Are You Absolutely Sure That The Race Distance You Concentrate On The Most Is The One That You Are Best At?

When I first started racing, the 10K was king where I was.It didn't suit me, but that seemed to be the standard of comparison at the time (early 80's) and I ran a lot of them and trained for them. Ten milers and up just took the life out of me for days after.

When 5k's started to become more common, it was obvious to me that they hit the right balance for my mind and body. Now I don't run anything longer than 5K. I like 2 miles even better, but they are few and far between.

Jose Kanucee wrote:

I'd rather run 2:30 mary than a 1:48 half.

I'd rather you not use the term "mary". And who wouldn't rather run a 2:30 marathon, versus a 1:48 half-marathon? Unless of course you mean a 1:48 800m, which would very slow if it's the same 1:48 as a half-marathon. However, if it's the other 1:48 - as in minutes and seconds - then you'd be a tard to rather have the 2:30 marathon.

I think my best event is 3000m, but I would MUCH rather run the 1500 than the 5000, and I don't want to run the barriers, so I run the 800 and 1500 (I usually get a whooping in the 800m though). I'm still pretty young and thus have not reached my aerobic potential, so I may end up running the 5000m my junior or senior year, but for now, I'll stick with the shorter stuff.

No, I was built for long distance, but I do not have yet the mental tenacity to race well at it. That's why I do best at the 800

clarifier wrote:

Jose Kanucee wrote:

I'd rather run 2:30 mary than a 1:48 half.

I'd rather you not use the term "mary". And who wouldn't rather run a 2:30 marathon, versus a 1:48 half-marathon? Unless of course you mean a 1:48 800m, which would very slow if it's the same 1:48 as a half-marathon. However, if it's the other 1:48 - as in minutes and seconds - then you'd be a tard to rather have the 2:30 marathon.

===========================================================

A 1:48 1/2 mile (or an 800 m)? More like he should shoot for a 2:12 marathon with that kind of ability. I was capable of 2:05 for the 0.5 mile yet I netted a 2:37 marathon.

After Steve Jones narrowly missed the world record at the Chicago Marathon one year, someone asked him if he was a marathoner or a track runner (or something to that effect). He said, "I'm a runner. I'll run any distance".

I like that attitude.

clarifier wrote:

Jose Kanucee wrote:

I'd rather run 2:30 mary than a 1:48 half.

I'd rather you not use the term "mary".

I agree, go back to Runners' World forums, you don't belong here.

here are my times, all run at age 15 as a high school sophmore...

400 - 57-58

800 - 2:10

1500 - 4:21

3000 - 9:42

5k Road - 16:41 (age 15, but as a junior)

here are my times, all run at age 15 as a high school sophmore...

400 - 57-58

800 - 2:10

1500 - 4:21

3000 - 9:42

5k Road - 16:41 (age 15, but as a junior)

what event(s) should i be focusing on?

jabroni wrote:

here are my times, all run at age 15 as a high school sophmore...

400 - 57-58

800 - 2:10

1500 - 4:21

3000 - 9:42

5k Road - 16:41 (age 15, but as a junior)

what event(s) should i be focusing on?

Sex.

Ha, I run 'em all anymore. But I recall having a rather opinionated teammate, rest his soul, lambasting if not publically humiliating me for not 'choosing' my event during spring track. At the time I was mixing it up between 5000 and 1500, but working on hurdling to do the steeple at conference meet. Steeple would've-could've been my event, but at the time we had few or no DIII meets that even had a steeple. Anyway, I put up with his crap all spring but took hom all conference and a school record.

In my younger post-college years, I became a long-distance specialist aiming for the marathon. Did that for a few years and got hurt. So switched to 10k and under for most of my prime years, and set PRs in all distances from 10 mile and under from ages 27 to 33. Didn't try a marathon again until my 40s.

Now, in my late 40s, I suck at all distances, but suck more at the marathon than others. My favorite distances now range from 10k to about 15 or 16 miles on the roads or trails. Something about that threshold level pace just feels right. I could probably do better, ranking wise, by focusing on the mile. But it's too specialized, so I run as a jack of all trades.

My former teammate would scream at me: "WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO!!!??? YOU NEED TO MAKE A DECISION, WHICH IS YOUR BEST RACE!!!!"

I don't care. I'm in pretty good shape for a geezer and having fun.

Jose Kanucee wrote:

I'd rather run 2:30 mary than a 1:48 half.

clarifier wrote:

I'd rather you not use the term "mary".

Paint me a Birmingham wrote:

I agree, go back to Runners' World forums, you don't belong here.

You may want to do a search before you criticize. That way you can avoid looking foolish by demeaning a term widely used on letsrun. I'll take your word for it that the term is also popular on the RW forums as I've never been there as you obviously have. Here's another word you may want to search: troll.

I've always wondered this myself. Throughout high school, I was a sprinter, running 22.7ht in the 200 and 50.50 in the 400m. Now that I'm in college, my coach has, for the past few years, been trying to make me into an 800 runner. I don't feel as though this is a problem, I ran 2:06 freshman year off of my sprint training and I have a 5k pr in the low 18's. If it wasn't for durability, maybe I would be a good 800 runner. But at the same time, maybe I should have just stuck to the 400m.

Jose Kanucee wrote:

You may want to do a search before you criticize. That way you can avoid looking foolish by demeaning a term widely used on letsrun. I'll take your word for it that the term is also popular on the RW forums as I've never been there as you obviously have. Here's another word you may want to search: troll.

It is a term widely used by people trying desperately to sound "cool" by showing that they know "the lingo". It is pretentious crap.

Those who use it here generally get lambasted when they do so. You may want to do a search yourself.

jabroni wrote:

here are my times, all run at age 15 as a high school sophmore...

400 - 57-58

800 - 2:10

1500 - 4:21

3000 - 9:42

5k Road - 16:41 (age 15, but as a junior)

what event(s) should i be focusing on?

work on your speed because it is your weakness, but focus on the mile and above for racing because those will be your better events. Maybe the 2 mile will be your best. For comparison, I was a natural 800 runner. As a 15 y.o. frosh (you are 15 as a jr ?? you are young for your grade), I ran in spring track (on very low mileage, like 20 a week)-

52 400

2:01 800

4:36 mile

2 mile ? Didn't run it, but probably couldn't have done much better than 10:15

5k ? didn't run it, but probably could have done around 16:30 based on my cross performances in the fall, when I was 14/15, and I ran a little more mileage in cross.

In short, I had much more natural 400/800 speed than you, but as I moved up to the mile, 2mile and above, our times become more similar. I ended running 4:17 mile in HS, but I always struggeld a bit in longer races. 800 was by far my most natural event, and when I got in the mileage, the mile was good for me too. I have NO DOUBTS (to answer Skuj's question), what my best events were/are - 800/mile for sure.

For you, it will likely be 2mile/5k for awhile, and if you stay healthy and can increase you mileage, might be 5k/10k someday. But work on your speed, it will only help you, and who knows, you might have more than we think, and maybe run some decent 1500/miles because of that.

so sad wrote:

It is a term widely used by people trying desperately to sound "cool" by showing that they know "the lingo". It is pretentious crap.

Those who use it here generally get lambasted when they do so. You may want to do a search yourself.

Not true. You don't have to like it and may even believe it to be crap, but it is widely used by knowledgeable and experienced runners and coaches. There is nothing pretentious about it. If you had followed your own advice about the search, you would have known that and not ignorantly spouted off. The irony is that it is much less pretentious than your own post!

Jose Kanucee wrote:

Not true. You don't have to like it and may even believe it to be crap, but it is widely used by knowledgeable and experienced runners and coaches. There is nothing pretentious about it. If you had followed your own advice about the search, you would have known that and not ignorantly spouted off. The irony is that it is much less pretentious than your own post!

It is used by pretentious fools.

Jose Kanucee wrote:

I'd rather run 2:30 mary than a 1:48 half.

maybe today but not in the 1950s

I love running marathons. I'm pitifully slow (3:50 PR) compared to probably everybody on this board. But I'm a pretty decent sprinter in the 100m to 400m range. Not too much future in that once you get over 30, and I mostly played ball sports in school so never really got into track. At 6'4" and 210 lbs I'll never fit the distance profile anyway...not really that much to lose either. My times are comparably better the shorter the distance I run, but I like the marathon training better than 5k training. Every time I hit mile 20 I wonder what I was thinking, though.