sdfsdddddddd wrote:
I'm a marathon guy but thought I would run a 200 as fast as I can today. Came up with 36 seconds. Is that awful? What kind of mile should I be able to run with that time?
How does it feel to be a slow nerd?
sdfsdddddddd wrote:
I'm a marathon guy but thought I would run a 200 as fast as I can today. Came up with 36 seconds. Is that awful? What kind of mile should I be able to run with that time?
How does it feel to be a slow nerd?
This is truly the saddest thread i've read. Not 200@36secs, but the quality of the responses.
To all you folks dissing the OP, write back when you're 50+. Most of you will be fat, bald and not able to break 40. Of course any athletic man under 25-30 yrs old could easily break 36secs, probably 30 secs, they've got T and GH coming out their arse. But it wouldn't surprise me if they lost a marathon race to the OP.
If this is a one off 200m test, then it under-represents his ability. Give him a month or so of speedwork and i'm sure it would improve. Who knows, maybe he can run 20X200 @36-38 which might get you a 36-37 min 10k, which would be top3 or outright win for masters in many local 10ks.
It is awful. Work on it. Regardless of your age and race distance, you should definitely be under 30. Just work on it smartly (gradually). Do not injure yourself developing proper speed
36 seconds is not awful. It probably felt all out, but it wasn't. You just don't have the turnover right now, but it takes a few track sessions to even be able to run all out (when you're older). Even in the session itself, many people don't get up to full speed until they've had 2-3 short reps to get loose. You will go faster if you do that. Also, the type of shoes makes a big difference.
36 secs?
I suppose is backward running, right?
With a 36 all out 200 time I'm sure you could blaze a mile in something under 8 and a half minutes perhaps as fast as 8:20.00.
sdfsdddddddd wrote:
I'm a marathon guy but thought I would run a 200 as fast as I can today. Came up with 36 seconds. Is that awful? What kind of mile should I be able to run with that time?
Another old guy. wrote:
This is truly the saddest thread i've read. Not 200@36secs, but the quality of the responses.
To all you folks dissing the OP, write back when you're 50+. Most of you will be fat, bald and not able to break 40. Of course any athletic man under 25-30 yrs old could easily break 36secs, probably 30 secs, they've got T and GH coming out their arse. But it wouldn't surprise me if they lost a marathon race to the OP.
If this is a one off 200m test, then it under-represents his ability. Give him a month or so of speedwork and i'm sure it would improve. Who knows, maybe he can run 20X200 @36-38 which might get you a 36-37 min 10k, which would be top3 or outright win for masters in many local 10ks.
Hi OP
What was the wind?
Dude, respect your elders.
Assuming you are not a senior, yes, that is really awful.
not too bad in the sense that you are older and you focus on long distance running instead of sprinting
sdfsdddddddd wrote:
I'm a marathon guy but thought I would run a 200 as fast as I can today. Came up with 36 seconds. Is that awful? What kind of mile should I be able to run with that time?
I still rememebr a guy I ran with. Or at least at the same track.
He was a 2:10 marathon runner. Bro in law at the time of Deeks.
He had a PB for the 400 at 60 seconds and ran a 2 minute 800.
36 seconds is really slow. Hey, perhaps you're handsome? But I doubt it. Likely your a skinny withered distance guy without a life.
Take up chess.
[quote]Another old guy. wrote:
This is truly the saddest thread i've read. Not 200@36secs, but the quality of the responses.
To all you folks dissing the OP, write back when you're 50+.
The OP said nothing of his age. If he is over fifty, then his time is not really slow. If he is, then he's quite slow.
Maybe you ought not to assume facts not in evidence.
@okeydokieslowpokie. Do all Australians make such mindless and nasty comments.
You suck wrote:
I know 11 year old girls which can do 12x200m at a quicker pace than that.
You are a jerk if you are making 11 year old girls do 12x 200.
A marathoner, eh? With that endurance, if you can hold 36's for another seven 200m segments, you will have a 4:48 1600m. To most of the LRC pretenders and wannabe's, eat your hearts out!
Norwegian Wood wrote:
It is awful. Work on it. Regardless of your age and race distance, you should definitely be under 30. Just work on it smartly (gradually). Do not injure yourself developing proper speed
Sir, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Seriously, how many semi-serious runners over the age of 50 could run 36 for a 200? I bet it's not a high percentage. I enjoy the usual trolls and whatnot, but this is just dumb and the sad thing is that most people aren't trolling.
Billy Madison wrote:
Norwegian Wood wrote:It is awful. Work on it. Regardless of your age and race distance, you should definitely be under 30. Just work on it smartly (gradually). Do not injure yourself developing proper speed
Sir, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Seriously, how many semi-serious runners over the age of 50 could run 36 for a 200? I bet it's not a high percentage. I enjoy the usual trolls and whatnot, but this is just dumb and the sad thing is that most people aren't trolling.
I think I'm dumb.
Maybe just happy.
OP, what's your marathon time? The McMillan calculator would put your 200m time at around a 3:28 for the marathon and a 6:09 for the mile. The mile time, at least, is a lot slower than your actual time.
Also, please ignore the haters, who seem to be out in force with their characteristically useless replies. I bet people would be shocked by how slow some actual elites' sprint times are.
36 for an all-out 200 is horrible for any person who believes they are a runner and is under the age of 60.
It is that simple.