whats faster, a sub 24.0 200m or a sub 2:05 800m

None.

IAAF scoring tables give a 23.99 672 points, and a 2:04.99 649 points. So pretty close, but the 200 appears marginally more impressive.

The 800 might even be slightly more impressive at the high school level as speed develops a little earlier than endurance.

Whoops, 645 rather than 649. My bad.

Depends on how sub they go: Like 20 seconds versus 2:04? Or 23 versus 1:42?

But seriously, the average speed is faster in a 200m race, 2min/km vs 2:36min/km.

i trust the iaaf tables, so sub 24 is

Rockstar Games wrote:

Depends on how sub they go: Like 20 seconds versus 2:04? Or 23 versus 1:42?

But seriously, the average speed is faster in a 200m race, 2min/km vs 2:36min/km.

This. Any time under 24/2:05 counts as sub 24/2:05. If I run 1:49 and you run 23.9, my sub 2:05 is better than your sub 24.

how sub? wrote:

[quote]Rockstar Games wrote:

Depends on how sub they go: Like 20 seconds versus 2:04? Or 23 versus 1:42?

But seriously, the average speed is faster in a 200m race, 2min/km vs 2:36min/km.

fair point i guess right under is what i meant

23.99 scores better than 2:04.9

I'd say sub 2:05. I've run 24s in practice as a 400/800 type with an occasional 1500 every now and then, but couldn't imagine running multiple 800 repeats in 2:05. PRs: 50.03, 1:53, 4:03.

Sub 24 easily just look at women's elite times running 23s might get you into some big events (the Commonwealth Games 2018 time is 23.5) whereas 2:05 is nowhere near elite.

PrZ wrote:

I'd say sub 2:05. I've run 24s in practice as a 400/800 type with an occasional 1500 every now and then, but couldn't imagine running multiple 800 repeats in 2:05. PRs: 50.03, 1:53, 4:03.

but it's for one all out run not repeats. i know runners who can run 200m repeats close to their 200 PR in an actual race

For women, the 200.

For men, neither.

Anyone in training who can go under 24 should be able to go sub 2 easily never mind under 2:05

Not Cool Bro wrote:

For women, the 200.

For men, neither.

for high schoolers? i'd say both times for boys are pretty good.

PrZ wrote:

I'd say sub 2:05. I've run 24s in practice as a 400/800 type with an occasional 1500 every now and then, but couldn't imagine running multiple 800 repeats in 2:05. PRs: 50.03, 1:53, 4:03.

I'd argue you're running the wrong events and/or your practice 200s are hand timed with a rolling start. Or your training needs improvement. Pro 800 guys don't find 24s in practice easy.

so it seems sub 24 is the answer to this

I'm surprised the consensus has been the 200...for high school girls, there are a hell of a lot more sub 24s than sub 2:05s. On athletic.net, 3 girls went sub 2:05 and 63 broke 24. The HS girls records are 22.11 and 1:59. 2:05/1:59 = 1.05, 23.99/22.11 = 1.08 so a 2:05 is closer to the record by percentage. (Side note: surprised I haven't seen more about Sammy Watson's 2:00 800, dang...pretty close to Cain's record)

FR wrote:

I'm surprised the consensus has been the 200...for high school girls, there are a hell of a lot more sub 24s than sub 2:05s. On athletic.net, 3 girls went sub 2:05 and 63 broke 24. The HS girls records are 22.11 and 1:59. 2:05/1:59 = 1.05, 23.99/22.11 = 1.08 so a 2:05 is closer to the record by percentage. (Side note: surprised I haven't seen more about Sammy Watson's 2:00 800, dang...pretty close to Cain's record)

i think its safe to say that female sprinters are better athletes than female distance runners as a whole. as you move up in distance, the difference between a male time and female time grows.

FR wrote:

I'm surprised the consensus has been the 200...for high school girls, there are a hell of a lot more sub 24s than sub 2:05s. On athletic.net, 3 girls went sub 2:05 and 63 broke 24. The HS girls records are 22.11 and 1:59. 2:05/1:59 = 1.05, 23.99/22.11 = 1.08 so a 2:05 is closer to the record by percentage. (Side note: surprised I haven't seen more about Sammy Watson's 2:00 800, dang...pretty close to Cain's record)

For high schoolers 2:04.99 is almost certainly a stronger performance than 23.99. For adults with a base built off a decade or more of training, sub 24 is a tad better (IAAF tables give a good estimate), but relatively few high schoolers have not put in the miles necessary to run super strong times in events with a major aerobic component.

For reference, 9174 high school guys broke 2:05 last season. 20135 broke 24.

Also worth noting, approximately 10.9% of all guys' 800 times recorded on athletic.net last season were sub 2:05, in contrast with the 19.3% of guys' 200 times sub 24.