What's more difficult, sub 2:00 in the 800 or a sub 10:00 3200?

les deluge wrote:

I don't know about this....I've run 1:58/4:26 but have yet to break 10:00.

Then again, I don't really run the 3200 much. But people are different I guess.

If you concetrated on the 3200 for two weeks you would crush 10min. Give me a break.

FLa runr wrote:

les deluge wrote:

I don\'t know about this....I\'ve run 1:58/4:26 but have yet to break 10:00.

Then again, I don\'t really run the 3200 much. But people are different I guess.

If you concetrated on the 3200 for two weeks you would crush 10min. Give me a break.

when you have fast twitch muscle fibre its REALLY hard to run distance. trust me. its like telling bekele if he concentrated on the 800 for 2 weeks he would CRUSH 1:45.

I ran 9:56 at altitude in my first ever 3200 in high school, but I never went faster than 2:08 in the 800. I never trained specifically for that event, but my 400 best was only 59 so there's no way I would have ever broken 2:00.

The British rankings suggest 2:00 800m is slightly harder:

We run 3000m instead of 3200, 10:00 implies 9:22.5 at 3000, and as it's slightly shorter, 9:20 3000m is approximately equivalent

At Under 15, 3 did 800 time, and 4 did 3000

at under 17, it was 77 and 86 respectively

I ran the 3200 twice ever, so it isn't a great indicator, but in the same week, I ran 1:59.7 and 10:13 at the Regional meet. I also run at 6000ft altitude so take that as you will. All the same though, I think that the 800 is harder for most people because you can't really build up your speed in the same way that you can increase your endurance, however if you have, say, 53 second 400 speed you don't need a TERRIBLE amount of endurance to break 2 minutes in the 800, whereas one will almost ALWAYS have to train to break 10 in the 3200, and have a will and desire to run the event (also rare).

I think the 3200 was harder because I had to drag my crank around for another 6 laps. Lots of chafing from dragging on the mondo.

Hung Well wrote:

I think the 3200 was harder because I had to drag my crank around for another 6 laps. Lots of chafing from dragging on the mondo.

know the feeling mate I got banned from the high jump after hospitalising a couple of the officials

my prs: 1:54, 4:23

have tried a couple of times and still have not broken sub-10 (on the track)

I think I get bored going around the track so much (and it lends me to focus more on the pain)

Ha! I ran 1:59 several years ago, but still haven't broken 10:00 for 3200 or 2 mile or the equivalent for 3000. I have run 15:54 for 5K though.

if you can't run under 2 min, but can run 9:25 2mile, you are sorely lacking speed. It might be something you were born with, and that is that, but it might be something you can work on. If you are mainly a distance runner, then it doesn't matter. But if you consider your 800m of 2:06 your best or one of your best pb's, then you need to get your speed figured out now, or you need to focus on distance running 2miles +, b/c you are obviously better suited for longer distance. your speed is horrible compared to your distance. that is just the way it is sometimes though, don't sweat it.

sub2

many who run sub10 cant run sub2

It depends on the person. I have done both myself but I feel like I am more of a miler. might give me an advantage at achieving both at equal efforts. I think Sub 2 may be slightly more difficult. I have broken 10 in a split of a 5k but have never broken 2 in a split not even a 1000. but that is comparing indoor to outdoor too. I know people who can do one but not the other in either case.

As fo the natural ability and high school discussion. A much higher percentage of HS 3200 milers train for there race out side of season. They run cross country for one. 800 runners in HS don't do that. Many of them may run cross country but not as many and by running cross they are training lesss specifically for there race than the 3200m runners.

Colleges may have different workouts during cross for their middle distance runner but that generally does not happen in HS.

Look at it this way, a sub 2:00 800m is a world class time for a female and anyone who can run it is a contender to win championship meets.

The equivalent 3k, about 9:20, is nothing but a solid D1 time and somoene who can only run that would never even get entered in a world class race.

Bottom line, the times are worlds apart, so if you can run sub 2:00 but not sub 10:00 you need to get serious about your mileage or stick to MD.

I would say that sub-2:00 takes more talent, but the sub-10:00 takes more training

Yesterday I did 3 x 3200 in 9:58, 9:56, and 9:57 AND there is no way in hell I could break 2:00 right now.

That said, I can remember 19 years ago when I broke 2:00 for the first time. I was running about 9:30 for 3200 at the time.

Sub 2:00 is definitely more difficult. I've run far more 800m races than 3200m races and prs are 2:00.2 to 9:19. I think that breaking 4:00 in 1500m may be more comparable to sub 2:00 800m.

I was under 2:04 before I was under 11:00.

But I am mostly fast twitch, and fall off significantly as the distance increases.

j.mizner wrote:

Which is harder to achieve?

A 2:00 800 metre is equal to about 9:29 2 mile, or lets just call it roughly 9:23 for 2300 metres.... going by the conversion tables. A guy who could do 2-flat 800 metre would almost be able to "jog" through a 10 minute 3200 metre.. even if that 800 guy had really bad endurance at anything over 800 metres.

Everyone here pretty much unanimously agrees that a 2:00 800 metre is much, much harder. The two aren't even a reasonably close comparison.

ummmmm well my 800 pr is 1:50.6 and my 3200 pr is like 9:20ish or so, so I guess I would agree that a sub 2 800 is worth more than sub 10 min 3200, but for me a sub 2 800 is a walk in the park when a sub 10 min 3200 actually isnt that much of a joke.