How fast could Roger Federer run a 400? 5k?

Federer off of just tennis training could maybe go between 55 and 60 seconds for 400m. Highly doubt he could break 55 seconds. In the 5k I would think he could MAYBE go under 20 minutes. As has been mentioned tennis is quick, explosive running. If Federer did a few months of middle distance running workouts, then maybe he goes sub 55 for 400m and sub 18 for 5k. It would be interesting to see.

If he were to run a 400 or 5k tomorrow, without specific training, I think he could run:

62

18:30

Fed has said in interviews he doesn't do a lot of distance running. I think based off his power and general aerobic fitness he could run around 60-62 400. I think he could get under 30 for a 200.

With specific training, of course he could run faster.

Federer only 62 in the 400? highly doubt it. I'm 43 and 6'0" 180, and occasionally sprint out a 400 just for a quick intense work out. Usually in 59-62 seconds if going all out after a short warm up. I never ran track, and have done some longer distance running from around 2005 to 2015. Thats it. Theres no way a well trained tennis star is running in only 62. Most definitely has to be somewhere between 50-55 seconds.

asdfasdf wrote:

If he were to run a 400 or 5k tomorrow, without specific training, I think he could run:

62

18:30

Fed has said in interviews he doesn't do a lot of distance running. I think based off his power and general aerobic fitness he could run around 60-62 400. I think he could get under 30 for a 200.

With specific training, of course he could run faster.

In the link posted, he could run 3300 meters in 12 minutes, but could not go sub 40 for 10k.

wth , wth wrote:

Federer only 62 in the 400? highly doubt it. I'm 43 and 6'0" 180, and occasionally sprint out a 400 just for a quick intense work out. Usually in 59-62 seconds if going all out after a short warm up. I never ran track, and have done some longer distance running from around 2005 to 2015. Thats it. Theres no way a well trained tennis star is running in only 62. Most definitely has to be somewhere between 50-55 seconds.

I get your point. So maybe I'd adjust and say 60 based on his general fitness, power, and quickness.

But you're a runner. Federer has never been a runner/sprinter. He has a different kind of fitness. Like I said he could probably run under 30 seconds for a 200m but I think he'd struggle having the speed endurance to hold that for 400. I do think with a week of sprint training he could get a couple seconds faster.

WWRD wrote:

Those superstar shows were so awesome, another reason it was great to be a kid in the 70's!

Couldn't have said it better. To be in a less sheltered world seems dreamlike.

CMD

Do you guys think that the greatest tennis player of ALL-TIME who is known for having great endurance and great movement on the court who is still near his prime could only run the same speed many of us ran for 400m in middle school on barely any training??? Seriously, 60 seconds is all you think he could do? You live in a dream world, no way in my mind he runs anything slower than probably a 53-54. He is an all-time world class athlete, you've got to respect that a bit more.

You could make an argument for him running a fast 200m off natural speed and fitness but his training as a tennis player has little in common with 400m running and especially training. You may as well say Bolt must be a good tennis player!

47yroldrunna wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

Are you stupid? He's 6'1" 187 pounds according to wikipedia.

Way off is wiki.

Fed is more like 170lbs these days. Look at him. He's the thinnest of his career.

No way is he 187 even at 6'1". His arms at twigs.

Having seen Federer in person I can say he's definitely bigger than he appears to be on tv.

60-65 off no specific training

Maybe under 60 is possible

Other sports are not that fast over 400 and up

with an appropriate warmup, and going all out, i'd bet $100 federer couldn't break 65. i'd bet $10 he couldn't break 70. i used to do 400s on the track with some pro squash players--who are more explosive and have better conditioning than most tennis players, though they don't necessarily have the stamina to grind out the 3 or 4 hour match. most of those guys were ecstatic when they ran 75s. the kind of strength and efficiency you develop by twisting, going back and forth, and side to side repetitively is just qualitatively different than if you just turn your legs over 10,000 times a day. not a knock on the fitness of these guys. but i think we often lose sight of what specificity does for us. it's largely the same principle that allows fed to put his serve on the line, regularly, at 130 mph.

J. Edgar Hoover wrote:

Swede. wrote:

In a superstar contest in the early 1980s, Bj�rn Borg ran a 60 m race and he really sucked, and Borg was one of the fastest tennis players ever. When it comes to running, tennis players only need super fast accelerations. They are not trained to deal with acidosis, so they can�t run a fast 400.

When it comes to longer distances, tennis players need good general aerobic fitness, but I doubt they have really high Vo2max or running economy for the 5k.

A retired Borg ran 60m in 7.1 seconds (comparable to sub 11 for 100m) at TV Sports superstars meeting in 1983. Your comment that tennis players don't need endurance shows me you know nothing about tennis, much less about a 6-time FO champion.

huh?

borg looked terrible. maybe 14 secs for 100m?

I'd take that bet for sure.

I had a very talent-less roommate who was slightly over weight who ran a 68 negative split 400m. Never played a sport in his life. Very sedentary and uncoordinated.

If he can manage 68, I'd bet $100 the greatest tennis player in the world could break 65. They do some running. Not extensive, but it helps. And they are overall fit. I'd put my bet closer to sub 60.

very true

RunNeel wrote:

very true

Hell yeah.

ufr3iogbrboigbno wrote:

RunNeel wrote:

very true

Hell yeah.

He would be really slow, considering his age.

whyohnow wrote:

J. Edgar Hoover wrote:

A retired Borg ran 60m in 7.1 seconds (comparable to sub 11 for 100m) at TV Sports superstars meeting in 1983. Your comment that tennis players don't need endurance shows me you know nothing about tennis, much less about a 6-time FO champion.

7.1 is sub 12, not sub 11.

Clearly you're a jogger. Running fast is not easy, and the technical demands are greater the further you go in a sprint.

I'd give federer 57 - 60 for a qtr.

Wrong. Sub-11 is sub-7.0, while sub-12 is sub 7.3.

100m wrote:

whyohnow wrote:

7.1 is sub 12, not sub 11.

Clearly you're a jogger. Running fast is not easy, and the technical demands are greater the further you go in a sprint.

I'd give federer 57 - 60 for a qtr.

Wrong. Sub-11 is sub-7.0, while sub-12 is sub 7.3.

true

sub 60 for 400