Is this really a groundbreaking take? It was approaching dogma that 800 runners were supposed to positive split the 800. I never did well with this approach and actually negative split my 800s. I think how you race the 800 should be based individually on temperament, motivation, physiologic characteristics, and race conditions.
How many coaches of 800m runners tell their athletes to try and run the first 100m as slow as they possibly can and potentially give up 7-8m in the first 200m to the field?
How many coaches tell their athletes it's okay to make 200m long passing moves in lane 2 if it means they maintain their speed?
Out of the 27 best American 800m runners in the semis only one guy did that. Would seem a little groundbreaking.
In my best race as a master, I snagged a national silver medal from a bunch of guys with much better seed times with the "relaxed wind up" strategy. I went from 6th to 2nd in 150m and had the least pain ever at the finish.
I’ve been trying to say it around here for years but always got shouted down by the dogmatics. Regardless, I’m happy to see the tide turn a bit in rethinking 800 strategy for the individual athlete.
As I was running yesterday I couldn't stop thinking about how insanely good the execution from Kessler in that 800m semi and how if I was coaching 800m runners, this would be exactly how I was advising them to construct and execute their races.
This is the sort of content I magically expect to see her everyday, but almost never do. What a great insightful post. Thank you so much. Maybe you could become staff writer/editorialist on Letsrun in your spare time?
But fast forward to the 2020's and the concepts of even pace running, staying as close to but never crossing your anaerobic threshold until the latest stages of a race are dominating certainly the 1500m and are now enabling awesome performance jumps in the 800m - and Kessler just gave an absolute masterclass on how to absolutely maximize your talent and ability through execution.
Got a bit confused by this paragraph. You are saying that in a 1500 they only get anaerobic toward the end?
As I was running yesterday I couldn't stop thinking about how insanely good the execution from Kessler in that 800m semi and how if I was coaching 800m runners, this would be exactly how I was advising them to construct and execute their races.
We all knew Kessler had a ton of talent but I can't be the only one that never thought I would see him run under 1.44 for 800m with even more to give. If he had never run faster than his 1.45.07 in LA earlier this year I would have thought that was a great PR for him - now it looks like he can run under 1.43...
But as we know, we have seen a massive shift behind the philosophy of race execution in the last 3-5 years. When I was growing up running the 8, there was a general consensus of how to chase times and it was modelled by the best in the sport at the time. Get out fast for position in the first 200, try and relax/recover in the second 200, hold/regain impetus in the 3rd 200 and hold on for dear life in the final 200. Every Golden League/top Grand Prix race was run this way and was no better epitomized when Kipketer smashed Coes WR in 1997 with one of the most absurd and impressive 800 meters ever run, when he split 23.1, 48.3 (25.2), 1.14.3 (26.0) 1.41.24 (26.9). So we all watched this and thought this was how we should be doing it.
But fast forward to the 2020's and the concepts of even pace running, staying as close to but never crossing your anaerobic threshold until the latest stages of a race are dominating certainly the 1500m and are now enabling awesome performance jumps in the 800m - and Kessler just gave an absolute masterclass on how to absolutely maximize your talent and ability through execution. He may never run a better one it was that good. Here is what I saw.
1) Opening 200m gives insight into if someone has a strategy or not. Very telling - it was clear he had a plan and so many don't and you can tell. A handful of guys want to be at the front of the race and make sure they are no matter what. Kessler didn't, he made a conscious decision to do his own thing in that first quarter. When you watch the race a lot of guys got out hard but were never committed to the front of the race so awkwardly slotted in to the mid pack. If you watch Kessler though, it appears he makes a conscious effort to be hitting his race rhythm and form after only 50m of the race. I looked at him and thought "he could be running the back straight here". He got relaxed as early as possible - almost 150m meters before the rest of the field does!
2) It's a little thing but the front on view at the 200m mark is telling. The field has converged to their pack positions as early as 150m into the race so they haven't run the shortest distance they could have. Kessler though runs on a direct line from his break to the 200m point and even though he doesn't hit lane 1 there (because of the pack) he has still run the shortest distance even if it's ever so slightly more than 200m. He crosses 200m in 25.1-25.2 (25.24 according to the official splits) and I'd guess those two 100m segments were dead even. No spikes in lactic acid, no dipping into the reserves - just great discipline. Who else famously runs this exact way in the opening 200/300m of races? Ingebrigtsen.
3) 200-400m and this is one of the best parts of his race. Some might say "but he passed on the curve you should never do that" and in a perfect world no. But clearly a race with 8 other guys isn't a perfect scenario for that and you can absolutely mess up making a move on the straight as Whitmarsh shows us in the home straight of this race as he has to slow down, move out, accelerate and by the time he finds position the field moves and he loses it all within another 100m. So Kessler moves around the field in this next 200m but why was this so good? Because all he did was simply maintain his momentum and his rhythm that he built up in the first 200. So whereas the pack got out quick then slowed in the second 200 (running the "old" consensus way) he just maintains his speed and form. Yes he runs slightly more than 200m in this quarter too but he's got to 400m in 51.3 going 25.2/26.1 and because of the added distance his pace hasn't really slowed a lot. The benefit of that physiologically, far outweighs running a slightly shorter distance with changes in pace.
4) So now he has got halfway through this race in the most efficient fashion possible. Nothing is really tough for him from here which is why he made it look so easy. His next 4 100m splits were 13.3, 13.0, 13.1, 13.0. For the entire race the variance in his 100m splits was exactly one second but even this probably was less because they credit him with a 12.3 opening back straight 100m but this is hard to tell where exactly to start that due to the 800m start and the break line. I think it is more likely his range was between 12.5 and 13.3 for the entire race. That is absurd and yet so optimal. He's run at least 680-700m of this race well below his anaerobic threshold - that's why he looks like he is just jogging up the home straight under zero duress.
Overall 800m masterclass tips from what we saw from Kessler:
1) The first 200m is more important than we think. Have a clear plan and be disciplined to stick to it.
2) Get into your "middle race" cruising form and rhythm as soon as you possibly can
3) Taking your time to move into position (ie. moving up through a field) is fine - even if it means doing so on the curve. An even, smooth effort is far better than trying to cram it into the 80 or so meters of a straightaway where a sharp acceleration/dramatic positioning move is likely needed.
4) Just like the 1500m, try and run as even as you can down to the 100m splits. Position after 200m means almost nothing, the nature of the race will mean you can always get to your spot if you are committed to what you are doing.
I couldn't be more impressed with that run - could be great coaching and advice from Warhurst/Willis, could also have just been totally random the way it played out (doubtful but possible) - either way that is exactly how you maximize your physical gifts over 2 laps. Coaches take note.
Great post — but to clarify I am surprised that you view 26 second 200s as not crossing the anaerobic threshold. Is there some data/received wisdom to back support? I don’t do lactate training so may be mistaken.
The formula of 1.2 x 400m time + 2 x Mile time seems to work well for the majority of 800m runner and evens out their potential times.
Yuriy- 45.84 x 1.2 (55) + 3:57.28 based off off 1500m PR, x .2 - 47.456
55+ 47.46 = 1:42.46
His 800m personal best was 1:42.47
A 1500m type with slower 400m might be a 3:48 miler. X .2 = 45.6 + 47.25 400m x 1.2 - 56.7 (45.6+56.7 = 1:42.30
Both athletes have to use different strategies in an 800m
Yuriy had more even splits due to his fast closing 150-200m
I would put Hobbs in the 1:42.30 category.
If Hobbs is in a 1:42.30 category? It may not be this year, but he should factor in Big stuff for a while. I truly believe sooner than later he will run 7:30 or faster for 3K, he ran 7:39 at 19 and 10 months, and 3:30 or faster soon as well, add 1:43.x underside to that? That's a pretty well rounded guy. I can say that the notion of some complex strategy to his 800 running style is not some "black boarded formula" at all. Stay out of trouble, no need to fight for 24.low positioning that early, move to connect by 400-500M, punch down that last 80. That really is kind of the level of detail ....Ron is a sage advisor, but he tends to not over complicate things at all.
I could be wrong, as I already would have been, but 1:42.x this season, that would really be something?
Everyone's in Hobbs mania right now and rightly so...but let's chill just a little on the whole "re-think the 800m strategy" thing. The guys who got out in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd positions by 200m finished 1st, 3rd and 4th respectively.
800m strategy is very individual, you have to find what works best for your skill set. There are many different viable strategies.
Finally, I rewatched the final and I noticed Hobbs' start for the first time. He is waaaaay off balance on the line and almost falls over in the first couple steps.
Everyone's in Hobbs mania right now and rightly so...but let's chill just a little on the whole "re-think the 800m strategy" thing. The guys who got out in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd positions by 200m finished 1st, 3rd and 4th respectively.
800m strategy is very individual, you have to find what works best for your skill set. There are many different viable strategies.
Finally, I rewatched the final and I noticed Hobbs' start for the first time. He is waaaaay off balance on the line and almost falls over in the first couple steps.
Hey like I said , I never said it was reinvention of anything.
Great post — but to clarify I am surprised that you view 26 second 200s as not crossing the anaerobic threshold. Is there some data/received wisdom to back support? I don’t do lactate training so may be mistaken.
I mean obviously I have no idea what the physiological metrics of Kessler are, but for an elite 800m/1500m talent I would doubt that 7.7 meters per second (26.0) pace for a duration of approx 90 seconds (around 700m of running) takes them/him above their anaerobic threshold. I think maybe even that speed isn't fast enough - especially for an elite (sub 1.43) 800m runner.
As for data? Again that's all individual, maybe there is some stuff posted about Jakob specifically online - he is pretty open with this approach to his training.
What about that surprises you though? Does this kind of not make some practical sense?
But fast forward to the 2020's and the concepts of even pace running, staying as close to but never crossing your anaerobic threshold until the latest stages of a race are dominating certainly the 1500m and are now enabling awesome performance jumps in the 800m - and Kessler just gave an absolute masterclass on how to absolutely maximize your talent and ability through execution.
Got a bit confused by this paragraph. You are saying that in a 1500 they only get anaerobic toward the end?
Uhhh, I'm a bit confused by the question, so I would just simply answer yes. Or do you think that a 1500m runner never goes anaerobic in a race? I don't understand.
Got a bit confused by this paragraph. You are saying that in a 1500 they only get anaerobic toward the end?
Uhhh, I'm a bit confused by the question, so I would just simply answer yes. Or do you think that a 1500m runner never goes anaerobic in a race? I don't understand.
Imagine this. Say HK is a 3'30" 1500m runner right now (2'20"/km). His anaerobic threshold is (ballpark) around 2'55"/km, so 70" laps. When he runs under that pace he cant get rid of lactate anymore. His race lap times are way lower obviously. The fact that this brave new world of threshold training works doesn't mean that events that were previously anaerobic become suddenly aerobic. The pace equivalence across distances for any given profile stays the same. It only means that the whole "training curve" for the athlete is shifting down. The athlete is getting faster but doesn't mean that the physiological nature of the event changes.
Also - the aerobic system takes normally between 30-60" to full kick in. The first bit of any race, at any distance, is anaerobic. There's also an argument that one should always go hard the first 8-10" of any race so to tap into the ATP system (use it or lose it), and then settle down, but that's a different story.
Perhaps, and I agree with you, the way HK ran that 800 put a wrench in the established wisdom of going hard in an 800 but rather stay as even as possible (HK had a small positive split in the event, which is optimal, though he did it in his own way). But we all know even pace is the best strategy for a 1500 and up, so perhaps it is in an 800 too.
Great post — but to clarify I am surprised that you view 26 second 200s as not crossing the anaerobic threshold. Is there some data/received wisdom to back support? I don’t do lactate training so may be mistaken.
I mean obviously I have no idea what the physiological metrics of Kessler are, but for an elite 800m/1500m talent I would doubt that 7.7 meters per second (26.0) pace for a duration of approx 90 seconds (around 700m of running) takes them/him above their anaerobic threshold. I think maybe even that speed isn't fast enough - especially for an elite (sub 1.43) 800m runner.
As for data? Again that's all individual, maybe there is some stuff posted about Jakob specifically online - he is pretty open with this approach to his training.
What about that surprises you though? Does this kind of not make some practical sense?
This is just wrong. A 51.3-second 400 would take every person on planet earth far beyond their anaerobic threshold.
It's an interesting breakdown of how you see the race can be optimally run. I wonder though that the more reserved opening 200 has a tradeoff in the possibly extra energy required to maintain speed when faster starters are relaxing.
How would you compare this approach to Rudisha's setting the world record in London - which looked like a perfectly executed race? How different was it in terms of disposition of effort (apart from the obvious, which was that Rudisha ran entirely from the front)?
It costs more energy to accelerate than to maintain speed. So those who are "relaxing" in the second 200 are costing themselves in the later stages of the race when they have to re-accelerate.
In the first post of the thread, Salvitore Stitchmo talked about relaxing and recovering in the 2nd 200m as part of his race model (quoted below).
"Get out fast for position in the first 200, try and relax/recover in the second 200, hold/regain impetus in the 3rd 200 and hold on for dear life in the final 200."
He then gives an example to illustrate this strategy:
[This strategy] "was no better epitomized when Kipketer smashed Coes WR in 1997 with one of the most absurd and impressive 800 meters ever run, when he split 23.1, 48.3 (25.2), 1.14.3 (26.0) 1.41.24 (26.9)."
If Stitch believes that Kipketer's run was the epitome of the strategy, then when he says "relax/recover in the second 200m" followed by "hold/regain impetus in the third 200m" he is not suggesting a slow down followed by a surge, as the 2nd 200m split of 25.2 is followed by an even slower 200m split of 26.0. Rather, the runner is relaxing and slowing down from the blistering opening pace, biding time and maintaining discipline in the 2nd 200m. In the third 200m, it becomes difficult to remain at that velocity, so finding impetus does not mean to accelerate (which would cost more energy than speed maintenance), but implies that it takes a higher level of focus and intentionality in the third 200m than in the second.
I believe that the approach that Stitch provides 2nd, 3rd, and 4th 200m segments in the old race model that he grew up with is essentially the same as what Kessler ran. Even the first 100m might be the same. The significant difference is the second 100m (or maybe from 75m-200m) where his relax/recover phase begins before everyone else's. After such a short distance run, I'm not sure that recovery is an appropriate term anymore, since most of that early outburst is going to be from the C-P system, but relax is certainly appropriate.
This post is longer than I originally planned, but the point I wanted to make was that relaxing in the 2nd 200m, does not necessarily mean speeding up again in the 3rd 200m.