Which is better? a 2 minute 800m or a 34 minute 10km?

I run a 32:49 and a 2:10, but these are apples and oranges, it just depends on the runner.

ventolin^3 wrote:

theflatenedpancake wrote:what do you guys think? assume this is for a guy who is probably more endurance based but still has done quite a bit of speedwork the last 3 years

if you want "mathematical" equivalents, go here :

https://2008olympictrialsakatommyleonard.shutterfly.com/filecabinet

go to "Ventolin worksheet" :

2'00.04 = 4'02.08 = 8'29.76 = 14'34.50 = 30'05.57

Dunno about calculators and IAAF point scores but assume they'd all significantly point towards 2:00 being far superior to 34min. Use your eyes, look at the average 34min guy and 2:00 guy, what do they tell you? 2min requires athleticism, 34min is ordinary!!!

One of them would make you a top world elite woman. The other would qualify you for the women's D1 NCAA championship and maybe even keep you on the lead lap.

That is to say, there is no debate about it among anyone with even the slightest clue.

one is about 30% over the world record, the other about 20%.

2:02 is far superior all else being equal.

In terms of what is a better performance for a given individual it depends on that person's physiology and training history.

Bad Wigins wrote:

One of them would make you a top world elite woman. The other would qualify you for the women's D1 NCAA championship and maybe even keep you on the lead lap.

That is to say, there is no debate about it among anyone with even the slightest clue.

ding ding ding. We have a winner

155 for 800 and 427 for mile. havent broken 40 for 10k

Interesting thread, since my PRs are exactly 2:00.42 and 34:00. However, they're 15 years removed from each other and can provide perspective.

I ran 2:00.42 as a 17 year old. Basically we pounded quarters three times a week, ran 25-30 mpw (if that) and 10k was a base phase long run. I could only manage 4:18 for 1,500, 17:20 for 5k and couldn't race a proper 10k. 34:00 sounded ludicrous back then.

Stopped training after high school and returned to the sport at age 29. Brought my times down to 34:00 for 10k and ran a 2:34 marathon at age 32. A year later I decided to focus on track for a season, brought my HS 1500 pr down to 4:14 but could only manage a 2;08 800.

I missed out on the years when I could have had both abilities simultaneously (so very poor prs, relatively for the 1500 and 5000, and for the 10k as well, in comparison to the longer distances).

So... 2 flat definitely indicates higher talent/potential.

A 34 minute 10k requires more consistent distance training. 2 flat may be way out of range for older distance type runners, just as 34:00 for 10k may be way out of range for young speedsters who haven't put in the miles.

If you're in the mid-range, in your 20s and mixing up your training, with 2 flat ability you should be able to run considerably faster than 34 minutes for 10k.

which is better? Well, better for whom?

Since we are looking at women's times…2:00 puts you contention to make the Olympic Team...34:00 was only ranked 40th in D1 this year…Thus, 2:00 is much better than 34:00.

A 34 minute 10k is much better than a 2:00 800m and a lot harder.

A runner can easily break 2:00 on less than 30 miles a week. I've done it. When I started running the 880 in college , I had fairly good speed, 49.6 for 440 in high school.

Within, 2 months of training, mostly interval 220's, (20 or so at 35-37), I could break 2:00, after 6 months and more speed work, I ran 1:50.3, which was very fast in 1964. Later ran 1:46.6 in 1968. All races were on cinder tracks. After hitting 1:50, the progression slows down and you can only improve about a second per year.

Starting doing "fun runs" when I was in my 30's , and ran a losing 36:00 and a 34:30 and decided it wasn't easy or fun. I have a lot of respect for anyone who is not a former college runner who can run 6 minute mile pace. Actually anyone who can run 6 minute pace.

If anyone wants the workouts to break 2:00, I still have the original workouts sheets from Ralph Higgins.

John Perry

I have run 3 x 800m in sub-2 in workouts, so I am not that impressed with 2:00.

I have seen HS kids (myself included) slack off all summer and winter, playing basketball and skipping track practice, and then turn it on for a couple months in late spring and suddenly bust out a 1:56.

For an old guy, the 2:00 is impressive, but not in HS or college.

33:xx FTW!!!

What is a Mercier point? Looking at the ratio of the points I would agree with their assessment. But I don't know what they mean.

No doubt a 2:00 min 800m is better than a 34:00 10k for women. 2:00 min 800m is elite, while 34:00 is only a great NCAA time or national class athlete.

I would say 2:00 800m would probably be more difficult for men, but so many HS athletes run that every year. 34:00 10k is also a really soft mark for competitive running, but fewer athletes will ever put in the work and mileage necessary to run a slow distance time. Both marks are not real fast, but since there are more guys running 2 flat as opposed to 34 min I say the 10k time is harder, if for no other reason than fewer people will ever run enough to achieve that time.

I ran 31:00 and 1:59 within a few months of each other.

Hmmm.

My PRs are 1:58 and 33:55 both run in the same track season (probably a few weeks apart in the middle of the season).

I don't consider either of them that good but I think the 34 min 10k was harder. I ran several more 800s that year under 2 but didn't get close on the 10k

Pretty obvious the 2 flat 800 is way better. I'll add another reference point: I ran 32:14 this year, but only have a 2:16 800 pr. The 800 is from a couple years ago in high school, but there's still no way I'm cracking 2:10 today.

I think it is safe to conclude it is far easier for a woman to run 34 minutes for the 10K than to run 2 minutes for the 800. At this point that can not be debated. For men it is debatable. If you are a speed endurance type that hates long runs the idea of running a 34 minute 10K is probably not even desirable. If you are a flat-footed, uncoordinated, 40 year old that has spent years conditioning aerobically maybe you've been lucky enough to squeeze out a 34 minute 10K while training for Boston. However, you stand no chance whatsoever to run a 2 minute 800.

My personal bests are 1:52 and 34:30 and I'd still consider a 2 minute 800 much more difficult and better.

yep. 2:00 takes a blend of speed/power/coordination/endurance. 34:00 takes getting your but out the door everyday for a jog w/an occasional long run and workout sprinkled in.

TheEyesSee wrote:

Use your eyes, look at the average 34min guy and 2:00 guy, what do they tell you? 2min requires athleticism, 34min is ordinary!!!

There are tables that denote equivalencies for different distances. Like comparing a 7 ft high jump vs an 18 ft pole vault.A 2:00 800 m is clearly a better mark than a 34:00 10K. The question is not which is more difficult, it's which is better. Why why why doesn't anybody get that?

Walker Red wrote:

I think it is safe to conclude it is far easier for a woman to run 34 minutes for the 10K than to run 2 minutes for the 800. At this point that can not be debated. For men it is debatable. If you are a speed endurance type that hates long runs the idea of running a 34 minute 10K is probably not even desirable. If you are a flat-footed, uncoordinated, 40 year old that has spent years conditioning aerobically maybe you've been lucky enough to squeeze out a 34 minute 10K while training for Boston. However, you stand no chance whatsoever to run a 2 minute 800.

whatever... wrote:

Let me just add... think about it this way. How many world class women have run 2:00 or faster? Lots, but not hundreds. Now, how many women have run 34:00 or faster? Bzillions... That should put the question in easy perspective for you.

Case closed! The 2:00 requires more "running talent".