Is Johnny Gray's American Record run the fastest negative-split 800m of all time?

Fixed PDF link for Rudisha's run:

http://www.dbresults.net/sitof/risultati/at/2010/Nairobi2807201001/stampe/cls-asm-800%20m-finale-01.pdf

I don't know the answer, but how would you differentiate an even-pace 800 from a negative split? Would you require an even-pace race to have each half equal to two decimal places?

What I found fascinating is two of the best races of his career were races where he went out slow by his own standards. Would have run better had he done that more often?

His PR came in a 51.3 first lap. His medal came in like a 50 flat first lap.

He was terrified of being nudged during a race, had no choice but to go out suicidal every time.

SMTR wrote:

terrified of being nudged

Peculiar fear

Its reported that Wilson Kipketer's 1:42.17 in Tokyo in 1996 was with a 50.8 last lap. Cram was also 51 point 51 point in his 1:42.88

Calculo will be here soon to confirm all the above.

rojo wrote:

What I found fascinating is two of the best races of his career were races where he went out slow by his own standards. Would have run better had he done that more often?

Unlikely

the problem was not going out fast, but going out ridiculously fast in lot of races, often not his fault but because of inept pacer

his '85 record off suggested 51.3/51.3 i estimate should be corrected to 2s +ve splits using

Correction = ( 2nd lap - 1st lap - 2 ) * (1/3)

-> ( 51.3 - 51.3 - 2 ) * (1/3) = 0.67s correction

-> 1'42.60 - 0.67 =

1'41.93

i reckon his AR would have been sub-1'42 off 2s +ve splits

( you also have to factor in that although the run isn't on youtube, but probably exists as koblenz was quite serious meet in those days, where ovett had run a 1500wr in '80, that with split of 51.3 at bell, he invariably had to do some wide running on 1 or more bends as no way was he leading that race at bell with 51.3 ( Cruz actually won that day in 1'42.49 ) & probably had to run around some guys to get to 2nd

all this solidifies a time then of likely 1'41-mid/high )

a comparable run was the 1'42.65 in zurich in '88

utterly ridiculous pacing !!!

there is 0.1s clock error & Gray thru 200 in 24.1 actual

( the pacer thru in nonsense 23.1 !!!

this is actually 0.1s slower than Wilson would split thru 200 in his 1'41.24 years later !!! )

the formula i use to correct for abnormal 200 splits for ideal clocking, where T is actual finish time & S the recorded 200 split is :

Correction = ( 3T - 12S - 9 ) * ( 1/16 )

-> ( 3*102.65 - 12*24.1 - 9 ) * ( 1/16 ) = 0.61s correction

-> 1'42.65 - 0.61 =

1'42.04

now, he got no effective drafting in this run as pacer too far ahead, so ideal run with ideal pacing & drafting to bell which is 200m at 0.70/lap -> 0.35s owed

-> 1'42.04 - 0.35 =

1'41.69

it's likely in this zurich run, if he'd had the perfect race, he had shot of being nearly 1s faster & breaking the WR...

JRinaldi wrote:Its reported that Wilson Kipketer's 1:42.17 in Tokyo in 1996 was with a 50.8 last lap

unfortunately that meet wasn't publicised well being in far east over 2/52 after rieti when everyone thought season was over

i can't confirm the splits as no vid coverage on satellite sports channels of it, just mention of clocking in general media back then & not much as he's aleady run 1'41.83 in rieti which most assumed was his final race of '96

because he didn't match rieti clocking it was not televised in sports feeds

1'42.17 off 51.37/50.8 is staggering !

corrected to 2s +ve splits from above formula

-> correction of 0.86s

-> 1'42.17 - 0.86s =

1'41.33 !!!

& probably some wide running in that if 51.3 at bell !

this 100% solidifies that Kip in '96 was in shape to annihilate the 800wr even before '97 even though rieti was fraction outside

it also means that unless he fell, it is is virtually 100% certain he wouda won gold in atlanta if allowed to run

The main thing is he couda wouda run faster than Coe.

ukathleticscoach wrote: The main thing is he couda wouda run faster than Coe.

Yes. But NOT RYUN.

~1 39

It used to drive me crazy to watch Gray run. Man, he was talented but had terrible race tactics. Seems like he'd run a couple of great races each year and have the world leading time, but fall apart at the championships each year. He did mention this in his interview. I think he is right that he was tired come championship time, but more likely it was because of a training plan that involved almost all speed work and no endurance. Peaking on an all speed work program is a crap shoot. Couple that with a "go out as hard as you can and hope you hold on" tactic and there will occasionally be good ones, but results are unpredictable. Exactly the Johnny Gray story. Heck of a runner when he was on, though.

JRinaldi wrote:Cram was also 51 point 51 point in his 1:42.88

no

those splits are wrong

there is no side on shot as they pass bell with pacer thru in slow 50.61

however, there is just before when pacer passes a line in 45.8

cram passes that line in 46.4

the difference between them is 46.4 - 45.8 = 0.6s

however both Cruz & cram who is limpeting him move closer to pacer at bell, so gap between pacer & cram is more like 0.4/0.5s at bell

-> cram's split at bell is 50.61 + 0.4 to 0.5s = ~ 51.01 to 51.11

-> cram's splits were

~ 51.01 / 51.87 to 51.11 / 51.77

cram's splits were hugely far from being -ve ones

they were in fact +ve splits by 0.76 to 0.86s

even more important is that he did huge amount of wide running on bends in region of at least 5m

cram that day in ideal route 1 , 2s +ve split race wouda gone

~ 1'41-high

As I said, 51 point, 51 point!

> cram's splits were

~ 51.01 / 51.87 to 51.11 / 51.77

ukathleticscoach wrote:The main thing is he couda wouda run faster than Coe

eh ???

why woud i be interested in a non-auto timed run on unknown mickey mouse 6-lane track ?

i'm far more interested in Johnny's comparison to that of a 100% legit timed run on a known 8-laner by Cruz of 1'41.77

Johnny now confirms for all-time as if anyone was so inept not to know already that fast races in a few days make elite guys tired :

further elaboration on fatigue of runs :

the exact series of races Johnny ran were :

8/21/85 - zurich - 1'43.43

8/23/85 - berlin - 1'43.84

8/25/85 - cologne - 1'43.33

8/28/85 - koblenz - 1'42.60 !!

it's no crime that Gray's memories are playing tricks after 30+y, but it was not just zurich which tired him out but other 2 runs in between before his career PB

Johnny's statement of tiredness from fast runs in short period of time makes Cruz's 1'41.77 run in koln year before almost beyond belief !!!

in the few days before, he ran these following, with little drafting & also nonsense opening 23.7 pacer in zurich compounded by wide running on 3rd bend

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMo4s0SaIYk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NNKBFEgYoM

8/20/84 - nissa - 2'14.09

8/22/84 - zurich - 1'42.34

8/24/84 - brussels - 1'42.41

8/26/84 - koln - 1'41.77 !!!

using "Gray's Law", Cruz coud no way have been anything but hugely, hugely tired when he lined up for koln-'84 & even more tired than Johnny was in '85 for koblenz as Cruz's runs were much faster & virtually all PBs before koln & Johnny's weren't

Cruz if fully rested for koln-'84 with no hammering in his legs from nissa/zurich/brussels in his legs musta been looking at

1'41-flat

Correction = ( 2nd lap - 1st lap - 2 ) * (1/3)

-> ( 51.3 - 51.3 - 2 ) * (1/3) = 0.67s correction

-> 1'42.60 - 0.67 =

1'41.93

i reckon his AR would have been sub-1'42 off 2s +ve splits

Why are you still pushing this fallacy?

So the guy runs perfect pacing throughut the race and your silly model says that it is worth 1:41.93.

Anyhow you originally said that your silly, made up equation was designed for situations of outlier laps. Now you are using it for perfect splits.

Your second equation is even more ridiculous than the first, manufactured to suit.