Which of these records are the easiest and hardest ones to beat?

1500m hands down,.

Ha great wager and I like your other mate’s chances given the information. My first instinct was the shorter stuff if his athletic background is more suited to sprinting/explosiveness.

prop bet wrote:

To collect his cash, he has to beat one of the men's masters 65 year old records, which are:

100 - 12.31

200 - 24.65

400 - 56.09

800 - 2:14.3

1500 - 4:39.8

A 2:14 800 is crap. The 200 time, OTOH, is actually quite hard to hit. I know some sub 2 800 guys who couldn't do that.

After the 200, the 100 is the next hardest, followed closely by the 400. The 1500 is substantially easier than any of the sprints but is still harder than the 800.

If he's explosive my gut says the 400 will be the easiest. sub 25 is too quick.

56 should be doable for someone with some natural speed.

People underestimate how hard it is to run back to back 67's if you're middle age and have done no endurance training at all. let alone a ~5:02 mile.

Harambe wrote:

If he's explosive my gut says the 400 will be the easiest. sub 25 is too quick.

56 should be doable for someone with some natural speed.

People underestimate how hard it is to run back to back 67's if you're middle age and have done no endurance training at all. let alone a ~5:02 mile.

Yeah, his best 40 yard dash in HS was either 4.7 or 4.8. But it's hard to tell what that means since football coaches aren't known for being accurate in their timing. They usually don't start their stopwatches until after the player starts running, and they hit the stop button as soon as a finger, toe, or any part of the player's body is over the finish line.

I don't think I'd consider low 30s to be middle aged, though.

Depends on how naturally talented of a sprinter he is, but a half decent highschool sprinter will be able to beat all 3 of those sprint times first meet of the season.

I’d say the 800 is the hardest, then the 1500, then the sprints. The 1500 and 800 aren’t necessarily much better times, but they take longer/more training to achieve.

ranker wrote:

prop bet wrote:

To collect his cash, he has to beat one of the men's masters 65 year old records, which are:

100 - 12.31

200 - 24.65

400 - 56.09

800 - 2:14.3

1500 - 4:39.8

A 2:14 800 is crap. The 200 time, OTOH, is actually quite hard to hit. I know some sub 2 800 guys who couldn't do that.

After the 200, the 100 is the next hardest, followed closely by the 400. The 1500 is substantially easier than any of the sprints but is still harder than the 800.

You gotta remember the demographic here. 2:14 is crap for people like me and you, with a load of miles and intervals under our belts, but 2:14 is a borderline unachievable time for a middle aged guy that has never trained for distance running. Same with a 4:39 1500. That about translates to a sub 5:00 mile, and despite what letsrun likes to say, most high schoolers don’t run that with 3 years of training.

What exactly is the timeframe "by this summer"?

Beginning or End wrote:

What exactly is the timeframe "by this summer"?

August 31. Summer technically ends in mid-September, but he thinks he can get it done by early July. In any case, there are no local track meets in September, and he needs an electronic time if he wants to attempt one of the sprints.

For someone with that background I would say the 100 is the most achievable.

prop bet wrote:

100 - 12.31

200 - 24.65

400 - 56.09

800 - 2:14.3

1500 - 4:39.8

which record is his best shot

If you're in 24.6" 200 shape, you can run a 56 flat on your first or second attempt.

If you can do a 56.1 400 and a 4:39 1500, you'd be in sub 2:14 shape as well.

So that narrows it down to the 100, 400, and 800. I doubt a fast twitch guy can run a better 800 than 400, but training for a short sprint when you're almost middle-aged and haven't seriously sprinted since HS is asking for injury.

That leaves the 400. I'd say that his chances are better than 50-50, but not a lot better.

covid superspreader wrote:

1500m hands down,.

ranker wrote:

A 2:14 800 is crap.

The 1500 is substantially easier than any of the sprints but is still harder than the 800.

Harambe wrote:

If he's explosive my gut says the 400 will be the easiest.

highhoppingworm wrote:

For someone with that background I would say the 100 is the most achievable.

Interesting. There's at least one vote for each of the events, except for the 200.

100 - 12.31 = 28.5% slower than WR, 541 IAAF points (men), 931 IAAF points (women)

200 - 24.65 = 28.5% slower than WR, 598 IAAF points (men), 974 IAAF points (women)

400 - 56.09 = 30.4% slower than WR, 536 IAAF points (men), 973 IAAF points (women)

800 - 2:14.3 = 33.1% slower than WR, 450 IAAF points (men), 920 IAAF points (women)

1500 - 4:39.8 = 35.8% slower than WR, 450 IAAF points (men), 907 IAAF points (women)

So the 200 is definitely the hardest.

For a random 20 year old guy, the 1500 looks to be the easiest, followed closely by the 800. Next on the list would be the 400 and then the 100.

But for the OP's buddy, I think the 100 would be the easiest.

If he's not a sprinter the 2:14 800 would be easiest.

Is anyone "explosive" at the age of 65 without destroying an achilles or hamstring 10M into the race. For me, explosive was the first thing to go away

Naperville Runner wrote:

Is anyone "explosive" at the age of 65 without destroying an achilles or hamstring 10M into the race. For me, explosive was the first thing to go away

The weird thing is that the M65 100 & 200 times are only 28-29% slower than the open 100/200 WRs, while the M65 800 and 1500 times are 33-36% slower than the open 800/1500 WRs.

TBH, if he said "he could outrun anyone twice his age by this summer if he wanted to", shouldn't he be able to beat ALL of those times? Or at least your other friend is the one who should be picking the event (and if I were him I would surely choose the marathon, if that's unfair for the bet the longest acceptable distance, probably 10k).

Otherwise I would not consider that he has done what he said, outrunning ANYONE twice his age would be being able to outrun the best in all the events.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

If he's not a sprinter the 2:14 800 would be easiest.

Agreed. 2:14 doesn’t really require exceptional speed or endurance.

Firstly, I think he won’t do it. If he’s naturally fast, the 100m is probably his bet as far training because he can focus on improving his strengths.

Anything beyond that will require talent and probably some weight / power ratio that he does not have with his current build.

Probably the 100, for him

┴ɥǝ ∩upǝɹƃɹonup