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

theres more kids under 24 cause there's a lot more sprinters that are fast than there are distance runners. look at a lot of places in the US, who's making up the sprinters? some of the school's best athletes and football and basketball players. then who are the diistance kids? just cross country?

more kids want to sprint. i'd be willing to bet that it'd be easier to train a sub 24 kid to run 2:05 than it would be to train a 2:05 kid to run sub 24.

ffffffffff wrote:

Not Cool Bro wrote:

For women, the 200.

For men, neither.

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

Where did the OP specify we were discussing high schoolers? My post said men and women, not boys and girls.

Even still, no, 24.0/2:05 are not "impressive" for a HS boy. If they wanted to ask about HS boys, the OP should have asked which performance is "better" as neither are "impressive."

There are currently only 3 - arguably 1 or 2 - female 800 runners capable of a 1:57 = 2:05 - 8. But there are a lot of female 200 runners capable of getting near 22 = 24 - 2.

Considering that 2 seconds over 200 equates to more than 8 seconds over 800, a slower distance, it is obvious that the sub 2:05 is better.

I don't trust IAAF tables because the sample sizes differ for different distances. 800 is not a popular event.

I also think that women suffer at 800m compared to men. The world record ratio 800/400 for men is 2.34, but for women is 2.38. Political attitudes notwithstanding, there are biological differences that I suspect extend to males' ability to control the central nervous system under extreme stress, such as an 800. So for a dude, 2:05 is even better than 24.

The op did not mention HS

Even then you need to be more specific. A senior HS male running sub 24

is doing something wrong if they are running 2:04

Bad Wigins wrote:

There are currently only 3 - arguably 1 or 2 - female 800 runners capable of a 1:57 = 2:05 - 8. But there are a lot of female 200 runners capable of getting near 22 = 24 - 2.

Considering that 2 seconds over 200 equates to more than 8 seconds over 800, a slower distance, it is obvious that the sub 2:05 is better.

I don't trust IAAF tables because the sample sizes differ for different distances. 800 is not a popular event.

I also think that women suffer at 800m compared to men. The world record ratio 800/400 for men is 2.34, but for women is 2.38. Political attitudes notwithstanding, there are biological differences that I suspect extend to males' ability to control the central nervous system under extreme stress, such as an 800. So for a dude, 2:05 is even better than 24.

so you're saying that theres a much larger sample size for the 200, so wouldn't it make sense that there are more females that can run faster times?

clearly a sub 24.0 200m is faster, because that pace equates to a sub 1:36 800m

ukathleticscoach wrote:

The op did not mention HS

Even then you need to be more specific. A senior HS male running sub 24

is doing something wrong if they are running 2:04

It got brought up earlier in the thread, and it's also a necessary distinction to make (24 is arguably stronger than 2:05 for older athletes; the opposite is true for younger athletes).

The vast majority of sub 24 200 high schoolers are not capable of breaking 2:05 in the 800 without putting in a sizable amount of distance work. By your logic a 52.xx quartermiler is doing something wrong if he doesn't crack 4:30 in the mile.

Not Cool Bro wrote:

For women, the 200.

For men, neither.

Poor logic.

where is this idea that sub 24 is more impressive for adults but not high schoolers coming from. I feel like someone said that and now everyone is acting like that's some fact. I'd say its more impressive for high schoolers and adults, as shown by the iaaf tables.

I can easily run under 24 but am nowhere close to sub 2 (2:08), although I am much more speed based.

The consensus is wrong

24 is slower than 2:05

dsrunner wrote:

The consensus is wrong

24 is slower than 2:05

not a chance

im honestly curious why people are saying that 24 is more impressive for an adult but 2:05 for a high schooler lol

It makes sense that the top performers are more closely clustered, less likely that they are anomalous. But the problem is comparing it to an event that may be anomalous in either direction, so I don't think the precision of a detailed table is possible. But looking at the top elites still makes it plain that 1:57 is a tougher barrier.

Bad Wigins wrote:

cmon wrote:

so you're saying that theres a much larger sample size for the 200, so wouldn't it make sense that there are more females that can run faster times?

It makes sense that the top performers are more closely clustered, less likely that they are anomalous. But the problem is comparing it to an event that may be anomalous in either direction, so I don't think the precision of a detailed table is possible. But looking at the top elites still makes it plain that 1:57 is a tougher barrier.

i dont get it lol

why are some people saying the iaaf table isn't used for high schoolers? how is there a difference in comparing numbers? i feel like it would be perfect for comparing high school perfomances. The only point I could see is that maybe some kids have more room for improvement in distance events down the road

200 meters in 24 is faster than 800 meters in 125.

I ran 23.69 in the 200 and 2:04.69 in the 800

sophomore 69 wrote:

I ran 23.69 in the 200 and 2:04.69 in the 800

according to iaaf your 200m is way stronger.