Derek Clayton

He was running miles. It says miles after each numeral entry. Very informative book.

MILES

To put Clayton's times in perspective, his 2:08:33 would still win or place highly at nearly every major marathon in the world today, nearly 35 years later. Now, consider how the other world records of that era would compare. Ryun's 3:51 wouldn't win squat in Europe on the Golden League, and Clarke's 27:39 wouldn't either. But Clayton today would at least still be in thick of things.

And he was HUGE for a marathoner by today's standards: 6'2" and about 165. Built more like today's 800 runners than todays marathoners. Guy is a true legend. What a animal.

Anybody know what he's doing today?

27-39 on sand = quite a lot faster on a tartan track

This year only nine guys have run under 3:52 for the mile and 20 guys have run under 27:40 for 10k but 33 have beaten 2:08:40. So, while I am in no way knocking Clayton's performances I think you picked the wrong examples!

Like the other myths, Clarke's 27:39 was on a new rubberized track.

Clayton and Clarke often trained together, but Clayton ran farther.

Hodge misquotes the book, saying Clayton ran hard all the time.

Here's a quote:

"I would rather have run ten miles in 52 minutes (5:12 pace) than twenty in 2 1/4 hours (6:45 pace)." He also mentioned getting dehydrated and running into a tree at "6 minute pace".

So Clayton's "hard" running was not any faster, and in many cases slower, than the top marathoners today, most all of whom are doing additional faster more specific training.

Also, Clayton ran the 52 second 440 before running his first marathon, in 3 hours. So he had plenty of speed, at that time. But didn't develop it along with his higher mileage program.

Hence his fastest 10000m was only 28:32.

Dunes say:

>Like the other myths, Clarke's 27:39 was on a new rubberized track.

Clayton and Clarke often trained together, but Clayton ran farther.

Hodge misquotes the book, saying Clayton ran hard all the time.<

Where do I say he ran hard ALL THE TIME?

Check out the June issue:

Clarke on ciders.

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/archive/past_issues/1965covers.html

Yes Dunes. Clarke on ciders. Confirmed recently by Kenny Moore in, of all places, Runner's World.

a theme that seems to continue - here and elsewhere. can't run those miles, why does x run 50 miles a week and can run fast(er - than x), nobody can run than many that hard ... etc etc.

my take - people usually stop short of what they 'can' do. Doing something is different than doing something long enough - to get results. The 'doing' and the 'long enough' seems the factors. HOWEVER - there is a talent (or characteristic) factor. There are some people that have that 'thing'.

In the day - I was a decent basketball player - with 'decent' hops for a Woody Harrelson type. My brother, on the other hand - had that "thing" .... he had "HOPS" - contrary to Woody movie. Measured 39-40+ vertical, not bad for a whi ... well you know. No matter how much I worked at it and I did. - I didn't have those hops AND no matter how much I tried or worked (and I did) never could hop like that. Can't even 'hop' now.

I could never beat another brother in a half mile or less - no way. However, I had a work ethic 'thing' that produced elsewhere on track and 2m+ / xc - but in my own genetic gene pool they had that 'thing'.

That 'thing', I believe is a factor that can 'factor' in - and does. That 'thing' can be speed, pain tolerance, confidence, ability to work volumes, that deal at the end of a race, that deal in the middle of a race, that Joe Montana thing, that anemic Doug Padilla thing in the last lap, that Lasse Viren thing, that thing that is sometimes (often?) the difference. Usually everybody acknowledges knows what that "thing" is, but its kinda difficult to encapsualate.

That 'thing' can be developed beyond where most people think it can. The 'outer limits' is part of what keeps us going, isn't it? The beauty of this sport is that - that "thing" is out there.

Okay no more 'thing' talk. I know it when I see it.

He rebounded, I scored. Man, he could jump.

Okay that's right. Oslo was not rubberized.

The one I was thinking of was in London where he 27:49.4.

Another good book: "Ron Clarke Talks Track".

Yeah, I take exception to the comment that Clayton's marathon best was better than Ryun's mile. NO WAY.

A) Ryun ran his 3:51.1 race on cinders. On Tartan it would at the VERY bare minimum be 3.5 seconds faster, giving him a 3:47.6. This time is 1.0206 x the current world record.

B) It is VERY possible that Clayton's marathon record was on short course. It would not be the first time. What about Alberto's NY WR ? short course, right? It?s happened before I am sure (T&FN states Antwerp course might have been 1km short). But even if you say: ?the course was legit?, if you compare Clayton?s time to Tergat?s current WR, Clayton?s time was still 1.028 x slower, a greater % difference than Ryun?s time is to the current WR.

C) Ryun was 19.

Ryun was the better performer for sure.

Just say no wrote:...if you compare Clayton?s time to Tergat?s current WR, Clayton?s time was still 1.028 x slower, a greater % difference than Ryun?s time is to the current WR.

Good point.

The only guy to train harder on less miles was Steve Jones.

7 min. miles did not compute for him.

I do think Antwerp was accurate. His prior 2:09 in Japan was definitely accurate.

Based on percentage of current WR's, Clayton's marathon was superior to Ryun's 1500m/mile.

dunes runner wrote:

Based on percentage of current WR's, Clayton's marathon was superior to Ryun's 1500m/mile.

Only if you don't consider that Ryun ran on cinders.

You don't think cinders are slower than Tartan? Be serious. If you give Ryun a few seconds(which one absolutely should), his time is superior.

That's right, Steve Jones and the Kenyans went at it in a

similar manner. The only difference is now they have an Italian coach.

Shut up fred.

DR remember to take those meds your doc Rx, ok? If I took everything you say & used double think I would come to the truth, your weird.

Just say no wrote:

dunes runner wrote:

Based on percentage of current WR's, Clayton's marathon was superior to Ryun's 1500m/mile.

Only if you don't consider that Ryun ran on cinders.

You don't think cinders are slower than Tartan? Be serious. If you give Ryun a few seconds(which one absolutely should), his time is superior.