From the elite level perspective.
Rudisha - 1:41.01 / 49.1 and 52.0 / 6% difference.
Kipketer - 1:41.11 / 49.3 and 51.8 / 5% difference
Cruz - 1:41.77 / 49.7 and 52.0 / 4% difference
Coe - 1:41.73 / 49.7 and 52.0 / 4% difference
These men have the fastest 800m times and were the most successful in competition races.
It appears that running a negative split is not as effective to run a WR time or be a consistent race winner in races.
Is Borzakovskiy the best negative split 800m runner ever?
Edit in subject title - Why***
Seem to recall reading something about needing to go off fast because the aerobic system doesn't kick in until 50+m into the race. You won't be able to make up the lost time.
Looking at 400m splits doesn't really tell you much. You need to look at 200m splits.
Uhh wrote:
Seem to recall reading something about needing to go off fast because the aerobic system doesn't kick in until 50+m into the race. You won't be able to make up the lost time.
Let me revise that comment ...
Kevin Prendergast states that your CP system is used for the first 6-8secs by which time the Lactic Acid system has fired up to its potential and when that runs out you're left with the Aerobic system. This is a basic explanation, we know there is some overlap.
The CP doesn't last long enough to be effective for 800m and the Aerobic doesn't support fast enough running so the Lactic system is the key one. He did some mathematical stuff that showed it's more effective to have a deceleration through the Lactic phase than a constant pacing.
Kohlschreiber wrote:
From the elite level perspective.
Rudisha - 1:41.01 / 49.1 and 52.0 / 6% difference.
Kipketer - 1:41.11 / 49.3 and 51.8 / 5% difference
Cruz - 1:41.77 / 49.7 and 52.0 / 4% difference
Coe - 1:41.73 / 49.7 and 52.0 / 4% difference
These men have the fastest 800m times and were the most successful in competition races.
It appears that running a negative split is not as effective to run a WR time or be a consistent race winner in races.
Is Borzakovskiy the best negative split 800m runner ever?
Also I believe the reason why a negative split is never a consistent winner is because it is required to run around the slowing runners which causes a few extra metres to make up on the leader.
Sometime it works, sometime it doesn't.
Because it's easier to build momentum when you're not tired.
Regardless of whether an 800 is long enough for a negative split to be physiologically more efficient, you almost have to run a negative split to get into good enough position to make a difference in the race, unless you want to run the entire 2nd lap in lane 3.
Uhh wrote:
Uhh wrote:
Seem to recall reading something about needing to go off fast because the aerobic system doesn't kick in until 50+m into the race. You won't be able to make up the lost time.
Let me revise that comment ...
Kevin Prendergast states that your CP system is used for the first 6-8secs by which time the Lactic Acid system has fired up to its potential and when that runs out you're left with the Aerobic system. This is a basic explanation, we know there is some overlap.
The CP doesn't last long enough to be effective for 800m and the Aerobic doesn't support fast enough running so the Lactic system is the key one. He did some mathematical stuff that showed it's more effective to have a deceleration through the Lactic phase than a constant pacing.
CP doesn't even last that long, for the most part.
Energy systems aren't broken into discrete phases, and in particular "aerobic" does not follow "anaerobic," rather it is revved up by it, and the two are mutually supportive.
I've been mentioning this for years, but people tend to disbelieve things just because I say them. "Aerobic" power depends mainly on rates of gas exchange between blood and muscle, and this is highest when the pH difference between the two is highest. That happens when the muscle has been working anaerobically long enough to lower muscle pH to the optimal level. A good 800 runner can judge how fast pH drops and avoid acidosis until the last few seconds, and thus retain most of their power through the second lap running on a mix of carefully-managed anaerobic and concurrently maximized aerobic energy.
Kohlschreiber wrote:
From the elite level perspective.
Rudisha - 1:41.01 / 49.1 and 52.0 / 6% difference.
Kipketer - 1:41.11 / 49.3 and 51.8 / 5% difference
Cruz - 1:41.77 / 49.7 and 52.0 / 4% difference
Coe - 1:41.73 / 49.7 and 52.0 / 4% difference
These men have the fastest 800m times and were the most successful in competition races.
It appears that running a negative split is not as effective to run a WR time or be a consistent race winner in races.
Is Borzakovskiy the best negative split 800m runner ever?
Borzakovskiy is probably the best runner running with negative split.
He should have been 2005 WC because Ramzi is a cheat.
Did Dave Wottle always run at the back?
Look at the 2nd lap split- almost the same in the last 4 wr's.
That's crazy.
Could someone run 50.xx and come back faster to break 1:40 or is it just going out faster and hanging on longer?
I always told high school kids to go out 2 seconds faster than their goal pace, 58 to run 2:00, and it worked at that level.
Same reason as before
theJeff wrote:
Regardless of whether an 800 is long enough for a negative split to be physiologically more efficient, you almost have to run a negative split to get into good enough position to make a difference in the race, unless you want to run the entire 2nd lap in lane 3.
This seems logical.
It would be interesting to test against a time trial where it’s just a racer and a pacer on the track. Nobody else so you don’t have to worry about position.
theJeff wrote:
Regardless of whether an 800 is long enough for a negative split to be physiologically more efficient, you almost have to run a negative split to get into good enough position to make a difference in the race, unless you want to run the entire 2nd lap in lane 3.
Have you ever done an 800, jeff?
John Utah wrote:
theJeff wrote:
Regardless of whether an 800 is long enough for a negative split to be physiologically more efficient, you almost have to run a negative split to get into good enough position to make a difference in the race, unless you want to run the entire 2nd lap in lane 3.
This seems logical.
It would be interesting to test against a time trial where it’s just a racer and a pacer on the track. Nobody else so you don’t have to worry about position.
Rudisha's 3 WR were all run with a ~2 second positive split, including the first two which were basically just him and a pacer, with nobody close after 400 meters.
You are correct regarding extra metres. I would like to know Coe's 200m splits in 1984 800m Olympic final. He appeared to run a more even split race than the other competitors whom finished in top five. Coe did run numerous extra metres in that race. Coe chose relatively even splits (more even than the others) over running extra metres. This hold true for Clayton Murphy in 2016 800m Olympic final. Murphy ran a more even split race than many of his competitors.
Look at Coe's 1984 splits wrote:
You are correct regarding extra metres. I would like to know Coe's 200m splits in 1984 800m Olympic final. He appeared to run a more even split race than the other competitors whom finished in top five. Coe did run numerous extra metres in that race. Coe chose relatively even splits (more even than the others) over running extra metres. This holds true for Clayton Murphy in 2016 800m Olympic final. Murphy ran a more even split race than many of his competitors.
Sam Hinkie wrote:
Borzakovskiy is probably the best runner running with negative split.
He should have been 2005 WC because Ramzi is a cheat.
You might want to check Borza's national affiliation in that assessment.
Look at Coe's 1984 splits wrote:
You are correct regarding extra metres. I would like to know Coe's 200m splits in 1984 800m Olympic final. He appeared to run a more even split race than the other competitors whom finished in top five. Coe did run numerous extra metres in that race. Coe chose relatively even splits (more even than the others) over running extra metres. This hold true for Clayton Murphy in 2016 800m Olympic final. Murphy ran a more even split race than many of his competitors.
Agreed.
Positioning and running extra metres will impact a negative split runner.
Running a positive split at the front means you just have to keep right on the curb.
Hardloper wrote:
John Utah wrote:
This seems logical.
It would be interesting to test against a time trial where it’s just a racer and a pacer on the track. Nobody else so you don’t have to worry about position.
Rudisha's 3 WR were all run with a ~2 second positive split, including the first two which were basically just him and a pacer, with nobody close after 400 meters.
Neither Jeff nor Jon watch athletics in any capacity. They just troll