800 meter....athleticism or training

junfan wrote:

just wondering...because you never hear of kids who run a 4:10 mile their first time out..but u do hear of kids running 1:55 in the 800 when they hit the track

Can you point some of those out because I must have missed them.

I have seen that in my H.S. coaching career, usually by a kid that was talked into running an 800 in a big meet however I would like to point out that 1:55 and 4:10 are NOT equivalent. One time is very good and would not get you any real attention from college coaches per say, and the other is a blue-chip recruit type of time. So obviously it will be harder to pop a 4:10 as opposed to a 1:55, which is not to say that 1:55 is not tough, just not as tough as a 4:10.

In my home town there's a guy who has gone 1:52.9. He won the 800 meters state title in Michigan (Class A) in 2001. He was also an all conference football and basketball player so he did comparatively very little training outside of track season. He's just an athlete. I only saw one time when he jumped up to the mile though and he ran in the range of 4:30 low.

i was running in the 4:30's with less than 3 weeks of running under my belt, it's nothing special.

bryan berryhill ran around 15 miles a week..yet runs 48 in the 400 and low to mid 1:50's in the 800

trinity gray runs a 1:49 running around 15 miles a week

what im saying is, does the 800 require general athleticism, based on the above examples...or does it require 800 meter type training

for ex, David K too admits to doing plyometrics and sprints..to enhance his natural athleticism

I think that the 800m is a race that has a blend of athletes with athleticism and great training. Some of those guys are obviously very athletic specimens. Some train very specific. That's why it's so exiting to watch.

the 800 is about balls, period. you have to train for it like anything else but you have to have balls. it is the hardest track event to run because it is a sustained sprint. the 800 is physical, mental, and the most exciting thing to watch period.

That was my point. His 4:30 mile was nothing special but his 1:52.9 800 is pretty damn good and it came mainly from his athleticism, not training.

I went to school with this guy Nick Setta. He was possibly one of the most athletic people i've ever meet. He did X-C and football in the same season, then would high jump 6'8, run a 50 sec 400, 1:50 800, 4:15 1600. He did almost all of this over as little as 30 miles a week. He's now the starting kicker at Notre Dame, he is an example of somebody with amazing talent. He didn't work anywhere near as hard as anybody else to run those times.

Well, it seems possible that a kid who's in good shape who plays football and is really fast could come out and run 48 or 49 seconds for a 400. And there are definitely people who can run in the 4:20's for the mile by the end of their first year of track.

So it makes sense that there are also people who can pop out a 1:55 after a minimal amount of training.

None of these people is especially common, but they're out there.

You can't neccesarily compare mileage and effort. A long slow 10 mile run is a lot easier than 3 sets of 3x200 with 30 secs rest and 5-8mins between sets when you're running at your 400m goal pace. One workout is 10mile and the other is just over 4miles (2mile warm up and 1 mile cool down).

I would rather run 15 miles easy than one single all-out 300 anytime. But I'm no 800 man.