- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 581
- Reaction score
- 0
and now?? worse or better?
I haven't been able to run a decent time in quite a while. Getting back to there hopefully.
and now?? worse or better?
To the OP, I either call work or you never ran the 800 or mile.
Someone who runs a 400 in 49 seconds will not say they ran 49, they will just come out an say something like 49.34 because they ran it in a meet with accutrack timing.
Also, if you were in shape to run a 49 second 400, you could have jogged an 800at least around 2:05 at the slowest. A comparable 800 time to a 49 second 400 is about 1:48 - 1:54 depending on how many miles you run per week.
good observation. a 2:36 800m means you're only doing a 1:18 400m, which is 29 SECONDS slower than your best 400. just picture that 800 on a track- first lap 53 seconds, maybe 55 at the slowest...then your next lap takes 1:41!!! yeah right. definite work on at least one of his times...given that, he's probably a straight bullshit artist.
No Whitebelts
someone else post rules
400 - 49 seconds
800 - 2:36
1 Mile - 5:55
lol i think ur full of shit dude i find it hard to believe your like 4 seconds slower than the world record
No Whitebelts
someone else post rules
400 - 49 seconds
800 - 2:36
1 Mile - 5:55
lol i think ur full of shit dude i find it hard to believe your like 4 seconds slower than the world record
No Whitebelts
someone else post rules
400 - 49 seconds
800 - 2:36
1 Mile - 5:55
wow that a fast 400. thats a really good college track time. You should try competing in track meets in this race.
is that really that impressive for a 400? i can beat that i'm almost positive i have to try this out. p.s. my mile time was 4:24 and i know my first two 400's were below 55 easily.
edit: i didn't realize it was records i thought right now. my 1 mile record is 4:08 in the army that was a record at ft. knox at the time i'm not sure now.
wow that a fast 400. thats a really good college track time. You should try competing in track meets in this race.