to wire. It almost certainly would be faster if he'd had a rabbit through 600m. There is also a very significant slow-down between between 400m and 800m pace. I could see a future generation of 800m runners taking huge chunks off that record and putting the rate of improvement since the 80s more in line with other distances.

There is a very significant slow-down between 400m and 800m pace is there? I wonder why that might be? Could be something to do with the fact that it is double the distance and the 800m is more aerobic? I don't foresee big chunks being taken off.

I also don't think the lack of pacemakers means that Rudisha's time could be any faster.