A 56.3 400 and a 4:57 1600 results in what time for the 800?

Who the hell cares?

But probably 2:10-2:12.

I do, because it seems like wasted potential. A 2:10-2:12 would give you a good chance of winning the state meet in the mid '00s.

So what? Are you aware that this is meaningless?

Some of us who were stud runners in college could have broken the steeplechase records for our schools. I hope NONE of us cares that we did not.

400 PR + 0.25*1600 PR = 800 PR

56.30 + 0.25*297.00 = 2:10.55 (best case)

56.39 + 0.25*297.99 = 2:10.89 (worst case)

Well it is also true that in most states if you can run 4:57 and 56 as a female you might do well in the 1600m at the state meet, particularly in a sit and kick affair.

I love the guys who care so little for a topic that they feel compelled to respond to it. I haven't been on letsrun lately, maybe this is some new shtick I haven't caught on to yet.

Well your love is unreciprocated…wow what a lunatic.

2:10.6

Had never heard of this formula but is strikingly accurate across nearly a decade of my own running lol.

The data is too sparse for girls at that performance level, and it varies quite a bit from year to year. But for guys, I pulled up the stats in my state. They don't go back to 2003, so I've used 2019, the last pre-pandemic year.

A 56.30 400 gets you in the top 27% of all high school boys in the state who ran that event.

A 4:57.5 1600 gets you in the top 24% of all high school boys in the state who ran that event.

By interpolation, you'd be looking for an 800 time that'll get you in the top (24+27)/2 = 25.5%. That time is 2:13.1.

If you use a 2015 national sample from Athletic.net of senior boys only, you'll get the following median times and standard deviations:
1600m: 5:04.4 sd = 32 (n =12352)
800m: 2:14.1 sd = 11.8 (n=14340)
400m: 56.07 sd = 4.7 (n = 14780)

So 2:13 would seem to be about right.

Yup, that formula does indeed do a decent job of predicting my 800 PR from my 400 and 1600 PRs. I also came across this more complicated formula by some guy who fitted a regression curve to his data:

medium.com

Predicting 800m Times

https://medium.com/@213athletics

Using 400m and 1500m season bests to predict an 800m time using Power of 10 data.

Link:medium.com/@213athletics/predicting-80...

Male Formula, times are in milliseconds:
(1.528 x 400m time) + (0.152 x 1500m time)-1260 = 800m Potential
Female Formula, times are in milliseconds:
(1.419 x 400m time) + (0.213 x 1500m time)-11762 = 800m Potential

A 4:57 1600 is worth a 4:37 1500, so XX's 800 potential would be:
(1.419 x 56300) + (0.213 x 277000)-11762 = 79890+59001-11762 = 127129 = 2:07.13

If those times were run by an XY and not an XX, you'd have:
(1.528 x 56300) + (0.152 x 277000)-1260 = 86026+42104-1260 = 126870 = 2:06.87

Both times are faster than what I'd expect a 56/4:57 person to run. I think that 2:10 is more accurate.

I was going to say about 2:10 also.

I know a girl who has run 57 and 4:51, and her PB in the 800 is 2:08.

So I'd say your theoretical girl would probably be 2:09.5 - 2:10.5

So, she didn't race a fast 800m at that stadium. Probably did somewhere else.

56.3 = 18.3% slower than the women's WR

4:57 1600 = 4:59 mile = 18.5% slower than the women's WR

Taking the average, 18.4% slower than the women's WR is 2:14.1.

56.3 = 31% slower than the men's WR

4:57 1600 = 34% slower than the men's WR

Taking the average, 32.5% slower than the men's WR is 2:13.7.

That kind of holds up for guys as well. 57.3 400 + 4:55.6 1600 equivalent = 2:09.75 800:

Hadn't seen that formula, but it does come within 1 second of my 800m PR. Nice!

Awhile back on here, a poster gave this formula, which is remarkably accurate...

6/5 x 400 PR

plus

1/5 x 1600 PR

So in this case, 67.56 plus 59.4.... 2:07ish