2 Turn stagger for 800m = Faster Times

Pacers running 23 flat for the 200m then slowing/dying while the pack catches up during the 2nd 200m doesn't help anyone*

They used to do a 2 turn stagger for the 800 back in the day...

crete2beatspamfilter wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU5KThVTv6A

Always love the Wohlhuter.

My middle school conference meet did a two-turn stagger for the 800. Never used a two turn stagger ever again after that meet. Always wondered why it wasn’t a more popular thing.

vivalarepublica wrote:

My middle school conference meet did a two-turn stagger for the 800. Never used a two turn stagger ever again after that meet. Always wondered why it wasn’t a more popular thing.

Not really fair to the runner out in lane 8 is why.

To start so far ahead and have no real bearing on other runners. That is why Ovett didn't do well in '76 final. Got caught behind the pace.

Juanterena's s stride length was the same as Van Nierkerk's. 2.75m (9' 1/4") although VN is 2.5" shorter

I don't often offer compliments much as I am a severe examiner, but I have to say the lucidity & logic of you post is possibly the best one I have read here this year

I take my hat off to Sir/Madam...

I agree.

I think this needs to be the new norm...

no

any elite 800 guy shoud have TT'ed a 24.5 - 25.0 opening bend 200 in training numerously to replicate it automatically without any reference needed in a race situation

that is a 0 consideration

no

see above

reference runners unrequired

what other runners did Big-Man need in his 1'40.91WR ???

whingeing puussy

that was a "Man's Race", a proper near flat-out effort by others & for ovett to complain was nonsense

some even touted him as a lukewarm favorite favorite for race ???!!!

mostly because no Kipkurgat or susanj in final & wohlhuter hadn't done much since '74

but, thankfully, this was a "Real Man's Race" & ovett as still a 20y ole got blown away, albeit he believes he couda run 1'44-high in '74 at 18y in euro final of susanj, which is likely, meaning he shouda hammered into 1'43s in montreal but froze on biggest stage, which really was huge intimidating stadium !!!

no

he froze on biggest stage

ovett was already possibly capable of 1'44-high in '74. so 2y later, a dip into 1'43s was entirely likely

he ran superb 3'34+ in epic dusseldorf win a mere 1y later & it is hugely unlikely he trained less hard for '76 than '77 & in dusseldorf he looked a 1'42-mid/high guy, so 1'43+ in peaking year of '76 is virtually 100% given

i can't see huge quantum leap change in his '76/'77 shape as only 1y difference, albeit no serious 800 in '77

he shouda run a serious 800 in '77, on mickey-mouse oslo, 1'42-flat/low wouda been a given, on a proper zurich, he wouda looked at 1'42-mid/high

eh ?

learn some logic

that was likely for caballo's 800, not his 400

stride depends upon instantaneous speed as it's construct of leg length & push-off force which determines trajectory, meaning last 40 of a 100 is faster than last 40 of a 200 & moreso of 400 & moreso of 800...

caballo has generally biggest reckoned stride of 400 runners, but wade maya indeed be even above as his instantaneous speed quicker at 43.0 v 44.2

it is also worth adding, wade ran utterly nonsense splits in his 43.0

ideal splits for a 400 are slowing ~ 0.25s furlongs IIRC from ole analysis

IIRC, wade ran some utter drivel to 300

if he had run the race smoothly, more akin to split distribution of butch's 43.29wr, he shouda run

~ 42-low...

I really agree with this. Of course some will disagree, but those are generally the same runners who still believe the 800 is a distance event.

Since the days of Juantorena it’s been established that the most successful tactic in the 800 is simple... be more fit than everyone else. Although a 1-turn stagger is great for entertainment purposes(Nick Symmonds, Adam Kosczot), a 2-turn stagger would benefit the best runners and turn races into a true showdown amongst the best of the best through the final 300m. This would not only demand that runners be in peak shape when racing, but also that they incorporate sound tactics and proper moves.

The best part of this would be that runners couldn’t half-ass their way onto teams anymore. Not only that, but runners like Charles Jock wouldn’t be coaxed out of their 400-esque style of running.

Would be better to go 500 in lanes and break then 300 in lanes and break. At least coming around at 300 runner's would be able to adjust their speed and tactics better.

Still nothing stopping the race from being tactical with negative split.

SSS wrote:

vivalarepublica wrote:

My middle school conference meet did a two-turn stagger for the 800. Never used a two turn stagger ever again after that meet. Always wondered why it wasn’t a more popular thing.

Not really fair to the runner out in lane 8 is why.

To start so far ahead and have no real bearing on other runners. That is why Ovett didn't do well in '76 final. Got caught behind the pace.

Juanterena's s stride length was the same as Van Nierkerk's. 2.75m (9' 1/4") although VN is 2.5" shorter

That same argument can be used for the 400m, but nobody's talking about turning that into a one-turn stagger. One could do a quick glance over the shoulder to check out the competition in the second turn or whatever, that could mean they step out of their lane be disqualified. Considering an 800m is not as much of a sprint as a 400m, I think a quick glance isn't that big of a deal.

By the way, on the two-turn stagger 800 that I ran, it was my best time of the year. Part of that had to do with the significance of the race and the fast competition, but maybe the two-turn stagger had something to do with it as well.

Unfortunately, it would require different starting lines than the regular 2 turn stagger. In a 400 run in lanes, everyone finishes in their lane. But for an 800 run with the regular 2 turn staggers, the runners in the outside lanes would be running slightly longer because they would have to cut in to lane 1 after the first lap.

The track at Los Gatos High School used to have both of these 2 turn stagger start lines (mainly for running 2 turn stagger 4x400 races) and it was really confusing as they were very close together. The waterfall start line gives you an idea of how different they need to be.

Note this is another the reason why 4x400 races should always be run with 3 turn staggers.

Makes so much sense to run a two turn stagger. Athletes do not have to go off at a blistering pace to gain track position and can go out at a pace they are more comfortable with, so they will most likely generate less lactic initially. There would also be less jostling and athletes would not be forced to run wide as often, so in the end they should run faster. Athletes as well, who do not have such high top speed , who normally cannot start so fast and end up close to the back of the pack can spend a lap working their way into the race and so have more potential of doing well. Aouita in Seoul 88 may have won off a two turn stagger. For example. IMO.

Make it a 4 turn stagger, and stay in lanes all the way!

I am Porg wrote:

Unfortunately, it would require different starting lines than the regular 2 turn stagger. In a 400 run in lanes, everyone finishes in their lane. But for an 800 run with the regular 2 turn staggers, the runners in the outside lanes would be running slightly longer because they would have to cut in to lane 1 after the first lap.

The track at Los Gatos High School used to have both of these 2 turn stagger start lines (mainly for running 2 turn stagger 4x400 races) and it was really confusing as they were very close together. The waterfall start line gives you an idea of how different they need to be.

Note this is another the reason why 4x400 races should always be run with 3 turn staggers.

Excellent post!