Excellent Article By Ron Clarke on the Importance of LONG STEADY DISTANCE RUNS

Sir Bastion Newbold wrote:

for reference

in the 64 Tokyo OG, Clarke went through 25k in 1.18.02 (2.11.26 pace for marathon) - three minutes ahead of eventual runner-up Basil Heatley who ended up clocking 2.16.19 while Clarke finished in 2.20.26.

Bikila went through 25k in 1.16.40 (2.09.15 pace) 15 seconds ahead of Jim Hogan who eventually dropped out at 22 miles while still in second place.

Man, if Buddy wasn’t injured that year it would have been US Gold from 5k to the marathon.

HRE wrote:

He probably ran each of his marathons as fast as he could as the race unfolded but he was never serious about the event overall. His marathon races were more or less larks. He decided to run the marathon in Tokyo "for fun" and because he had nothing better to do that day. You think that was Bikila's pre race mindset?

Although many people do think Clarke was feeble minded as you're suggesting,

this thread is about how great his training was, and by implication Lydiard's, at the time,

and that the training would still be awesome today. No, that is wrong. It was okay for the time,

but not the best, and now has been severely outdated. Even back then, the fact is that Ron Clarke

couldn't even keep up with Derek Clayton over 18 miles in the many training runs that they did together.

Okay, where am I suggesting that Clarke was feeble minded? If YOU want to suggest that it's your business but obviously you don't know what you're talking about in terms of what I've said here. And yes, Clarke's training and results would still be awesome.

HRE wrote:

Okay, where am I suggesting that Clarke was feeble minded?

HRE wrote:

"He decided to run the marathon in Tokyo "for fun" and because he had nothing better to do that day."

Clarke has a reputation for not measuring up competitively to his alleged abilities.

And he was always quick to come up with excuses when he didn't.

Your comment supports that you hold that same opinion of him, though you're loath to admit it.

Boring discussion & excuses wrote:

Although many people do think Clarke was feeble minded as you're suggesting,

this thread is about how great his training was, and by implication Lydiard's, at the time,

and that the training would still be awesome today.

What does Arthur Lydiard have to do with Ron Clarke?

No, my comment does not mean that I hold the same opinion of him. I do not hold that opinion of him. But sure, you know what my opinions are better than I do so feel free to post again and tell me that, yes, I really do holarke'sld that opinion.

Clarke's Olympics were over by the time the marathon was run. He was not serious about the marathon but occasionally dabbled in it. And he was still faster than most people in that race.

mrpastry wrote:

Yes, with his 27:39 (potentially better) ability and today's more enlightened overall marathon prep regimes, It's likely he could have got under 2:10 even if he were "too big" and not an ideal marathoner.

Clarke's running form was too 'bouncy' for the marathon and he said so himself. It was his stride that pounded his legs and left him struggling at the end of marathons. His 10k speed predicts a good marathon and he might have been a competitive marathoner had he changed his form to more of a Clayton/Salazar shuffle stride but why would he do that when the 5k/10k was his race?

13:16/27:39 in the 1960s on cinder. What a great runner. So what if he never ran anything close to a commensurate marathon? Does that undermine Solinsky's greatness with 3:34/7:34/12:55/26:59?

Clarke's real problem was that he couldn't kick hard in a tactical race. So, his training was great at what it did but needed tweaks (that is, sprints) to get him championship golds.

HRE wrote:

Clarke's Olympics were over by the time the marathon was run. He was not serious about the marathon but occasionally dabbled in it. And he was still faster than most people in that race.

That must be what happened in the 10000 too.

He didn't take it serious. He was only dabbling. The altitude was too high (4 years later).

It couldn't have been his training. It couldn't have been his poor attitude. It was always something else.

Clarke always had an excuse, and you always have one for him too. - No surprise.

Why did you refer to Arthur Lydiard in the context of Ron Clarke's training? What is the connection?

Believe Clarke found out later in life he had a leaky heart valve (which he had surgically repaired). Thinks it may have been the reason he lacked a kick (at max heart rate).

Lydiard/Clarke connection-Lots of miles at best aerobic pace.

Sure. Exactly. Clarke only ran the 10,000 for fun on the spur of the moment. I'm sure you've got all sorts of to back this and aren't just saying it because you decided it's the case.

HRE wrote:

Sure. Exactly. Clarke only ran the 10,000 for fun on the spur of the moment. I'm sure you've got all sorts of to back this and aren't just saying it because you decided it's the case.

You're the one who brought up that excuse.

Don't try to blame some one else -- oh wait, that's what you always do.

this is not a long slow run with 5 km at the end in 14 high after six, 5 30 and 5 min miles, whatever.

clark's long slow run at 5 min is bu.l.s.hit, because that is 211 marathon, unless he's going 16 miles or something.

you can run a 208 off of 20 miles at 5min training plus the 10 mile with 440 miles thrown in.

nailes wrote:

I find it more interesting that the training he details yielded a 13:16 on a cinder track.

that 1316 on cinders with pacing drafting and monaco track is 13 flat

so much for progress.

Boring discussion & excuses wrote:

Although many people do think Clarke was feeble minded as you're suggesting,

this thread is about how great his training was, and by implication Lydiard's, at the time,

and that the training would still be awesome today. No, that is wrong. It was okay for the time,

but not the best, and now has been severely outdated. Even back then, the fact is that Ron Clarke

couldn't even keep up with Derek Clayton over 18 miles in the many training runs that they did together.

Guy breaks multiple world records and wins mutiple olympic and major championship medals and people think he was feeble minded and did awful training. Gotta love letsrun.

Clarke's training may not have been "perfect" but I would think that a guy who ran 27-39 10k and 13-16 5k on sand tracks, back in the 1960s in the middle of long career lasting over a decade with no seasons missed due to injury, was generally doing most things right in his training rather than doing most things wrong.

Yeah, I think there is something to learn here. Running a steady aerobic pace for something like 45 minutes is a bread and butter workout most people should incorporate into their schedule. Should they do it every day? Probably not. But at least you could still be as good as Ron Clarke if you did...

longjack wrote:

this is not a long slow run with 5 km at the end in 14 high after six, 5 30 and 5 min miles, whatever.

clark's long slow run at 5 min is bu.l.s.hit, because that is 211 marathon, unless he's going 16 miles or something.

you can run a 208 off of 20 miles at 5min training plus the 10 mile with 440 miles thrown in.

You're calling a run done at 5:00 pace a long, slow, run? I don't get your point.

Clayton's achilles wrote:

Guy breaks multiple world records and wins mutiple olympic and major championship medals and people think he was feeble minded and did awful training. Gotta love letsrun.

Clarke's training may not have been "perfect" but I would think that a guy who ran 27-39 10k and 13-16 5k on sand tracks, back in the 1960s in the middle of long career lasting over a decade with no seasons missed due to injury, was generally doing most things right in his training rather than doing most things wrong.

That's not a letsrun thing. People in the 60s wondered why Clarke with all his apparent physical abilities, could not win the races that he was expected to easily win. To the contrary, he would keep losing and losing the big ones.

Also, I agree he did many great things. I do have a certain respect for Ron Clarke, but zero use for all the needless excuses.

He was a great runner. Yes. But he failed at Mexico City, and many other times too. Period.