600m Is The Bastard Bitch Of All The Distances.

I would say that from 400m upwards(for myself that is...) that trying to compare the painfulness of a race distance is like comparing apples to oranges. I can remember some pain-staking 400's in my life and I can remember some killer 5K's as well but its two different feelings. In the 400m I feel as though I'm turning into stone with every step from 250 meters to the finish line. In the 5K I feel as though I can go faster if I want to but the faster I go the more and more it hurts but its a different type of hurt, inexplicable and the only way to know is to run a 5K all out...but I would not rank one above the other....let alone a 600m

I always thought people were foolish for saying 400 or 800, because they end. and with them the pain. In the 5k you start hurting at a mile and a half. You run close to a 2mile PR and still have over a mile to go. If you're doing it right it hurts a long time.

I always found 3000m the hardest. I found the pace and longer concentration much more noticeable that shorter and longer distances.

158 converts to about a low 127.

you probably could have broke 127 if you had trained for it.

Yeah. My last indoor 600m was during Reagan's first term. Then I moved to the west coast. We don't need indoor tracks there. I often did hard 600s before 800m races though.

I agree with the poster who mentioned cruising the 2nd lap. This is pretty standard strategy among most of the good coaches I know. It's similar to a 400 where you float the first straight. It's the best strategy. But I certainly disagree with the idea that the 600 is the hardest race. HA! You don't know what you're talking about. Try getting out and running some races before you start spouting off about tough races. You'll learn pretty quick.

Ralphy wrote:

I agree with the poster who mentioned cruising the 2nd lap. This is pretty standard strategy among most of the good coaches I know. It's similar to a 400 where you float the first straight. It's the best strategy. But I certainly disagree with the idea that the 600 is the hardest race. HA! You don't know what you're talking about. Try getting out and running some races before you start spouting off about tough races. You'll learn pretty quick.

O..O

XXXX

Damn! I never thought about that. You know, I think I will try and do some running / racing. What's it like?

Skuj wrote:

O..O

XXXX

Damn! I never thought about that. You know, I think I will try and do some running / racing. What's it like?

potd

Skuj wrote:

Ralphy wrote:

I agree with the poster who mentioned cruising the 2nd lap. This is pretty standard strategy among most of the good coaches I know. It's similar to a 400 where you float the first straight. It's the best strategy. But I certainly disagree with the idea that the 600 is the hardest race. HA! You don't know what you're talking about. Try getting out and running some races before you start spouting off about tough races. You'll learn pretty quick.

O..O

XXXX

Damn! I never thought about that. You know, I think I will try and do some running / racing. What's it like?

Well it would probably be a good idea before you start posting stuff about running on here. Most of the posters on here can help you with that. I have run a lot including a lot of 600s and I can tell you did not know what you were talking about. There are many smart runners on this board who can see right through your post, so be careful or they will know you are dumb about running.

Ralphy wrote: Well it would probably be a good idea before you start posting stuff about running on here. Most of the posters on here can help you with that.

:-)

Yeah Skuj, go away and race a little before you come back here and start any more running discussions.

Good grief.

I'm starting TODAY!!! Help me, LetsRun.

I challenge anyone to find better races than Martin McGrady vs. Lee Evans over 600 yards. Fast and tough.

Actually your still working the same energy system. A little bit of pacing with good training and you should be able to sprint most of the way.

The 800, on the other hand, forces you uses up all your stored energy and utilize your aerobic system to a much higher degree.

Here is a clue wrote:

Actually your still working the same energy system. A little bit of pacing with good training and you should be able to sprint most of the way.

The 800, on the other hand, forces you uses up all your stored energy and utilize your aerobic system to a much higher degree.

Similar, but not the same. ??? I say it is "almost" a sprint, but not quite, which is why it is so hard. (In fact, I don't think the 400m is a "pure sprint", but I digress....) In the 800m, you might have the luxury of doing 400m PR + 4sec on lap 1. What about in the 600m?? I think it is so close to being "a treally long sprint", much closer than 800m. Discuss, using at least 2 sides of the paper.

ran 16x600m with 200m jog the tuesday after stanford invite last year.... way hard!

Agreed, repeat 600 s can be a very tough workout...especially with reduced rest. But it is not even in the top 5 of toughest races to pull off. Anyone wha has raced should know that!

Does anyone think Wariner could go sub 60 in a 600? I think he could because he doesn't reach full speed until the 380 meter point, and he could just put it in cruise control from 380 to 600.

Grand Haven wrote:

Does anyone think Wariner could go sub 60 in a 600? I think he could because he doesn't reach full speed until the 380 meter point, and he could just put it in cruise control from 380 to 600.

You mean sub 75? :)

600 yards is a fun race to run. It's hard, but I don't think it's any harder than an 800, really. Shame, though, that my 600 yds time is comparatively way better than my 800m PR.