Could you be an elite distance runner with terrible top end speed?

Well, sure, but if we give EVERYONE a running start and time them for 100m, everyone's times come down ... Usain goes WELL under 9.0, for example. So what's "fast" is simply relative.

What we do know from watching Komen race, repeatedly, is that when it came to a fast finish, he lost virtually every time. He didn't have great top end speed .. whether it be from blocks or not. Mo, on the other hand, seems to have better top end speed than most of his competitors .... most of whom are likely significantly faster than Komen ever was.

In referencing the title of the thread "Could you be an elite distance runner with terrible top end speed?"... what do you think Wilson Kipsang, world record holder in the marathon, runs for a 100m? I'd suggest he does NOT have good top end speed. And there are "elites" way slower than him.

I don't know what the top end speed of any distance runner. All I am saying is a times 100m does not give an insight into a distance runners top end speed. Distance runners are not explosive. Say someone has the same top speed as bolt but lacks explosiveness and acceleration. Bolt runs 9.58 but the guy who has the same top speed might only run 9.85 because he cannot accelerate as quickly as bolt.

The 100m is all about accelaration and top speed. Not just top speed itself. This is why a 100 or 200 is not a good indicator for distance runners.

a bit off topic, but what the hell do you do in training to make a guy with not outstanding but decent top end speed be able to hold it for 1500/3K/5K/10K?

besides the obvious "do intervals at those paces", what else? specific drills or strengthening (bounding)? hill repeats of a specific duration or intensity? circuits?

i ask as a person with mediocre but not terrible speed (12/25 for flying 100/200) and decent endurance (31/1:08 10K/HM), but i feel like i've never been able to put that speed to use in the mid-distances...there is something specifically about the "gears" or pace of mid-D races that feels so uncomfortable for extended periods. my mid-D times are crap.

so i'm guessing i'm asking "how do you specifically develop speed endurance in the OPs hypothetical slow guy?"

how to extend the speed??? wrote:

a bit off topic, but what the hell do you do in training to make a guy with not outstanding but decent top end speed be able to hold it for 1500/3K/5K/10K?

besides the obvious "do intervals at those paces", what else? specific drills or strengthening (bounding)? hill repeats of a specific duration or intensity? circuits?

i ask as a person with mediocre but not terrible speed (12/25 for flying 100/200) and decent endurance (31/1:08 10K/HM), but i feel like i've never been able to put that speed to use in the mid-distances...there is something specifically about the "gears" or pace of mid-D races that feels so uncomfortable for extended periods. my mid-D times are crap.

so i'm guessing i'm asking "how do you specifically develop speed endurance in the OPs hypothetical slow guy?"

BUUMMMPPP!! seriously 11.low 100m/// 1:54 800m guy trying to understand why the hell in can sprint 36s 300's all day and feel good but if I try and slow it down to 41s it feels awkward and even HARDER. 50mpw with tempos and 10-12 mile long run weekly so I have been working a lot on my basic aerobic fitness. (only second year of doing mileage) I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY I WILL RUN CLOSE TO 4 MIN MILE LOL HELP ME LETSRUN! d

That's all true .... But the gap between 9.58 and 13.00 isn't simply because of power for the blocks. Even 11.5 or 12.0 is a LOT higher top end speed. And a guy like Mo, at 13.0, has better top end speed than most elite athletes. Way better than 16.0, sure.

But in answer to the OP, I still suggest a "no". And, which guy running 9.85 has the same top end speed as Usain?

Wtfunny wrote:

That's all true .... But the gap between 9.58 and 13.00 isn't simply because of power for the blocks. Even 11.5 or 12.0 is a LOT higher top end speed. And a guy like Mo, at 13.0, has better top end speed than most elite athletes. Way better than 16.0, sure.

But in answer to the OP, I still suggest a "no". And, which guy running 9.85 has the same top end speed as Usain?

No one I know of but that is just an analogy I am using to explain my point. I think the 400m would be a better distance to get an idea of how fast a distance guy is. Or even better, do a top speed test on the athlete. I just think it is unfair to judge top speed by a 100m time as it does not give an accurate reading of top end speed alone.

It is also possible that a guy who can kicks a 52 last lap in a 10k could have a lower top end speed than a guy who can kick a 56 last 400m. The 56 guy could might be faster in a top speed test but in a 10k, there is so many other variables like speed endurance that make the 56 guy slower after 24 laps. Don't judge a distance runners top speed on his finishing kick.

Wtfunny wrote:

Mo has a faster 1500m PB than Komen, and Mo IS is a kicker ... And his 100m is 13 flat. I'd put Komen very close to a second slower over 100m than Mo. 13-mid, at best, 13-high, more probably. That's not great top end speed.

Total non-sense. Farah ran this 12.9 at some TV show in off-season. If he were to run it seriously no way he wouldn't run at least a full second faster. And saying that Komen would run most likely 13-high is so ridiculous, I'm pretty sure you never trained with someone with at least sub 16min 5K. I used to train with a bunch of guys who were in the 15:30-16:30 range and most of them could run sub 13.

I ran 13.13 two years ago after several years of no sprint practice, just off tempo runs and strides basically. And I screwed up the start, I believe I could have run sub 13.

Also, when people say that someone ran 2:08 marathon but couldn't break 2:00 in 800m, it's either because he didn't really try or he did try at the bad moment. Some slow-twitch 2:08 guys might have problems breaking 2 minutes in 800 if they are in a heavy base-phase and haven't run anything faster for some extended period of time. But almost surely, few weeks (or just days) of speed work would get them sub 2 minutes comfortably.

Didn't Steve Cram have relatively slow top end speed, yet a phenomenal amount of endurance, allowing him to set world records down as low as 1500 ?

He's the name I immediately thought of when I saw the title of this thread. As I remember it, his only chance of beating the likes of Coe and Ovett, who had serious wheels, was to squeeze the life out of them by winding up from a long way out. Usually, you get drafted to defeat with this approach as the quicker finisher blows by you, but his almost perfect biomechanics and amazing endurance allowed him to set some incredible times and win a lot of races.

Does anyone know what Crams best 100,200,400 times were ?

They were different runners, thats it.

Cram - not slow for a MD runner. Remember, 1'42.88 and good range, but all in all more of a strength guy

Ovett - the 'elastic' MD type with good sprinting ability and with a good range, maybe lacked some specific strength

Coe - 'worst' range of the 3, his best event was the 800 and he was more of a power guy

Everyone of these guys had his strengths and weaknesses but i would rank them all equal.

LM wrote:

Farah has closed in 50.89, and thus is probably a 49 high/50 low type guy,

You think Mo can close a 5-10km in 50.8 and fresh the best he can do is maybe 50-low, 3-4m faster? Fresh?

I really shake my head sometimes.

mako wrote:

Total non-sense. Farah ran this 12.9 at some TV show in off-season. If he were to run it seriously no way he wouldn't run at least a full second faster.

I love this when distance runners try to give the elites pseudo 100m times. You have no idea how huge a full second is in 100m. You're thinking of a full second for maybe an 800m race and they are two different things. One second in "sprinter land" is an eternity. I'm not saying Farah can't run a faster 100m--he certainly can, but it would be measured from a flying start in the middle of his kick. He lacks the explosiveness to power off the line from a standing or even block start in order to run in the 11's for a sprint race. He is fast. He isn't explosive. And he shouldn't be explosive since that takes muscle mass (why do you think sprinters look the way they do?) All that extra mass would kill his racing.

Ummm...ever hear of Jordan Hasay?

mako wrote:

Total non-sense. Farah ran this 12.9 at some TV show in off-season. If he were to run it seriously no way he wouldn't run at least a full second faster. ...

Uuhhhhmmm ... Speaking of total nonsense. So you think Farah goes 11.9, AT LEAST, FAT. You're crazy. So he splits what, 10.5, from a flying start?

And saying that Komen would run most likely 13-high is so ridiculous, I'm pretty sure you never trained with someone with at least sub 16min 5K....

I'm pretty sure you never watched Daniel Komen run. Show me anywhere he displayed sub-13 top end speed. He simply wasn't that fast. Very ordinary elite (if there can be such a thing) 5kers easily outkicked him.

....

What you run is irrelevant to what someone else's top speed might be.

Look at the Brownlees. 28-29 minute runners and they do even worse out of blocks. Komen would do better but i have him around 13flat FAT as well. You never ran with 13minute 5k runners, did you?

They can kick fast off regular running motion but against 47.x' 400/800 guys they lose every sprint AND these 400/800 guys run times like 11.mid or 22.high out of blocks.

Mo is fast at kicking but not at sprinting and especially starting. Hell, even 45sec runner Nijel Amos is a relatively slow starter.

There's no way mo can't go to 12low. I did a 12.4 with a standing start after a 200m and 150m with 8 and 10 minutes rest respectively. I also did a 25seconds 200m (which would be followed by another 31 seconds and disastrous finish of a 400m)That said I'm a long way from a sprinter, really my events are from 3k upwards.

theflatenedpancake wrote:

There's no way mo can't go to 12low. I did a 12.4 with a standing start after a 200m and 150m with 8 and 10 minutes rest respectively. I also did a 25seconds 200m (which would be followed by another 31 seconds and disastrous finish of a 400m)That said I'm a long way from a sprinter, really my events are from 3k upwards.

Uh, huh. Hand timed by yourself, no doubt.

MrGambinus wrote:

They were different runners, thats it.

Coe - 'worst' range of the 3, his best event was the 800 and he was more of a power guy

Everyone of these guys had his strengths and weaknesses but i would rank them all equal.

Coe holds the record for the fastest closing 100m of a 1500 in history @ 12.1s.

[quote]Wtfunny wrote:

I'm pretty sure you never watched Daniel Komen run. Show me anywhere he displayed sub-13 top end speed. He simply wasn't that fast. Very ordinary elite (if there can be such a thing) 5kers easily outkicked him.

[quote]

How could his top end speed not be sub-13? His PR 1500 pace was 13.96. If that were true, supposing 13.0 max speed, that would put him averaging 93% of top speed for the 1500/mile, 89% for 3k, and 86% for 5k. It just seems unreal for someone to be running that close to max effort for those distances.

...which supports my point.

You have to differ between 'strength' (think of El G, Mo et al.) and 'power'. It does not mean that he is slow. In sprinter language: Ben Johnson, Maurice Green are 'power' reliant whereas guys like Bolt or Wariner are more of a 'elastic' runner.

Taken to the realm of Mid distances i would classify coe as a 'power' reliant guy, benefitting from heavy weight training, being better in XC. while Ovett was more of a lanky guy with slower cadence. Could've entered in the jumps as well.