Why do women pace the 800m so terribly?

Nearly everyone positive splits the 800 because courage is a very rare trait. It is really that simple. And that tragic.

Every 800m runner wants a finish like andrews/symmonds. It feels great to be passing people at the end of a race and winning, but its just not the most strategic way to run your fastest time. To the earlier post that says andrews and symmonds are far less talented than jock/other international athletes, you're crazy. Andrews and Symmonds are super talented... they just have a different tactic than most and its been working for them, that doesn't mean its the end all be all of 800m tactics for everyone.

Johnny Gray ran his 800's from the front, and he has the American record. For the most part, to run the fastest time your body is capable of, male or female, you have to be running aggressively from the start. Symmonds will probably win the trials with a big finish like usual in 1:44.x... but the dude ran 1:43.9 alone in a penn relays split however many weeks ago.. and he went out in 49 high. He doesn't have to go out that fast to win USA's. He can let others do the work early, let the race come to him, and finish hard while others fade. But those others that are fading, its not because they went out too fast, its because they aren't as good as nick symmonds... Nobody else in the USA right now can run 1:43 alone.

Borderline irrelevant example: In high school, I always ran even splits, just sat on the lead pack in like 59 or 60, then would pass with 150m to go to win in 1:57-8. Surprise, get to college and you can't do that anymore, not talented enough, couldn't go under 1:52. Started being more aggressive from the gun, going with leaders regardless of pace in 51-52's (occasional 50's... thanks lionel williams), when my 400m pr was only ~48.5, start running consistently under 1:50.

Symmonds can sit on people in the US and win at the end. He gets in international races and he is a mid pack runner throughout the race and tries to be with the leaders before the 150m mark hits... he isn't good enough to sit on people internationally, but he can here for a few more weeks.

Nearly everyone positive splits the 800...because you get creatine phosphate at the beginning and it doesn't have time to recharge. First 200 is essentially always the fastest. And should be. (If it's not, you just went out too slow.)

------------------------------------------------------------------

This analysis adds nothing to this conversation. The guys that run like that can't win anything. They are the Jonny Grey athletes (and Johnny himself). The championship runners are guys like Symmonds and Andrews. They know how to even out their 200m splits and win the race. Rudishka is a freak of nature and simply outruns his competition. There is only 1 guy in the world who can do that and I'd argue that he would run faster with better pacing.

Talk to people that don't know much about 800m running and they'll buy your argument. BtW, go check out Cruz's split in his 1:41.77. They were almost even. Coe was not that positive of a split in his 1:42 and 1:41 (>49). Remember to catch his 400m split, not the rabbit's. One valuable pacing strategy is to get them to try to even split the first 400m, even if it might be slightly faster than the 2nd 400m.

Every high school coach and club coach of novice runners says the same thing, Go out fast in the 800m and try to hold". I see kids going 30 seconds for the 1st 200 and 42 seconds for the last 200m. I very quickly can get HS runners to dominate by staying back for the first 150m and then moving.

I've coached 5 runners who have run under 1:50 and often had them holding back in the first 150 - 200m (usually >26.0). The trick is getting them to try to run under 28 for the last 200m.

The 800m is run to0 close to the anaerobic threshold to go too fast. Runners like Jock and Montanao will never win anything unless they learn to pace and change gears.

Are you guys serious? You think the 800 is the same now as it was in the 80s?

First of all, Cruz won in 1984 with a 51 flat opener. Jones was on his heels the whole time and got third. Coe, the world record holder, was the only one who tried to come from behind and failed and even he had started making his move by the bell.

Not to mention they even ran with balls in the heats in '84.

Fast forward to 2008 when they open in 53. Two seconds slower than in 1984. Racing is a lot different now than it was when runners weren't scared to death of working hard.

And how has that worked out? 1984 was Gold Brazil Silver Britain Bronze USA. 2008 was Kenya, Sudan, Kenya in a slower time. Aside from the African countries that have really just started focusing on the event in the last 25 years 800 meter runners have gone backwards.

Don't pretend 1984 and before is like it is now.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember looking at a graph of the world records for men and women and the biggest difference was at the 800 meters. Not to mention that many of the fastest women over 800 have obviously been on roids, while it's rather believable that Rudisha is not.

The women are out there 12-20 seconds longer making it ever-so-slightly more aerobic for them, yet few coaches differentiate training for men/women. Most women simply can't hang an additional 20 seconds when anaerobic. Most coaches train the women the same as men leaving them slightly unprepared for the effort. I am not suggesting this is the case for Montano, but for women 800 runners in general.

from physics point of view, there is little difference between running even pace & even a big differential

let's consider a 1'44.0 guy

52.0/52.0 ->1'44.00

51.5/52.5 ->1'43.98 !!!

51.0/53.0 ->1'43.92

50.5/53.5 ->1'43.82

50.0/54.0 ->1'43.69

49.0/55.0 ->1'43.31

the difference between even-splits & +2 is only 0.08s indicating the difference between the 2 strategies is virtually negligible

it's only when you are getting +3 or more differentials that you are running significantly inefficiently

Her post-race interview seems to clarify a lot of this. It's been a couple days since I heard it, but here's what I recall.

The rabbit asked Alysia if Alysia had a pace preference, because the directors said 58. Alysia said 55-56, but then Alysia basically laid out her race strategy - she was going out with whoever led, the actual pace seemed secondary to her wanting to run off of someone.

My guess would be that she was using Pre to work on the competitive aspect of her race, in this case running off the leader, and not worry about splits. More accurately, to worry about racing and not seek the approval of LR posters.

Where are you getting those final times ventolin? Is this a case study of a runner and the times that they managed with various first laps?

It would appear that even if the advantage to positive splits is slight, planning for them shifts the odds in one's favor. If you end up having a good day and almost split even that's fine. If you plan to split even and come back with negative splits you probably should have run the first lap faster.

for each split, you cube speed & multiply by distance

sum them & reverse process to get even speed

50.0/54.0 ->

400*(400/50)^3

+

400*(400/54)^3

= 367377u

divide this by total race distance of 800 & take cube root ->

7.715 m/s

->

1'43.69

( this is only the physics part - not accounting for lactate build-up in going out too fast - probably unquantifiable )

Optimal racing strategy is slight positive splits. Again, primarily because of creatine phosphate, which only impacts the first 200 meters. This doesn't mean you go all out in the first 200, but you do have to use your CP. For the rest of the race, you're using lactate/aerobic. If you go too fast, you'll hit the wall, but if you don't hit the wall, you didn't maximize your anaerobic lactate. You want to hit the wall right near the finish line. That's pretty hard to get right.

David Rudisha: 1:41.09 = (25.27)*4

1) 23.9

2) 25.1

3) 25.5

4) 26.6

1) CP

2) anaerobic lactate/aerobic

3) anaerobic lactate/aerobic

4) anaerobic lactate until it's cooked, then just aerobic

Almost all the fastest 800 times follow this basic pattern.

--It must be positive splits

--But only slightly positive

Now, 400/800 types have more developed CP and anaerobic lactate systems, so they are right to try to get more out of them. 800/1500 types have weaker anaerobic systems but stronger aerobic systems, so they're likely to spot some time to the 400/800 guys and try to make it up over the last 200. Both types, such as Juantorena and Coe, have run very fast times and done very well in international competition. The ideal is probably to be perfectly balanced, which may be exactly what we have in Rudisha.

My favorite example of 800m pacing is last year's NCAA 800.

You look at it without a watch and see that Andrews was in last place at the 400 mark and won the race.

It looked like even pacing while Jock went out hard and died.

The splits:

Jock: 49.8/54.9 = 1:44.75 (5 s differential)

Andrews: 51.1/53.6 = 1:44.71 (2.5 s differential)

They basically ran the same time with opposite approaches.

The result was close enough where either one could have won.

They both had significant positive splits.

What if Andrews ran even splits?

That would be 52.3/52.4, a whole second back at the 400 mark from where he was, which was already dead last.

That really would have looked like an amazing finish.

But even splits can't happen to get the fastest result. He could only finish so fast at that fitness level so going out slower would mean a slower finishing time for Andrews, and not winning the race.

Jock is a different type of runner so he needed to go out fast. If he went out in 51 flat, I doubt that he would get under 1:45. But hard to say for sure.

Here's the race:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIgGRX39Co

There are different type of 800m runners.

Speed: most likely 400m/800m runners who don't have great endurance and need to use their speed early and hang on in the latter part of the race ie Jearl Miles Clark

Distance: natural and training ability coming from longer distance and these athletes run from the back of the pack and typically produce faster 2nd laps or very even spilts ie Said Aouita

Ultra: an athlete with impressive speed but great endurance they can most likely run a good 400m and a impressive 1500m. These athletes can run from the front as well as hang back and have impressive finishes ie Maria Mutola

the girls just want to be like jim ryan.

or wilson kipkiter.

or....

ryan wanted to go 60+60+60+51 for his 3:51 mile.

good old kipkiter ran these splits.

200 in 23 flat (rabbit 22.8)

400 in 48.1

600 in 1:14.5?

800 in 1:41.25 WORLD RECORD

= 48.10 + 53.15!!!

check it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_C5SDNRyDw&feature=related

there should be little doubt that if johnny grey and one other got kip to 400m in 48 high (24 low plus 24 mid)and johnny grey alone got kip to 600m in 1:13 then you'd see 140 low to 139 high.

same goes for rush-d.

[quote]Los Soles wrote:

Optimal racing strategy is slight positive splits. Again, primarily because of creatine phosphate, which only impacts the first 200 meters. This doesn't mean you go all out in the first 200, but you do have to use your CP. For the rest of the race, you're using lactate/aerobic. If you go too fast, you'll hit the wall, but if you don't hit the wall, you didn't maximize your anaerobic lactate. You want to hit the wall right near the finish line. That's pretty hard to get right.

David Rudisha: 1:41.09 = (25.27)*4

1) 23.9

2) 25.1

3) 25.5

4) 26.6

1) CP

2) anaerobic lactate/aerobic

3) anaerobic lactate/aerobic

4) anaerobic lactate until it's cooked, then just aerobic

Almost all the fastest 800 times follow this basic pattern.

--It must be positive splits

--But only slightly positive

I generally agree, that slightly positive is the best, but just because that is how it has been done in the past doesn't necessarily mean it is the best. A runner I coached a few years ago ran his 2 best times very differently. In one, he was very well rested and was in perfect conditions and went 25.2, 27.0, 28, 29.1 for a 1:49.3 . I felt he went out too fast in the first 200m and was cooked with 150 to go. He could have run faster by going out a little easier. It was a fast field where he was in the middle of the pack. In the 2nd one, it was windy and he had run a quick heat the day before. He ran 27.8, 27.3, 26.6, 27.0 for a 1:49.8 and won. On the 2nd one, he just started feeling it with 30 or 40 to go which was perfect. I felt that the 2nd type of pacing was much more conducive to a good time. BTW, he's more of an 800/1500 guy so probably has to be a little more conservative than a 400/800 runner.

Out of thousands of races, you can pick out a few to prove any point you want to, but just like 400m dash and 400m hurdles, there are basic physiological reasons why the 1st half of an 800m is always faster than the 2nd. In general, the 2 fastest splits in an 800m s/b the 1st and 3rd 200m. The last 200m often looks faster for certain 800m runners because of the body motion involved in trying to fight off fatigue and the fact that most of the other athletes are tying up. Athletes run the race that best suits their capabilities and for the general public or even a Monday morning coach to think they know better than a professional athlete and coach is crazy thinking. There is no mystery to why athletes like Jock and Alyssa for example get out hard and if the collective wisdom of their staff said they should do it differently, they would. An athlete and coach will do whatever it takes to win, especially when it is their career and money is involved. Like I said, getting out hard and holding on may not look pretty, but it is a legitimate tactic in the 800m. I have never coached an 800m runner where the problem was getting out too fast; the goal was always to build the strength to run a faster 2nd lap. On the other hand, I have coached a lot of young 800m runners where they saw a big drop when they experimented with getting out stronger.

Btw, I ran and coached the 800 for several decades and I was part of a training group where you had to run under 1:50 just to be apart. I am by no means an expert, but a 2.25 second differential between the 1st and 2nd lap is a good rule for most athletes.

TrackCoach wrote:

1) ...there are basic physiological reasons why the 1st half of an 800m is always faster than the 2nd.

2) ... There is no mystery to why athletes like Jock and Alyssa for example get out hard and if the collective wisdom of their staff said they should do it differently, they would. An athlete and coach will do whatever it takes to win, especially when it is their career and money is involved....

3) ... a 2.25 second differential between the 1st and 2nd lap is a good rule for most athletes.

1) No, there are not. Running one half or the other faster is a result of a decision as to how to run it, not a result of "basic physiological reasons".

2) People in all fields (not just 800m running) do unbelievably stupid shit because that is what everyone else is doing.

3) A better rule is a 0 second differential.

the 2.4 sec difference for 800m is a bit misleading.

since you get a running start for the 2nd lap.

this is worth quite a bit to a 800/1500 runner

in the 800m, maybe as much as a full second.

less to a 400/800 runner with experience from

blocks.

even so, a 2.4 sec difference means ~5% more distance covered in the first half of the running time -- and this applies to 2:00 800m runners or 1:41 800m runners.