What's the hardest running event?

While I congratulate you for being "pretty good", I wonder what makes you think that you are a good track runner. In my opinion, while your 800 time is decent, your steeple and 5K are increasingly poor (as the distance lengthens) in comparison. I imagine the trend continues in XC... mid-low 25s?

So, while you may have an appreciation for long distance, we both know you are not yet a true distance runner (or at least have not demonstrated that you are one yet). This is why you make the 800 to be so hard.. harder than anything else... because it is what you do well relative to other races. Whenever you've talked to other people (I am sure you've asked everyone you know, right?), it's been with other 800m runners. The reason other people on this thread has mentioned the 800 is bc that's the direction the thread was going... sorry to burst your bubble, but this is not proof that 99% think like you do, and that if they don't, they do not meet the definition of being a good track runner. E_Smith didn't agree with you and his times are better than yours... Oh no! What do we do now? Now who's not a good track runner?

Wait a minute... here's a thread that is more skewed toward the 5 and 10 being the hardest... oh they all must not be good runners.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=2557&page=0

Since none of those guys could possibly have a clue, how about a coach like Jack Daniels (who has worked with runners of various disciplines)... what does he think? HUH?? In his book he says that whhile the 800 may be intense, the medium-long events change from intense to just downright "hard" and sometimes "cruel". Golly. Well, I know many don't buy into JD's ideas. I guess he must just be one of the 1% idiots.

So, big guy, I wish you well in your running. You've got some talent and can certainly bring that 5K time down. I've been trying to help you not look so foolish, but you're making that increasingly hard (like going from 800m to 5000m) to do. You ever heard the axiom, "Better to keep one's mouth shut and perhaps appear intelligent than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"? That applies here.

Anyway, no need to come back and grovel how you might have been wrong (misunderstood or whatever)... this has been evident from the start.

a difficult one indeed. I would have to agree steeplechase certainly seems psychologically to be the toughest event. BUT world class 8/15 guys train as hard as 3k s/c &5k guys, clocking in big miles and long reps. I ran my national XC (9miles) and faired very well (top 10) and it was riddled with big distance guys in the UK in the 80's, so not soft my any means, yet I still managed to win the Olympics.

Therefore I think the 800m is certainly one of, if not the toughest track event.

Way to cite one coach, and one who is somewhat controversial. Thats a pretty airtight case. Also, since I run cross I think you might figure I've had this discussion with many, many runners who are distance guys. I'm not on a team loaded with 800 meter guys. As for your claim the thread was going in the direction of the 800; well I wonder why that is? Is it because most people think thats the toughest event? I would say probably.

As for not being a true distance runner, I'll grant you that. I run cross to stay in shape for track.

And as for my 800 time, I'm a sophomore and my high school pr was 2:03. 1:48 ain't gonna my pr for too much longer.

JEH,

Don't see you getting bent out of shape like that too often.

You are 100% right in all the points you make toward middleman. The only thing I would disagree with is that when you said most people said the 800 because that is the way the thread was going. In my case, the 800 was the most dreadful race, and it (except for the one 50 miler I ran) was always the hardest for me, but that could have been because I wasn't properly trained for the 800 as I was the longer distances or I didn't run it enough times to know how to pace it, etc.

Anyway, that's it.

First off, know that I am glad you have progressed nicely, and I do wish the best for your continued improvement. Good job, there.

Now, as for this thread, though... you are not getting it. Was I the one that was taking the there-is-only-one-right-answer approach to this issue of opinion? No, that was you. If you can't remember (trying to be sensitive to the fact that your just a soph), reread our dialogue to this point. You see, I am not saying (like you) that there is only one right answer, and that I must be right. If you must know, I think that all of the events can be hard enough (if run well) to be virtually indistinguishable in terms of "hardness" in any meaningful sort of way, and that people's individual experiences go a long way towards influencing their opinion on the issue. If you can't get this, you'd better run damn fast as it might be your only out.

I can assure you that your "no chance in hell [that] any more than 1% of track runners would rank a 5k ahead of an 800 in terms of pain or difficulty" contention is BS.

And this leads to my opinion that, although I am not fast (still working on it as you are), your statement in which you delegated yourself as the judge of who is and isn't a good runner makes you look incredibly naive or like a complete prick. I can't see how I could explain it any more clearly for you, so right now, I am thinking you must be the prick.

Sincerely, - JEH

The question was "What is the hardest running event", not what do you think is the hardest. I'm not going to be the guy who says there is no right answer and we should all just be proud for running. Thats a bunch of crap, I have the balls to step up and say that there IS a right answer. Its not worth arguing about something if you don't even think you are right.

If you want to hold the opinion that all events are equally hard, well good for you, invite me the next time you sing Kumbaya with people of all colors and creeds, it must be a beautiful thing.

I am saying it right here: the 800 is the hardest event and the steeple is a close second. If you don't agree then I think you are wrong. That should be clear cut enough, if I didn't believe those statements to be true I would not say them.

And if you want me to make another concession to you, here it is: its probably true that more than 1% think the 5k is harder, but sometimes people exaggerate for purposes of emphasis. I'm sorry that flew over your head.

I'm not gonna debate the prick part, I've heard it before.

middleman- why do you think the 800 is the hardest event? since you are so adamant I would like to hear the reasoning as to why the 800 is the hardest, meaning most challenging event on the track. If you mean it is the most painful, that is a different story, and is purely subjective, because everyone experiences races differently. Not only do some people find different events more painful than others based on their abilities and makeup, I think you will admit that different races of the same event feel different on any given day for the same person. So, please tell why the 800 is the hardest event, and back it up with something other than "most people say so."

read my earlier posts, i've been on since the start

OK, I believe I am beginning to look like I might be picking on a fool, and maybe I am as I am not feeling so good in our correspondence. I want to encourage you to achieve much, but I am beginning to think that your dense reasoning and already established prick-like nature are starting to overshadow your great talent.

Just because a question is phrased as though there is a definitive answer DOES NOT mean that there is one. Duh. Of course, I can see how one not used to thinking much can easily be led astray. If there is a definite answer, then why isn't it advertised as such at all track meets? "And now what you've all been waiting for... the 800.. the hardest running event of them all"... Yeah.

Again, if you look back, this thread looked like a circle of kumbaya singing until I said what I think are the hardest events, so what's this nonesense about me having no opinion and just wanting us all to get along. I can assure you that this analysis is wrong... again... but, hey, you're on a roll!

I understand exageration to make a point. Make a note to self... when exagerating, one typically does not start off with "there is no chance in hell that...". Why? Because it implies that the speaker/writer actually believes the following statement to be literally true.

Lastly, the 5000 is harder because when you are in debt at 2000 meters, you still have 7.5 of agonizing pain to work through. Or, in the 10, when you're really going for it, you feel it pretty good at 3.5miles... only 11 laps to go!

In an 800, you don't even feel anything until you have less than 1min to go. Nothing! If you can't handle a little discomfort for 60sec than you must be some kind of wuss.

JEH, that 60 sec pain is worst than the 7.5 laps worth of pain, that's what all the 800 meter being the hardest avocates are trying to say.

Yeah, I got it Roc (see my above post where I said that all the races are hard in different ways). Everybody has to draw their line in determining, and you're welcome to believe what you will. But to me... not so. I know I can make it another 60sec (heck yeah, it does hurt). Also, the next day after an 800... can't hardly tell you've raced.

you are saying its because the 800 pain is worse than the 5K/10K pain. to me hardest doesnt mean most painful, but anyway, I agree with JEH, the drawn out pain of the 5K is worse than the 800. its easy to fight throught the pain of the 800 for 40 seconds, I don't think it starts to hurt until 300 to go.

If you don't think there is a definitive answer, fine. But I am entirely convinced that there is, and I am choosing to stand behind my convictions.

Let me explain something to you about the 800 in case you are not aware of how most of the top guys run it. Under no circumstances should you ever be running negative splits, something that occurs all the time in longer events. If I am trying to run a 1:48 I go out in a 52 and try to come back in a 56. 52 is a damn sight closer to my 400 pr than if I go out in a 5k in 4:55, and then come back with 4:45's. I ain't even breathing after a 4:55, we start cross races like that all the time. So try running your next 5k this way, if your mile pr (I have no idea what it is so this is hypothetical) is 4:30, then go out in a 4:35 and see what happens. Believe me it won't be pleasant. I can't argue science with you because I don't believe in it or even know much about it, Daniels works for some people, but I could not care any less about what he has to say.

Obviously a 5k hurts for a longer period of time, but the mental strength it takes to push your body way past any normal pain threshold for 45 seconds is unbelievable.

Here is my analogy of the two races: a 5k, or 10k is like receiving a mild shock that gradually increases in intensity until it is fairly painful at the end. Sure its bad, but you know you'll get through.

The 800 is like getting shot.

OK, Middleman. Good luck to you in going 1:46 (maybe sneak under? - that would be sweet) in 2003... and of course this will hurt, but you will push through. Meanwhile, I'll be working primarily on the marathon (and maybe getting in some discomfort by way of 5s and 10s along the way). Cheers!

Well gee golly, it has to be that hurdle race that is just run on that one straight away. Cuz they get up to some pretty darn fast speeds! PLUS, they have to jump over stuff when they do it! I once saw somebody go before the official shot the gun. Yeah, and then the official kicked the poor runner out of the race. Talk about a hard event! All he was trying to do was run his race, but apparently the official didn't think he was going to run well enough? That's probably why he threw his fists in the air? He realized he shouldn't do that race anymore? It was too hard of a running event? Must've been that.

JEH,

Two things:

1) You've been brilliant on this thread.

2) You don't need to say you're not fast even in an attempt to win an argument (and you did win point by point by the way). You ARE fast. A 2:27 marathon is fast. Your other times are fast. I know someone might say fast is relative, but I'm saying BS to that. 2:27 for a marathon is fast. Will you get faster? Most likely. Are you faster than most who post here? Without a doubt. Do you also have superior debating skills? Yep.

Good job JEH. You win. You're well on your way to retaining the Bubba-given MVP if you continue to post great stuff like that.

Before anyone calls me a JEH suck up, I'll nip that in the bud and just say - NOPE! String together some seriously well-though-out points and make a strong case for your position, and I'll think the same of you.

Flagpole Willy - OUT!

Hardest Running EVENT? Amongst them:

Badwater 135 miler from Death Valley to Mt.Whitney in July.

Trans-America or Trans-Australia stage races (60+ days, 45 to 50 miles a day, racing).

A fast road/track 100 km.

A fast road/track 100 miler.

"Don't criticize what you can't understand."

My favorite was the 800. It was the distance I was most competitive in.

Your analogy here is faulty, middleman. Why? Because you're comparing apples and oranges. You're slicing the apple square down the middle but you're breaking the orange into multiple chunks, after peeling it of course. Okay, by that I mean that going out a shade over your 400 pr in the first 400m of an 800 is most definitely not the same as going out a shade above your mile pr in the 5k. 400m is half of 800m. For your analogy to be effective, a mile would have to be half of 5k. For your information, it isn't. 5k is approximately 3.1 miles. So, all I ask is that you re-word your analogy to say, "For your next 5k, try doing the first 1.55 miles within, say, 5 or so seconds of your 1.55 mi pr and see what happens."