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

is this a joke ???

don't post on threads you have no clue about

stepanova ran outrageous 52.94wr on a 398+ track

if you didn't know it, your problem

iaaf have ratified wrs on utter nonsense short tracks !!!

is this a joke ???

do you have any concept of center-of-mass ???

a guy/gal with her left foot tight on kerb in lane 1 woud have his/her center-of-mass ~ 20 - 30cm out, meaning EXACTLY where 400m shoud be run for in lane 1

as woud any bipedal / mammal / arachnoid

i pointed this out year ago when Alf, who was probably in 1'41-low shape got so screwed, he got outer part of lane for his 1'42.87 !!!

utterly humiliating !!!

learn analysis

to be bum in in outter part of shared lane of 800 wrecks you by upto

~ 2.25m !!!

in extra distance run !!!

It's really basic maths

you offer no new insight

eh ???

you the appointed surveyor in '81 for firenze ???

otherwise it's nonsense

milady

you offer nothing

Yeah so 398.15 + 2.25/2 = 399.275

Close enough to 400m for me.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

JRinaldi wrote:

https://youtu.be/AOS3RQU92Z4

This is the link with the clearer image and running clock in the last 80m

Yes this is what I was referring too.

yeah...

as i hugely expected from aeons ago

same 2 muppets...

nonsense refuted pages/years ago

now learn something

no running clock

only broadcaster was local italian

no running clock in any full vid

->

nonsense superimposed rubbish

offer full vid with that running clock

then offer photo-finish needed for a WR !!!

offer it...

Unlike you Vent/Calculo - I have only ever posted under one name and always use my real name. You got shamed out of using Vent when you couldn't even work out where the start of the 1500m should be. From that day forth, you're analysing has carried no weight whatsoever. Back to your lazy boy old chum.

Muppet indeed you are.

calculo wrote:

yeah...

as i hugely expected from aeons ago

same 2 muppets...

i berate myself for not connecting aeons ago

one muppet was so dumb it was inconceivable it connected to anything quadripedal ?!

anyhows, i berate myself again for seeing nonsense aeons ago

we won't see anymore nonsense again from non "1'44.40" coach again

calculo wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

JRinaldi wrote:

https://youtu.be/AOS3RQU92Z4

This is the link with the clearer image and running clock in the last 80m

Yes this is what I was referring too.

yeah...

as i hugely expected from aeons ago

same 2 muppets...

I'm still going get you a puppy Calco. I think that a fox terrier would be perfect for you. We need to distract you.

Interestingly, Schmid has the fastest 400m time for 1979. The site covers 72-80 for some reason in both events, with a little 71 for both too.

He himself said he was Jewish in the article I linked. I forget about what was said on the BBC program looking into his ancestry.

58kg sounds more accurate to me than 54. I wouldn't be surprised if the Greek runner at 54 was also a bit low.

wr potential wrote:

He himself said he was Jewish in the article I linked. I forget about what was said on the BBC program looking into his ancestry.

He said his father was from the London East End 'with a Jewish background'. He also said his mother was of Indian background. I think his mother's father was Indian. So he is almost certainly at least half 'native' British. I doubt if his Indian maternal grandfather was 100% Indian, and nearly every white Eastender has some Jewish background, who in any case came largely from Russia, where the 'Jews' had as much European as Jewish ancestry.

The BBC program claimed apparently that he has some negro slave ancestry from Jamaica. I think that program likes to claim that nearly every white male conservative happens to have some black slave ancestry.

Not that any of this matters a great deal to me - apart from the fact that questioning his European ancestry is just another daily example of the ways self-hating lefties and African racist neo-nazis love to degenerate the achievements of white people at the same time as we are being replaced in our own homelands.

Coe is clearly more white European than anything else, and he was born and raised in England, as were both his parents.

Race is getting way off task. But what do do we call Juantorena? My father always claimed he was black, I always thought he was white-to mixed.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Race is getting way off task. But what do do we call Juantorena? My father always claimed he was black, I always thought he was white-to mixed.

Yes it is. It is an un-pc explanation as to why 800m times haven't progressed so much though because the 800m is the event that has least been dominated by either afro-americans/west africans or east africans respectively. Therefore, if times across the board have declined (or at least the speed of progression) in the USA and Europe/Aus/NZ, you would expect the 800m times to have progressed the slowest worldwide.

As far as Juantorena is concerned he doesn't look like he has much black ancestry. He could be 100% Hispanic Cuban.

Then again in some pics he does look very dark.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/images/2012/06/Alberto_Juantorena_montreal_1976_13-06-12.jpg

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.

THREE percent not .3 percent. That persuaded me not to read the whole post.

The Overexplainer wrote:

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.

THREE percent not .3 percent. That persuaded me not to read the whole post.

I think that's a really good example to show the high level which we have in letsrun discussions. Maybe you check your result?

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.

Don't understand your 100m progression times. Carl Lewis ran 9.92 in 1988. Hines ran 9.95 at altitude in Mexico City in 1968. I think the sea level record at the time was 10.03 (also by Hines). That would be over 1% in 20 years. Since then of course it's come down over 2.5% in 29 years whereas the 800m record has come down by less than 1% in the same time (and less than 1% in 36 years), even during the era of EPO and the explosion in African distance running.

It's understandable that the 100m has less improvement percentage wise as some of it due to quickness off the blocks and reaction times which doesn't improve with tech or even training so much. Also the one false start rule should have stymied times a little.

Not to mention that Ben Johnson ran 9.79 in 1988 and would have got away with his steroid use in the 1960's (in fact it would be legal then). Bob Hayes, who many regard as the most talented 100m sprinter aside from Bolt could only ran 10.06 in the 60's at sea level.