The standard stopwatch is better than a gps watch. Change my mind.

You don't have to look at your watch all the time, or at all. It's good for recording. You don't have to look at the daya either of you choose not to know, but it's there at least if you have a modern running watch.

The world records have more to do with lax standards in PED testing. Look at the scientific approach the Ingebrigstens use and how successful that has been for them. Collecting training data could be a negative but only if you are unable to interpret it properly. Feeling out your training can work but only if you are a very talented runner or have a very talented coach. In general, the more measurements we can take in regards to our performance will only improve our ability to train efficiently.

I mean, you can't feel when you're going lactic? They do a lot on the track, which can be measured via time. The treadmill is the treadmill, and then the blood testing is a whole other thing I am not getting into on this thread because most of us aren't on the professional level to be measuring that closely. I'm not saying it doesn't help, but I do think the GPS hinders us in a way.

I still rock the Timex Ironman for all my running workouts. I actually take off my Apple watch for my runs because it is so much easier to get splits on my Timex, I suppose I could wear both but whooooooo does that

I'm a 37 year old runner and still love my stopwatch. I just got my first Garmin for Christmas this year and hardly use it. I know all the mile markers if need be and if I do a track workout a stopwatch is all I need. For easy days I run by time (45 min run etc). When I do use the Garmin it's nice for tracking a tempo (going out too slow or fast). However I find it takes awhile to sync and I have to constantly sync it on my computer for it to update. My top athletes use them and seem to be slaves to the gps tracking. Waiting for it to sync, or complaining it's off. One said he couldn't run outside because all his watches were dead so he had to run on the treadmill. I thought you can't just run a 4 mile loop...no he needed to record his pace.

You talk like Stephen Scullion :)

Recording data is only unpleasant for people who don't like numbers ...

Personally I like the Timex Expedition better because it has a Velcro band that doesn't break like the plastic bands do.

Image:media.gettyimages.com/id/1209504640/sv...

no watch, just 2 huge balls

I like my Garmin for everyday stuff like at work and hiking with my kids. I will usually do a turn around according to distance. but I’ve been running for so long I can do most stuff by feel and have routes everywhere where I know the exact distances

Shoes and yard signs.

I've said it before, but I still use the same tech I used in the late 90s for running. Ironman watch. Works fine for me.

But Ingebrigtsen's measure blood lactate as a measure of effort put into training, so if you are tuned in to your own effort you only need the watch.

So you can go run at X.X mmol/l without any feedback? Prove it :)

Agree, I use an ironman still. Just don't need all that data. I have a Garmin golf watch (S42) and I love that data. Tells me how far I have AND keeps track of how far each shot WENT.

Running data, I just don't need. I run by feel and time. If I want to test myself, I have plenty of routes that I know the distance of.

Yawn. Post something new and interesting next time.

As usual with almost all "debates" your claim is not based on either a shared definition nor on shared values.

1) you didn't define "better" because you didn't say better at what.

2) you didn't tell us what you want from a watch.

You are not "wrong" about a stopwatch vs. a gps watch. You just aren't right either because you never defined the perimeters of the debate.

A normal Timex Ironman "stopwatch" style running watch is better in the following ways: costs less, lighter, doesn't need to be charged, battery lasts for years, screen is simple to use and navigate, doesn't need to "link up" to anything, can easily be used while running, and can track 30 splits without ever getting out of synch.

But I use a GPS watch for 98% of my runs because I value tracking my mileage.

It is question of what I value, thus there is no "one right answer."

I would agree with you up to a point, but there's still a part of my brain that knows the distance and pace is being recorded and so I instinctively speed up a little if I feel I'm lagging.

I would even say that I'm someone who runs his easy runs very easy (much slower than I see others of similar ability), and yet I still find myself looking down at the watch and not wanting to go "too slow" (even though it doesn't matter at all).

The beauty of a standard stopwatch is that you will never know the exact distance or pace you are running, so there's never any nagging sensation to speed up.

You value tracking mileage? Bust out On The Go Map if you don't know the route and a few clicks or taps later, boom. You know roughly how far you went. In the words of Malmo and The Karate Kid. "I'm trying to make you feel Kung Fu, 'not think' it"

There is one right answer. Does it make you happy? Then is a good watch. There you go, solved your debate for you.