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

Probably the 1:59 marathon, it has more value overall. I would also have more range in other events with the marathon, as you stated I would be able to run a really fast half, probably a WR, and I would likely be sub 27 for the 10K. In the 800, sometimes it's not like that, unless you're Sebastian Coe (only sub 1:42 runner to have a sub 3:30)

Would I rather run for under 2 minutes or two hours? Um... 1:40 for an 800 dumb dumb.

iamconfused wrote:

Would I rather run for under 2 minutes or two hours? Um... 1:40 for an 800 dumb dumb.

Some people enjoy running. You may not be one of them. That is OK.

1:40.

It's a more "athletic" endeavour. You would probably stand out in other athletic feats with this ability.

IAAF scoring tables rank 1:59:59 (1348) slightly higher than 1:39.98 (1332), but I personally would pick the sub 1:40 because the 800, unlike the marathon, is a stagnant event with the occasional all-time great like Rudisha appearing. But not including guys like Rudisha or Kipketer, 1:43 nowadays is good enough to win a major championship which was the case 30, 40, years ago.

Hot Girls prefers 800 guys

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.

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.

Why are you so ignorant? You know exactly NOTHING about who's doping and who's not. While I used to be an 800m runner myself, I can tell you that you could gather much more respect and recognition breaking the 2 hour barrier in the marathon than 1:40 in the 800m.

Please stop spreading your ignorance. EVERY elite marathon runner would beat you in a 100m dash, as they all can run it in under 13s.

Peder wrote:

iamconfused wrote:

Would I rather run for under 2 minutes or two hours? Um... 1:40 for an 800 dumb dumb.

Some people enjoy running. You may not be one of them. That is OK.

I enjoy running. But not hard for two hours

I would prefer to be a long distance runner and not middle distance. I thought LR is a forum for distance running.

Peder wrote:

iamconfused wrote:

Would I rather run for under 2 minutes or two hours? Um... 1:40 for an 800 dumb dumb.

Some people enjoy running. You may not be one of them. That is OK.

You’ve become conditioned to enjoy running because you didn’t have the speed to run the shorter distances.

I was 2 mile state champion and ran cross country since I was 9.

Look, if I could run a 1:39.9, definitely taking that over the marathon even if not for the training alone. 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.

steeple morr wrote:

Peder wrote:

Some people enjoy running. You may not be one of them. That is OK.

You’ve become conditioned to enjoy running because you didn’t have the speed to run the shorter distances.

I was 2 mile state champion and ran cross country since I was 9.

Look, if I could run a 1:39.9, definitely taking that over the marathon even if not for the training alone. 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.

A 1:39.9 800 runner is mostly going to run only that distance. A 2:00 marathoner can also run the 5 & 10 on the track, XC and other road race distances including the HM.

The 800 and marathon are almost different sports and I thought LRers are distance runners. Would you prefer to be a .400 hitter in MLB?

The marathon. More people (the general public) know about that then the 800m. Granted, not many people know about either but more would know about the marathon than the 800m. Still pretty insignificant to most people.

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

Nigel_Bikes wrote:

The marathon. More people (the general public) know about that then the 800m. Granted, not many people know about either but more would know about the marathon than the 800m. Still pretty insignificant to most people.

Rather than for money or recognition, shouldn't runners choose the distance they enjoy?

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.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

steeple morr wrote:

You’ve become conditioned to enjoy running because you didn’t have the speed to run the shorter distances.

I was 2 mile state champion and ran cross country since I was 9.

Look, if I could run a 1:39.9, definitely taking that over the marathon even if not for the training alone. 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.

A 1:39.9 800 runner is mostly going to run only that distance. A 2:00 marathoner can also run the 5 & 10 on the track, XC and other road race distances including the HM.

The 800 and marathon are almost different sports and I thought LRers are distance runners. Would you prefer to be a .400 hitter in MLB?

I don’t know what it is about LetsRun, but people consistently make the worst analogies.

Running an 800 is not akin to playing baseball. In fact, I’d bet more there have been more 800s raced than marathons raced by members of this board.

Also, a 1:39 800m runner could possibly run well at the 400 or the 1500.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Nigel_Bikes wrote:

The marathon. More people (the general public) know about that then the 800m. Granted, not many people know about either but more would know about the marathon than the 800m. Still pretty insignificant to most people.

Rather than for money or recognition, shouldn't runners choose the distance they enjoy?

You only enjoy it because you can’t run the 100m. Again, if in HS, you were running 10.4, you think you would’ve still opted to run 3 hour marathons?

steeple morr wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

A 1:39.9 800 runner is mostly going to run only that distance. A 2:00 marathoner can also run the 5 & 10 on the track, XC and other road race distances including the HM.

The 800 and marathon are almost different sports and I thought LRers are distance runners. Would you prefer to be a .400 hitter in MLB?

I don’t know what it is about LetsRun, but people consistently make the worst analogies.

Running an 800 is not akin to playing baseball. In fact, I’d bet more there have been more 800s raced than marathons raced by members of this board.

Also, a 1:39 800m runner could possibly run well at the 400 or the 1500.

I used the MLB analogy as an exaggeration. The 800 and Marathon are almost night and day. The 800 would mean no XC in HS or collegeand no road racing. As a distance runner, I would take the marathon all day long. For a guy with 46 400 speed, choosing the 800 would be a no-brainer.