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

Both are easy.

In my league in high school, we had oodles of 2 minute 800 guys and maybe 4 or 5 guys who could break 10. I would say that in high school, 10 for the deuce is more impressive, if only because kids do not typically train very hard. That said, 2 minutes in the 800 probably takes more talent -- although in College you see a ton of kids that have been around 2 minutes forever, and never really improve even though they work decently hard.

Then the guys in your league are pussies.

its depends on the runner i think but for me the sub 2 is much harder, ive ran 9.44 for 2mile which is about 9.41-9.42 for 3200m and 2.07 for 800m

With pretty decent range in HS (52+, 1:59,....15:42 5K, 27:20 5M) and college (1:56 800m, 30:43 10K XC), the 800m 2 minute barrier would get my vote over the 10 min 2 mile. Personally, I raced the 800m all 4 yrs of HS and broke 2 minutes only 3 times in the 4x800 relay. I ran the duece once, ran the first lap in 62 but managed a 10:10 finish time.

Although the 10 min 2-mile appears more rare, my guess is it not more common due to a smaller talent pool and it takes a unique person to want to train properly to break 10. Meanwhile, the talent pool for sub 2 min 800M is larger with sprinters moving up and distance guys moving down.

In general braking 2 minutes for the 800m is harder than breaking 10 minutes for two miles for most runners in high school.

In my case however, I ran 53.4 for 440y with absolutely no training when I entered high school. I eventually ran 1:58 for 880y on minimal training a year later.

I tried the two mile a few times, and did not train specifically for it, my best time was only 10:14 when I was a senior.

I did both in high school....both were hard in different ways....each required a different skill-set and mental approach...almost apples and oranges.

IAAF: 2:00=9:34

no way....I ran a 1:57 880 in high school....but could only run a 9:42 2 mile......the 1:57 was easier; I wasn't close to a 9:34 2 mile.

can't find that on the iaaf web site.

END OF STORY wrote:

IAAF: 2:00=9:34

been there and back wrote:

no way....I ran a 1:57 880 in high school....but could only run a 9:42 2 mile......the 1:57 was easier; I wasn't close to a 9:34 2 mile.

Wow. You should contact the IAAF and tell them your story. Maybe they will revamp their scoring tables for all running events as a result.

And while you are at it, tell them to remove Komen's 2-mile record, since it is only 8 seconds per lap slower than Kipketer's 800 record, while your 2-mile was 13 seconds slower per lap than your 800. So the 2-mile World Record should be re-set at 8:35 to fall in line with your high school times. To run faster is clearly a human impossibility.

there were many more 2:00, 880 guys in my league in high school than there were 9:34, 2 milers.....9:34 could win many races (except for state or a big invitational), where as a 2 flat 1/2 or faster was happening at almost every meet.

my PRs: 1:55.6 for 800m and 10:28 for 3200m (also a 10:14 3k steeple for what it's worth). I can run 2:00 or faster in the 800 in a workout, and have never even approached 10:00 in the 3200m. I train for the mile so I feel that there shouldn't be much training bias towards either event. I guess it is impossible to say, because I know my brother runs 9:40's in workouts and his best 800m is around 2:08.

been there and back wrote:

there were many more 2:00, 880 guys in my league in high school than there were 9:34, 2 milers.....9:34 could win many races (except for state or a big invitational), where as a 2 flat 1/2 or faster was happening at almost every meet.

WOW. This is bigger than I thought. It looks like a huge expose' is in the offing: "High School Runners Redefine Human Limits: 2:00 Easy, 10:00 Damn Near Impossible! If U.S. Can Harness This Vast Lack Of Endurance, World Energy Problems And Global Warming May Be Solved!"

break 2:00 because it depends on your natural speed, you can work yourself to a sub 10 2mile.