Would You Rather Break 1:40 for 800m OR 2:00 for Marathon?

I would prefer sub 2:00 marathon. The training and the journey to get there is longer. Nothing like basking in the spot light for almost two hours with the true running loyalists watching. I'm humble but that's some well deserved bragging rights.

kore wrote:

From a financial and marketable perspective, I would think a sub-2 marathoner would earn way more money throughout their career and be more marketable to sponsors.

I don’t know about this. But I will say, it’s hard to determine because the USA hasn’t had best-in-the-world marathon guy in ages. Maybe if we did, it would come with additional notoriety.

But generally speaking, top sprinters are more popular and make more money. Almost everyone knew of Michael Johnson, Marion Jones, and Usain Bolt — and before that Carl Lewis. These people are still household names today. Hardly anyone knows Kipchoge or even Bekele. Admittedly, part of that, is that’s it hard to pronounce / remember their names. If Eliud’s name was John Bryant he would probably be more known.

During the Olympics, the average fan was very excited to see Sydney & Athing but zero people I know even watched the marathon.

The marathon is still niche to casual track fans even though it’s very popular activity to participate in. Meaning, your average Joe/Joan would very likely enter into a marathon for fun, but pay no attention to who won the race. While they would never enter into a 400m for fun, but would watch it on TV.

Sub 1:40 800 is the Holy Grail. Because of the new shoes a sub 2 marathon does not count in my mind.

Adam Nelson said about a decade ago that the three most lucrative events in T&F were 100m, 1500m/mile and marathon. That's probably still true today.

I would personally choose the sub 2 marathon.

The training specifics and general locations (not track focused), the general temperament and mindset, the transferability of that type of long distance endurance to other things I like to do, the general lifestyle, etc. are all more appealing to me.

Although not that important to me, I believe the wealth and fame for either would be comparable, with probably a slight edge to the sub 2 marathoner.

I agree that the way things are going, the sub 1:40 is likely to stand as a record longer than the sub 2.

For my body, I know that the training required to maintain the sub 2 fitness level would be more sustainable than that required for the sub 140.

I would rather be the first person under 40 for the 400

25min 10k.

Marathon has more meaning to me so I'll pick that. Anything under 3 miles I don't get the same enjoyment.

Reina de Corazones wrote:

Hot Girls prefers 800 guys

Unless you are a long distance runner named Rupp, Solinsky or Johnson ;)

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

stan the corgi wrote:

Break the 1:40 in the 800. You can race more frequently and make more $$$.

There are bigger prize money and appearance fee in marathon, and the sponsors will probably pay you more.

For companies that want to sell shoes to hobby joggers, a marathon runner is more valuable.

Hands down the Marathon would be the better choice.

Done at the right race = big money (prize money and bonuses) + Endorsements

one race and your set. You could retire.

A white guy doing either would make him a billionaire.

The 800. No question. In life, i.e., beyond professional running, being able to run for longer than other people at a pace any healthy non-elderly male can run for at least a little while isn't that useful. Somebody who can run a 1:39 800 (or for that matter even a 1:49 800) could successfully chase down or get away from almost every human on earth.

steeple morr wrote:

Let’s not act like you would prefer running 25 miles on a cold, snowy day in January to going to an indoor track to run 6 x 300.

Ha! Let's fix that dichotomy. People rarely run 25 mile runs, let alone in terrible weather.

More like 2 hours on beautiful snowy trails, you can run that right from your backyard and have the rest of your day for other stuff you like. VS driving for hour or more in traffic to a crowded indoor track which smells like sweat and dust and hardly has enough air to prevent suffocation, running your 6x300, puking in a waste bucket, driving back home and thus wasting half the day. As an alternative, you can get up at 4 am to beat the traffic and get to the indoor track before it's crowded, but that kind of also sucks.

Srsly unless you have your personal indoor track right next to where you live, I don't know how can it be reasonable to chose it over running outdoors. If the weather is too terrible you can at least try and reschedule your long run. But the smell inside indoor track and the process of getting to it are going to be terrible 365 days of the year.

A potential sub-2:00 marathoner or 1:40 800 guy can live anywhere he wants. I would probably choose Portland, OR over Chicago.

Coevett wrote:

The sub 1:40, because that's possible clean, whereas it's likely nobody has broken 2 hours 5 minutes for the marathon clean, even with super shoes.

Plus the 800m is far more competitive with a richer history and more indicative of being a true athlete rather than a famished stick figure filled with EPO and without a single fast twitch muscle fiber in his entire body.

This question is down to opinion of course, but the marathon is still the right answer. Way more respected event, look at the general popularity of Kipchoge Vs Rudisha. This is coming from an 800m runner.

And it is far, far more lucrative. Prize money in the marathon is huge, 10x any track event.

ex-runner wrote:

Coevett wrote:

The sub 1:40, because that's possible clean, whereas it's likely nobody has broken 2 hours 5 minutes for the marathon clean, even with super shoes.

Plus the 800m is far more competitive with a richer history and more indicative of being a true athlete rather than a famished stick figure filled with EPO and without a single fast twitch muscle fiber in his entire body.

This question is down to opinion of course, but the marathon is still the right answer. Way more respected event, look at the general popularity of Kipchoge Vs Rudisha. This is coming from an 800m runner.

And it is far, far more lucrative. Prize money in the marathon is huge, 10x any track event.

And of course Coevett’s claim regarding sub 1:40 being possible clean and his general sense that marathoners are more likely to use PEDs than 800m runners is his uneducated opinion.

800m and run it like Borzakovskiy. Come from behind every race. You would be a phenom. Every race would be super exciting. You would be bigger than Bolt.

Except every serious 2:03 marathoner spends months away from their family doing altitude training.

In my 30 years of running, I’ve never lived more than a 3 mile jog from the track. Rarely trained indoors even in cold. Don’t think I’ve thrown up from a workout.

We obviously see it differently, but I can’t see ANY argument that would say running 120-150 miles per week year round is better than 800m training.

Kipchoge vs Rudisha is a good comparison, but there's something a bit unique about the circumstances of Kipchoge's fame. For example the artificial sub 2 hour attempt and the hype by Nike to sell their revolutionary new carbon plated shoes.

For a time, Rudisha was pretty famous as far as track athletes go, especially in the UK.

There's also the fact that the first guy to run under 1:40 will likely be an American or British white, black or mixed race athlete, and hence marketable on another level. Kenyans just don't have the raw speed and power and have likely reached their limit with Rudisha/Kipketer already.

Rudisha was the new Kipketer and he improved the WR by a fraction. We're still waiting for the new Coe, but the signs are good that he will emerge soon (if he hasn't already with Burgin or Dustin), and he'll likely run sub 1:40.

The fact that a white Indian guy and a mixed race Brazillian both ran 1:41.7 forty years ago suggests that sub 1:40 is possible today.