Decent 60m time for a distance runner?

If you're a distance runner, your 400 time will tell you all you need to know.

In terms of getting a bench mark for your top speed (and ignoring your acceleration and start mechanics), a flying 100m would be good. That’s why often the 200m is a better measure of speed than the 60 or 100m for non sprinters.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

If you're a distance runner, your 400 time will tell you all you need to know.

That may well be true! But to run a fast 400m one must be able to run a fast 200m; to run a fast 200m one must be able to run a fast 100m; to run a fast 100m one must be able to run a fast 60m; etc! Do you not agree?

The point that was well made that a distance runner is going to be weak at the start, is not using starting blocks or spikes, etc, are all valid. But within those limitations, I still think that the previous paragraph holds, it is just a question of 'how much can we relax the numbers' to take the limitations into account. Maybe hardly, if at all, for 200m and above. But I don't think it follows that speed below 200m is irrelevant, I would still think it part of the picture and something that could/should be trained.

This is why rolling start 100s or maybe even 200s would be the best indicator of speed for a distance runner. No need to waste time learning to use blocks and accelerate unless you’re training for 400m and down. That’s not to say you shouldn’t use things like short hill sprints in your training, but the more technical work would be a waste.

OnceyougothreadmillyounevergobackIlover wrote:

Partridge wrote:

60 m FAT

below 6.5 s = world class

6.5-7 s = good sprinters

7-7.5 s = average sprinters, good middle distance runners

7.5-8 s = slow sprinters, mediocre middle distance runners, good distance runners

8-8.5 s = still ok if you do not want to run distances shorter than 5 k on a high level

9 s + x = very slow

In a research paper about Jakob Ingebrigtsen, the author made a point about Jakob running the 60m dash in 10.36 s

at the age of 7. Is this fast for his age globally, or merely fast for a middle distance runner? I have not found any good numbers on the net at this age to compare.

Of course that 60 m times were for the range of 17-35 years old. I do not know about performances at the age of 7 but the 10.36 seems quite fast. However, it is complicated to compare children of that age. Usually you start with serious athletic training at the age of 11-14, but if someone just starts much earlier or is more mature for his age he can be a lot faster than his peers. Many can not carry it over to the adult age but I think J. Ingebrigtsen has proven that he can. It is still interesting if he continues to improve or if he just peaked early at 19.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

No need to waste time learning to use blocks and accelerate unless you’re training for 400m and down. That’s not to say you shouldn’t use things like short hill sprints in your training, but the more technical work would be a waste.

Agreed! Short flat sprints as well I think are useful (I think the greater injury risk is the main argument against them).

60m wrote:

Partridge wrote:

60 m FAT

below 6.5 s = world class

6.5-7 s = good sprinters

7-7.5 s = average sprinters, good middle distance runners

7.5-8 s = slow sprinters, mediocre middle distance runners, good distance runners

8-8.5 s = still ok if you do not want to run distances shorter than 5 k on a high level

9 s + x = very slow

This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, thank you! To make it even better, could you suggest some concrete figures to define what you had in mind with a 'good distance runner', 'distances shorter than 5 km on a high level', etc?

Also I guess you omitted 8.5-9s; would this be slow but not very slow?

I would say with 7.5-8 s for a good distance runner I meant you better have that speed if you like to be somewhere between world class and a 31 min for the 10 k. But remember, this doesn't mean everyone with that kind of speed can reach a sub 30 min 10 km. It means you need that kind of speed despite being massively slow twitch...

With distances shorter than 5 k on a high level I meant you should be very lucky with a 2:00 800 or 4:30 mile if you can't break 8 s, and you can definitely forget about bringing your times much further down. However, a 2:20 marathon might still be possible.