There was sand on the course.
59.7 was run indoors on MARBLE track with a few weeks of sprint training. 19:58 about 1.months of all ever distance running
There was sand on the course.
59.7 was run indoors on MARBLE track with a few weeks of sprint training. 19:58 about 1.months of all ever distance running
59s
Who cares, they're both crap
He/she asked which was better, not whether it was better than others, you illerate $hithead.
Illiterate*.
Dang, now I look as stupid as you, Miss SorryToSay.
Ughggf wrote:
He/she asked which was better, not whether it was better than others, you illerate $hithead.
I know what was asked. They're both equally crap times. You don't get extra credit for having "little training."
SorryToSay wrote:
Who cares, they're both crap
They are not crap. Run 8 of the 59s and you are in world record territory.
Full disclosure:....
I ran 23.46/51.34 ten years ago and was trying to figure out which of my first sprint and distance times meant for me now in 2019.
Those times were run as a 14 and 15 year old.
59 by a huge margin!
At 19 when I first started running sprints, I could run a 52 second 400 with no sprint training background and I had been sedentary for over 1 year since high school ended. In cross country I could barley break 20 with dedicated training. A 59 second 400 is very unimpressive. For me a 20 minute 5 k is much better, especially if it's in XC
The 59 is more impressive.
Last year I witnessed six of my students (13-14 years old) break 20 in a 5k with no training. These were two girls who played field hockey, two basketball players, and two just random kids who did not sports.
I think one of the basketball guys could maybe break 60, but no way the other ones could.
Runner1218 wrote:
There was sand on the course.
59.7 was run indoors on MARBLE track with a few weeks of sprint training. 19:58 about 1.months of all ever distance running
Most will probably argue the 400. In general, the 400 is a stronger mark. However,
If you are a high school athlete, I would argue that the xc time is superior. When I was in high school, a 19 min 5k would put you towards the front-ish of the JV race. On a tough course, perhaps even top 15 and a medal. However, the 60s 400 would land you dead last in just about every track meet, even on JV/freshman.
Keep working at it, you have talent-decent speed and reasonable endurance. In a year you should be able to run 17:xx and 54.
Overall the 59, however you'll find a lot of 59-capable runners can't run sub 20. A lot of what gets you to sub 60 is counterproductive over long distance.
Heres some side by side PRs over HS maybe this helps
30:36 72
19:27 63
17:47 57
16:08 52 (No track season yet, ran this in a solo time trial)
These 400s are all either relay or workout splits as I'm not a 400m runner. I'd say 20:00 and 60 are the same as about half of my team can go under 20:00 and half can go under 60
That being said, I found it quite a bit harder to shave off time once I hit 58, and it doesn't really get hard (for me at least) to shave time in the 5K until about the 18:00 minute mark.