t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
When it comes to the 800m, the United States sure had a lousy Olympics. Only two semifinalists and one finalist on the women's side, and not a single man advanced past the opening round. Although there is less margin for error in the 800 than most other track events, this goes beyond bad luck. What's more, three of the top four U.S. women in the event almost certainly will not be around for another Olympics (Jearl, Joetta, and Meredith Valmon--who, by the way, ran a local road 10K this past Sunday in 43 min). Where would the U.S. be without the Clark family? And on the men's side, only Kenah has shown that he has the potential to break through to the 1:43 range that would keep him on the map. Why has the U.S. become so weak in this event? I think it's especially surprising on the men's side, where our total domination of the 400m suggests that we should be able to find a few guys who could move up to the new-style, "long sprint" version of the 800 with success. (I still wish we'd had a chance to see MJ seriously attempt it, even just once.) But it ain't happening. And with the women's 400 becoming so weak (read: opportunity for folks who want to compete in an easier event instead), the prospects seem even bleaker for the U.S. there. It's also surprising in light of the resurgence of 1500m runners among both men and women. We're doing better there than we have in a while, but with the exception of Regina, none of the athletes enjoying that success seems like a real threat over the shorter distance. Opinions? Theories? Thoughts? Here's mine, briefly: The 800 is a brutal event. It's physically miserable and tactically unforgiving. So, given a choice between sticking with the one-lap sprint, or staying with the better-known and more romantic mile, athletes will tend to gravitate away from the 800. And if U.S. depth is already lacking in one of these events, the athletes will move to fill that hole first. - Jay Ulfelder -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] is brought to you by the Stanford Alumni Association and Critical Path.
Re: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
Derrick, I'm definitely *not* trying to put down the 800 or the guys (and gals) who run it. As someone who has run plenty of non-world-class (read: slow-as-molasses) 800s, I have all the respect in the world for people who try to make a living competing in such a physically and mentally brutal event. Part of what I was trying to say is that I think the 800 is tougher than both of the events that bracket it, and this may be part of the story explaining why some of this country's 400 guys don't try it. But the facts speak for themselves. Right now, the U.S. is weaker in the 800 than it has been in a while. I'm talking about the times American athletes have put up in the past two seasons, relative to the times the rest of the world is putting up. I hope you're right that the next generation of stars is in development, and I can see why you in particular--as one of the guys who has shown the most promise--would bristle at what I wrote. But until the U.S. gets back in the mix at the world championship level, threatening to medal, the 800 will look weak next to the 400, where we threaten to *sweep* the medals every time. And because those two events require similar talents, that disparity will look wierd. On Tue, 03 October 2000, Derrick Peterson wrote: > As a respective member of the 800m running club I would have to say that > you can not base U.S. 800m running on the Olympics, yes we did not do too > well, but that is no reason to put my event down. Have you ever run a > world class 800? well if not then you don't know how it feels. I can > tell you that the U.S. 800m running is getting better, and times and > medals are not the only things that matter. We the young guys are making > strides to improve, but what you track fans have to remember is that it > takes time and years to be great, I personally would rather have years of > success and not just be around for a year or two like most of the Africans and some >Europeans of today. just my 2 cents > > "I asked God for all things that I might enjoy Life. God gave me Life > that I might enjoy all things" -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] is brought to you by the Stanford Alumni Association and Critical Path.
Re: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
On 3 Oct 2000, Jay Ulfelder wrote: > Why has the U.S. become so weak in this event? I think it's especially > surprising on the men's side, where our total domination of the 400m > suggests that we should be able to find a few guys who could move up > to the new-style, "long sprint" version of the 800 with success. (I > still wish we'd had a chance to see MJ seriously attempt it, even just > once.) I think one of the reasons the U.S. is weak is that in the United States the event is dominated by these 400-800 types. Very few athletes who approach the 800 from the sprint side ever reach world class. Some do, and some reach the top such as Jauntorena, but the vast majority of world class 800m runners have approached the event through distance training. Other than Kenah who has a sub 1:44 and WC medal to his credit, how many of the U.S. 800m guys are hitting base weeks in the 80-100 miles a week range? Not too many. If you had to pick one country to get 800m runners from, history shows that your best bet is Kenya. This should tell us something. We have had this debate several times before on this list (the 400/800 runner vs the 800/1500 runner) and it's always great fun, at least for those of us who love the 800. I've always looked to Coe as the best example of how to make an 800m runner. Take a successful 1500/3000 guy and seriously incorporate work into that distance schedule to lower his 400m time (in Coe's case from 50s to 46s) while maintaining your distance ability. Obviously not every distance guy can knock 3-4 seconds off his 400m PR, but it is amazing to me how few improve it. So many milers leave college without having improved their 400m times. If a lot of these milers balanced their programs a little I think we'd find a new crop of 800/1500m guys with the potential for sub 1:45 or better. There will always be great 400/800m types, but only a few of them will be champions. Now flame away (so and so is a 400/800 guy.), Paul *** Paul Talbot Department of Geography/ Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado, Boulder Boulder CO 80309-0260 (303) 492-3248 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
P.F. Talbot wrote: > We have had this debate several times before on this list (the 400/800 > runner vs the 800/1500 runner) and it's always great fun, at least for > those of us who love the 800. I've always looked to Coe as the best > example of how to make an 800m runner. Take a successful 1500/3000 guy > and seriously incorporate work into that distance schedule to lower his > 400m time (in Coe's case from 50s to 46s) while maintaining your distance > ability. Obviously not every distance guy can knock 3-4 seconds off his > 400m PR, but it is amazing to me how few improve it. So many milers leave > college without having improved their 400m times. If a lot of these > milers balanced their programs a little I think we'd find a new crop of > 800/1500m guys with the potential for sub 1:45 or better. > > There will always be great 400/800m types, but only a few of them will be > champions. > > Now flame away (so and so is a 400/800 guy.), > > Paul > I would think that Juantorena was actually the prototypical way to create an 800 meter runner .. I think there have been good 800 runners of both the 400/800 and 800/1500 types .. But it seems to me that speed is much harder to develop than endurance .. Speed is much more of a natural thing with quickly reached limits than is endurance .. Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
> Why has the U.S. become so weak in this event? I think it's especially > > surprising on the men's side, where our total domination of the 400m > > suggests that we should be able to find a few guys who could move up > > to the new-style, "long sprint" version of the 800 with success. (I > > still wish we'd had a chance to see MJ seriously attempt it, even just > > once.) It would be great to see MJ attempt it. His style is more conducive to 800m running than most of the sprint-oriented 400m runners, and I've just got to think he would have loads left after going through in 50.0 >We have had this debate several times before on this list (the 400/800 runner vs the 800/1500 runner) and it's always >great fun, at least for those of us who love the 800. I've always looked to Coe as the best example of how to make an >800m runner. Take a successful 1500/3000 guy and seriously incorporate work into that distance schedule to lower his >400m time (in Coe's case from 50s to 46s) while maintaining your distance ability. I tend to agree with this viewpoint, but in fairness to the 400 types, I question how many of them have made serious attempts at the 800m. The few promising high school and collegiate runners whom I've seen try it tend to go out way to fast and are quickly discouraged by how difficult the last 200 is. On the other hand, nearly every elite miler runs an 800 or 2 per year. Also, didn't Coe's speed improvement come at a fairly young age? And wasn't he always an 800/1500 guy with the 3000m being more of a stretch. Finally, I suspect that distance training (not LSD, but longer intervals and "tempo" type runs) prepares one mentally for the 800m much better than typical sprint/400 training. Physically, there are undoubtedly loads of 400m runners who could challenge the distance-based 800m guys, even with lower mileage. You don't learn how to handle the last 200 of an 800 by doing 2 or 3 repeat 400's fast, despite the obvious physical correlation. Just like many distance runners don't know how to stay relaxed at close to their top speed, the way sprinters know how to. - Ed Parrot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
> On Tue, 03 October 2000, Derrick Peterson wrote: > > Have you ever run a world class 800? well if not > then you don't know how it feels. I've run a rather wide range (20-25 seconds) of non-world class 800's, and I can tell you they all felt pretty much the same. Actually, my fastest ever was by far the easiest. The rest were equally painful. Damn, a 1:45 would feel like a breeze! ;-) Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - AbleDesign, Web Design that Can! http://Run-Down.com - 8,500 Running Links, Free Contests... @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 phone/fax __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Ed & Dana Parrot wrote: > Also, didn't Coe's speed improvement come at a fairly young age? And wasn't > he always an 800/1500 guy with the 3000m being more of a stretch. No, he was a 1500/3000m guy through his teens and ran few 800s, at 18 he couldn't break 50 for 400m (at least according to the progressiong charts in Coe and Martin's book). If he had gone though the U.S. collegiate system I suspect he would have ended up a 5,000m guy! (and probably would have beat Aouita to first under 13:00). *** Paul Talbot Department of Geography/ Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado, Boulder Boulder CO 80309-0260 (303) 492-3248 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
Not going to flame, but basically agree. I grew up in Michigan - about 4 miles from '84 Olympic bronze medalist, Earl Jones. I ran in races that started at the same time as Earl (not fair to say I was in the same race) in high school. Earl ran cross country in the fall, and wasn't all that great. He could run 16:30 for 3 miles in cross country - which was OK, but nothing to write home about. Then in track season, he'd run both the mile relay (OK... this was 1980 and 1981... Michigan did the mile relay not the 4x400) and the open mile. In this way, he got his distance training in cross country, his glory event in the mile (where he was a state champion), and his speed training in the quarter mile. Once Earl went to college, Bob Parks converted him to the 800. The following year, he won the bronze in the Olympics (as a 20-yr. old college sophomore). In addition, the best 800 runner in my University both ran cross country in high school and the 400/440 in high school. Dave Cameron --- "P.F.Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3 Oct 2000, Jay Ulfelder wrote: > > Why has the U.S. become so weak in this event? I think > it's especially > > surprising on the men's side, where our total > domination of the 400m > > suggests that we should be able to find a few guys who > could move up > > to the new-style, "long sprint" version of the 800 with > success. (I > > still wish we'd had a chance to see MJ seriously > attempt it, even just > > once.) > > I think one of the reasons the U.S. is weak is that in > the United States > the event is dominated by these 400-800 types. Very few > athletes who > approach the 800 from the sprint side ever reach world > class. Some do, > and some reach the top such as Jauntorena, but the vast > majority of world > class 800m runners have approached the event through > distance training. > Other than Kenah who has a sub 1:44 and WC medal to his > credit, how many > of the U.S. 800m guys are hitting base weeks in the > 80-100 miles a week > range? Not too many. If you had to pick one country to > get 800m runners > from, history shows that your best bet is Kenya. This > should tell us > something. > > We have had this debate several times before on this list > (the 400/800 > runner vs the 800/1500 runner) and it's always great fun, > at least for > those of us who love the 800. I've always looked to Coe > as the best > example of how to make an 800m runner. Take a successful > 1500/3000 guy > and seriously incorporate work into that distance > schedule to lower his > 400m time (in Coe's case from 50s to 46s) while > maintaining your distance > ability. Obviously not every distance guy can knock 3-4 > seconds off his > 400m PR, but it is amazing to me how few improve it. So > many milers leave > college without having improved their 400m times. If a > lot of these > milers balanced their programs a little I think we'd find > a new crop of > 800/1500m guys with the potential for sub 1:45 or better. > > There will always be great 400/800m types, but only a few > of them will be > champions. > > Now flame away (so and so is a 400/800 guy.), > > Paul > > > > *** > Paul Talbot > Department of Geography/ > Institute of Behavioral Science > University of Colorado, Boulder > Boulder CO 80309-0260 > (303) 492-3248 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free! http://photos.yahoo.com/
RE: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
In the last day or so, a news web-site (USA Today? LA Times?) posed the following question (or similar): "When was the last time the US track & field team did not have ANY serious medal contenders (men or women) in an Olympic event longer than 400m?" Regards - GT - http://homepages.go.com/~oztrack/index.html -Original Message- From: Jay Ulfelder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 3 October 2000 21:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running When it comes to the 800m, the United States sure had a lousy Olympics. Only two semifinalists and one finalist on the women's side, and not a single man advanced past the opening round. Although there is less margin for error in the 800 than most other track events, this goes beyond bad luck. What's more, three of the top four U.S. women in the event almost certainly will not be around for another Olympics (Jearl, Joetta, and Meredith Valmon--who, by the way, ran a local road 10K this past Sunday in 43 min). Where would the U.S. be without the Clark family? And on the men's side, only Kenah has shown that he has the potential to break through to the 1:43 range that would keep him on the map. Why has the U.S. become so weak in this event? I think it's especially surprising on the men's side, where our total domination of the 400m suggests that we should be able to find a few guys who could move up to the new-style, "long sprint" version of the 800 with success. (I still wish we'd had a chance to see MJ seriously attempt it, even just once.) But it ain't happening. And with the women's 400 becoming so weak (read: opportunity for folks who want to compete in an easier event instead), the prospects seem even bleaker for the U.S. there. It's also surprising in light of the resurgence of 1500m runners among both men and women. We're doing better there than we have in a while, but with the exception of Regina, none of the athletes enjoying that success seems like a real threat over the shorter distance. Opinions? Theories? Thoughts? Here's mine, briefly: The 800 is a brutal event. It's physically miserable and tactically unforgiving. So, given a choice between sticking with the one-lap sprint, or staying with the better-known and more romantic mile, athletes will tend to gravitate away from the 800. And if U.S. depth is already lacking in one of these events, the athletes will move to fill that hole first. - Jay Ulfelder -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] is brought to you by the Stanford Alumni Association and Critical Path.
RE: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
Regina Jacobs was certainly a contender at 1500 or 5k until she withdrew and Suzy Favor-Hamilton also seemed capable of placing in the 1500. On the men's side, yes, there weren't any strong medal threats based on recent form. Bill Bahnfleth At 11:55 PM 10/4/2000 +1100, THOMAS,Graham wrote: >In the last day or so, a news web-site (USA Today? LA Times?) posed the >following question (or similar): > >"When was the last time the US track & field team did not have ANY serious >medal contenders (men or women) in an Olympic event longer than 400m?" > >Regards - GT - http://homepages.go.com/~oztrack/index.html > >-Original Message- >From: Jay Ulfelder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, 3 October 2000 21:39 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running > > >When it comes to the 800m, the United States sure had a lousy Olympics. Only >two semifinalists and one finalist on the women's side, and not a single man >advanced past the opening round. > >Although there is less margin for error in the 800 than most other track >events, this goes beyond bad luck. What's more, three of the top four U.S. >women in the event almost certainly will not be around for another Olympics >(Jearl, Joetta, and Meredith Valmon--who, by the way, ran a local road 10K >this past Sunday in 43 min). Where would the U.S. be without the Clark >family? And on the men's side, only Kenah has shown that he has the >potential to break through to the 1:43 range that would keep him on the map. > >Why has the U.S. become so weak in this event? I think it's especially >surprising on the men's side, where our total domination of the 400m >suggests that we should be able to find a few guys who could move up to the >new-style, "long sprint" version of the 800 with success. (I still wish we'd >had a chance to see MJ seriously attempt it, even just once.) But it ain't >happening. And with the women's 400 becoming so weak (read: opportunity for >folks who want to compete in an easier event instead), the prospects seem >even bleaker for the U.S. there. It's also surprising in light of the >resurgence of 1500m runners among both men and women. We're doing better >there than we have in a while, but with the exception of Regina, none of the >athletes enjoying that success seems like a real threat over the shorter >distance. > >Opinions? Theories? Thoughts? Here's mine, briefly: The 800 is a brutal >event. It's physically miserable and tactically unforgiving. So, given a >choice between sticking with the one-lap sprint, or staying with the >better-known and more romantic mile, athletes will tend to gravitate away >from the 800. And if U.S. depth is already lacking in one of these events, >the athletes will move to fill that hole first. > >- Jay Ulfelder > > >-- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] is brought to you by >the Stanford Alumni Association and Critical Path. _ William P. Bahnfleth, Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor Department of Architectural Engineering The Pennsylvania State University 224 Engineering Unit A University Park, PA 16802-1416 USA voice: 814.863.2076 / fax: 814.863.4789 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/faculty/bahnfleth.htm _
Re: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running
Actually the US had two contenders in the 1500 for women - Favor Hamilton and Jacobs .. Unfortunately Hamilton bombed in the final and Jacobs didn't run at the last minute .. Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "THOMAS,Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 5:55 AM Subject: RE: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running > In the last day or so, a news web-site (USA Today? LA Times?) posed the > following question (or similar): > > "When was the last time the US track & field team did not have ANY serious > medal contenders (men or women) in an Olympic event longer than 400m?" > > Regards - GT - http://homepages.go.com/~oztrack/index.html > > -Original Message- > From: Jay Ulfelder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 3 October 2000 21:39 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: t-and-f: U.S. 800m running > > > When it comes to the 800m, the United States sure had a lousy Olympics. Only > two semifinalists and one finalist on the women's side, and not a single man > advanced past the opening round. > > Although there is less margin for error in the 800 than most other track > events, this goes beyond bad luck. What's more, three of the top four U.S. > women in the event almost certainly will not be around for another Olympics > (Jearl, Joetta, and Meredith Valmon--who, by the way, ran a local road 10K > this past Sunday in 43 min). Where would the U.S. be without the Clark > family? And on the men's side, only Kenah has shown that he has the > potential to break through to the 1:43 range that would keep him on the map. > > Why has the U.S. become so weak in this event? I think it's especially > surprising on the men's side, where our total domination of the 400m > suggests that we should be able to find a few guys who could move up to the > new-style, "long sprint" version of the 800 with success. (I still wish we'd > had a chance to see MJ seriously attempt it, even just once.) But it ain't > happening. And with the women's 400 becoming so weak (read: opportunity for > folks who want to compete in an easier event instead), the prospects seem > even bleaker for the U.S. there. It's also surprising in light of the > resurgence of 1500m runners among both men and women. We're doing better > there than we have in a while, but with the exception of Regina, none of the > athletes enjoying that success seems like a real threat over the shorter > distance. > > Opinions? Theories? Thoughts? Here's mine, briefly: The 800 is a brutal > event. It's physically miserable and tactically unforgiving. So, given a > choice between sticking with the one-lap sprint, or staying with the > better-known and more romantic mile, athletes will tend to gravitate away > from the 800. And if U.S. depth is already lacking in one of these events, > the athletes will move to fill that hole first. > > - Jay Ulfelder > > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is brought to you by > the Stanford Alumni Association and Critical Path.
