It's the most painful, and the hardest one to get right.
Discuss.
It's the most painful, and the hardest one to get right.
Discuss.
0/10
Discuss that.
but probably the easiest to race. Just go near all out, and by the time you're tired at 350-400m you are within kicking distance.
trollmeter says wrote:
0/10
Discuss that.
I have to admit, that one made me laugh. Hard. But seriously though, I'm not being a Troll. I feel strongly about this.
hey trollmeter! You're a turd bag. Write something else for a change.
thechamelion wrote:
but probably the easiest to race. Just go near all out, and by the time you're tired at 350-400m you are within kicking distance.
But this is so hard though. Can you really "kick" off this? 600m is not really a sprint, and not a middle distance. It's unique. It's a Monster. The distance from Hell.
which one are you, the original good Skug or the new bad one that stole his name?
Skuj,
would you say that the 600m is 85% anaerobic, 15% aerobic, or more like 90%/10%, 95%/5%?
Hi. Darren SkujaPosting at letsrun as Skuj since 2004www.cvrr.ca
Evil Skug wrote:
which one are you, the original good Skug or the new bad one that stole his name?
who wins in a 600m, Webb or Wariner?
irun wrote:
Skuj,
would you say that the 600m is 85% anaerobic, 15% aerobic, or more like 90%/10%, 95%/5%?
Mmmm....
Describing distances that way has always been a problem for me. Some say "20% anaerobic / 80% aerobic, therefor your training must reflect this...." But, there are so many variables, and the lines are so fuzzy, and what is it AT 100m, 500m, etc??? So, I don't really know. Even the best 400m guys need some aerobic base, eh?
obviously you've never run an 800m ...
yeah i always thought the hardest distance to race were 800m and 400m, but with 800m, you can rely on aerobic endurance for about 400m, however with the 400m race it's mainly a long sprint, but it still burns a lot more than a 100m or 200m...i could see how 600m race would be harder than an 800m race, but not by much
hansel wrote:
obviously you've never run an 800m ...
Oh yeas I have! :) Like, 200 of them.
hansel wrote:
obviously you've never run an 800m ...
...or a 400 m hurdle race. I'd rank both ahead of the 600 in terms of difficulty and challenges.
Skuj, have you ever run a 600? It's not so bad. Really.
The 600 is not so hard to get right. It conveniently breaks into laps that are 1/3 of the entire race. Go out hard, float the middle lap, and drive for home. What's the big deal?
Painful? Sure it is. But no more so (and possibly less) than some other races.
Your overreacting again.
i would actually say the 1000 is harder, especially if you are trying to run a fast time.
skuj, what exactly was your time for the 600?? i run about 125
Well, back when Reagan was Prez, I did 54.8 400m, 1:58.8 800m, and an indoor 1:28/29 600m...
I agree that 400m-1000m is the superbitch range. I don't agree that 600m = "cruise the middle lap". No way.
600 meters is a woman's race. Now, 600 YARDS, that was a man's race.