What distance am I best at?

I can't say which you are better at but i can say you are terrible at both.

I just need some endurance. My 40 was 4.8

you suck at both....i run a 1000meters and all my 200 splits are 32 and lower...give up running now or learn to become a marathoner

chex mix wrote:

you suck at both....i run a 1000meters and all my 200 splits are 32 and lower...give up running now or learn to become a marathoner

which means you run 1000m in around 2:40..i've run a 2400m time trial averaging under 2:40 per 1000m, maybe it is you who needs to give up.

chex mix wrote:

you suck at both....i run a 1000meters and all my 200 splits are 32 and lower...give up running now or learn to become a marathoner

So you're in the range of 2:35-2:40? You can't smack talk my friend, I'm sorry.

I'm surprised no one has pointed out to this person the obsurity that the 40 dash is.

Those times are so scewed its ridiculous. I'm a high school track coach and I get guys coming from football that have ~4.3 40s times from their coaches and I put them in a time trial at the beginning of the season and find I'm working with a 12.9 100 meter guy.

And to the OP, I'm sorry but the 100 meters has nothing to do with endurance.

With a time like 16 seconds for the 100, with 0 knowledge besides that I'd guess you need to lose 15-20 pounds, work on some strength drills and flexibility.

i can talk smack to a person who runs a 16 second 100m any time i want to. 16 is just god awful, let alone a 33. if they ran a 12.5 and a 24.5 then i'd keep my mouth shut, but please people 16 and 33, my 7 year old brother could do that

40s are whack wrote:

I'm surprised no one has pointed out to this person the obsurity that the 40 dash is.

Those times are so scewed its ridiculous. I'm a high school track coach and I get guys coming from football that have ~4.3 40s times from their coaches and I put them in a time trial at the beginning of the season and find I'm working with a 12.9 100 meter guy.

And to the OP, I'm sorry but the 100 meters has nothing to do with endurance.

With a time like 16 seconds for the 100, with 0 knowledge besides that I'd guess you need to lose 15-20 pounds, work on some strength drills and flexibility.

I think it has a lot to do with endurance. I did a 400 after the 100 and 200 and it was 89. I was dying at the end, head spinning, things like that.

My 40 shows I have the speed and my 400 shows I don't have the endurance. All I need is to work on endurance.

40s are whack wrote:

I'm surprised no one has pointed out to this person the obsurity that the 40 dash is.

Those times are so scewed its ridiculous. I'm a high school track coach and I get guys coming from football that have ~4.3 40s times from their coaches and I put them in a time trial at the beginning of the season and find I'm working with a 12.9 100 meter guy.

And to the OP, I'm sorry but the 100 meters has nothing to do with endurance.

With a time like 16 seconds for the 100, with 0 knowledge besides that I'd guess you need to lose 15-20 pounds, work on some strength drills and flexibility.

How much would losing those extra pounds help? A couple of seconds in the 100?

89 is just about 6 min mile pace....thats all im gonna say...6 min mile pace...and a 400m isnt about endurance...it's called the 400m DASH

Guys this is one of the most obvious troll threads I've ever seen. I can't believe no one's called him out.

cmurph wrote:

Guys this is one of the most obvious troll threads I've ever seen. I can't believe no one's called him out.

Ding! Ding!

I usually don't call out trolls, but this is an obvious one guys. He runs the 40 in 4.8, but only runs the 100 in 16.xx. If he "hits the wall" during a 100, how is it that he can run a 200 a few minutes later in 33.xx?

chex mix wrote:

i can talk smack to a person who runs a 16 second 100m any time i want to. 16 is just god awful, let alone a 33. if they ran a 12.5 and a 24.5 then i'd keep my mouth shut, but please people 16 and 33, my 7 year old brother could do that

and my 5 month old puppy can run a 1000m in 2:40. seriously dude, no one wants to hear a 4:40 miler talking smack.

chex mix wrote:

... my 7 year old brother could do that

No! He couldn't. That would be a very good time for a 7 year old. If he has your talent, I'd give him two to three more years before he could hit those times. Nice try though!