Detroit Piston Richard Hamilton a 4:30 miler?

right. because you can always tell how fast a runner can run a mile by a fartlek workout. and the only thing we're measuring is how much someone runs in a basketball game. you're comparing apples and oranges, craig. measure effort. measure the energy and stamina it takes to jump, pass, box-out, etc. these guys aren't just running up and down the floor, their muscles are doing other things and their cardiovascular system is being taxed as they do these things, too.

what we have here is the classic elitist runner mentality that pervades our sport. most people became runners because they sucked at the other sports. maybe they got made fun of in gym class, got picked last for dodgeball, whatever. they take up running. they become good runners. thus, they have a self-esteem need to make themselves and what they do seem equally unattainable to others as basketball or baseball or whatever is to them. they minimize the work ethic, stamina, skill etc. it takes to compete in other sports and when one of these jocks says "you know, i think i could do a little bit of what you guys do. maybe not 4:08 but i could run under 5:00, maybe close to 4:30" they immediately get jumped on, demeaned, whatever it takes to maintain the illusion that what runners do is so hard and so unattainable to the masses and make themselves feel special. get over yourselves. running a mile isn't hard. running a 4:45 mile isn't difficult. you want credit for that 20 miler you did today? fine. you want credit for that 6.2 miles you did at 5:00 pace? fine. but to say someone like hamilton can't run a 4:45 or so is just silly. it's a pedestrian time. your ego won't collapse if you give a little credit where it's due.

chuck d wrote:

"you know, i think i could do a little bit of what you guys do. maybe not 4:08 but i could run under 5:00, maybe close to 4:30" they immediately get jumped on, demeaned, whatever it takes to maintain the illusion that what runners do is so hard and so unattainable to the masses and make themselves feel special. get over yourselves. running a mile isn't hard. running a 4:45 mile isn't difficult. you want credit for that 20 miler you did today? fine. you want credit for that 6.2 miles you did at 5:00 pace? fine. but to say someone like hamilton can't run a 4:45 or so is just silly. it's a pedestrian time.

4:45 isn't close to 4:30, 4:35 is close to 4:30. I don't have any problem with saying he might go sub 5:00 on just basketball training. But, 4:30? I'd have to see that to believe it, otherwise I'd think he could do it with maybe a year of training for it.

Like I posted earlier about Rip: I think Rip could go around 4:40-4:50. He has the ability to probably run a 4:10 or faster if he quit basketball and trained for running, but I think some other methods of training would be needed to run a 4:30.

So I'm not illustrating the ,"classic elitist runner mentality" your talking about. I do agree with you on the good point you bring up about us runners having that.

But, I also feel that other sports like specifically basketball since that is what this post is about do not "work" as hard distance running. They do practice more time-wise but they are not going the entire time. They do something, coach talks, do it again etc. During the conditioning phases in the summer they work probably 15-25 minutes a day 5 days a week on aerobic, and then lift 1-2 hours 5 days a week. Most distance runners, at least ones equal to the starting line-up of a D.I. basketball team, run 1-2 hours a day everyday, 30 minutes a day 5 days a week on lifting, then 10-40 minutes a day depending on drills, striders, stretching. I don't look down on basketball players at all, I think they are equals to distance runners, they do train differently though, differenlty also includes not "working" as hard.

Oh yeah, don't feel obligated to give me credit for the 20 miler I did today.

christ. nit-picking over a runner's world article, over something someone mused to a reporter. fine. can't run a 4:30. find something better to do with your sunday than this. i haven't argued that point with anyone here because it's just a silly thing a basketball player said talking to a reporter from some magazine he's never heard of. i'm not going to crucify him for some musing where he basically said "i can run between 4:30 and 5:00." i don't read anymore into than that. we're putting way too much thought behind something a basketball player said to runner's world here, folks. i know he didn't put any more thought into it than that.

My dad ran a 5:29 mile on a crappy dirt track in basketball shoes his senior year of HS during basketball practice. He went out in 75, but can't remember his other splits. He was about 5'11 and 180 at the time, and has no sprint speed whatsoever. There is no way his body fat percentage was anywhere near what Rip Hamilton's is. Now, with the kind of running talent my dad had (which is not much at all), and with knowing what kind of times more talented high school basketball players run, I can see Rip running a 4:30 mile. It really isn't that hard if you have a lot of talent, which he does.

I am old enough to have remembered that old ABC Superstars program, which used to have guys from other sports like basketball, football, and soccer, none of whom trained as middle distance runners at all. They would often have a half-mile run, and I do recall a couple of guys going under 2:00 and quite a few in the 2:05 range. I realize that the half (ie, 800) is not the mile, but it gives an idea of what kind of good overall athletes some of these people are, and suggests that Hamilton doing something "like 4:30"...like maybe 4:40...isn't so inconceivable.

You need to calm down. I didn't say the things you think I said.

I said basketball doesn't require much speed endurance.

I stand by that. 36 minutes of activity, even high intensity activity, spread out over 2 hours isn't that tough. Or maybe this is just my "esoteric knowledge" coming through, whatever that is.

I have no doubt a guy like Hamilton could run 4:30, and he could likely go a lot faster. I just don't see him doing it based on the rigors of basketball.

didn't lou ferrigno run a ridiculuosly fast quarter on one those shows?

oh yeah. superstars was a great program. they should bring it back. would settle some of these "how fast could lance armstrong run" or "can any present-day boxer swim faster than joe frazier (who almost drowned when he competed)." i don't remember the times of some of those guys, but you'd routinely see the winners get close to two minutes. there'd always be some pretty bad performances, though; in addition to joe frazier, i remember someone (johnny bench?) throwing tantrums because they couldn't do anything right. that program, i think, really opened the eyes of people regarding what kind of shape athletes were in. basketball guys, if i recall, tended to be the most versatile. baseball guys tended to be crap, though i think part of that was that these events were held well into their off-season. year-round conditioning really hadn't appeared yet.

I don't know about most versatile for basketball players. Perhaps, I don't remember that well.

I do remember that it was a running joke that a basketball player never won.

The other funny episode was when a foreign soccer player (I don't remember from where) destroyed everyone. No one in this country, including the announcers, had a clue who the guy was.

Kyle Rote, Jr., a soccer player, always did really well on Superstars

mlbfan24 wrote:

My dad ran a 5:29 mile on a crappy dirt track in basketball shoes his senior year of HS during basketball practice. He went out in 75, but can't remember his other splits. He was about 5'11 and 180 at the time, and has no sprint speed whatsoever.

To put your dad's 5:29 mile in perspective, consider that a 4:30 miler usually ranges from sub 16 min to around 16:30 on the slow side for a 5k (3.1 miles). That means that they are typically capable of running each mile faster than your dad for 3.1 times the distance, and sometimes they are "true" distance runners as well, meaning they have don't have jack for sprint speed like your dad. Call it nitpicking, but the ability to run 10 seconds (or even 5 seconds) faster for a mile can make a world of difference.

I think the math you quote here varies for each runner depending on his latent abilities, his muscle fibers, and the way he trains. In my case, before I had ever run a 4:30 mile, I was doing under 15:10 for a 5k.

4:45 is "pedestrian"? Nah, you're not elitist (note my sarcasm).

To repeat what I said before, irrespective of Hamilton's talent, there are many runners (and I know a bunch on my own team and others in our conference) who train hard (sometimes too hard and get injured), train intelligently, and 4:45 has not yet happened for them. That's a fast time. Not in the same stratosphere as a sub-4 minute mile or even a national class high schooler (4:05-4:20), but it's fast and even those who train hard have not always managed it.

So I beg to differ when someone says "I was fat and clumsy and popped a 4:30" or something equally ridiculous, claiming they have no talent. It's not easy. For you, maybe, but not for all, or even close to all.

Insulting wrote:

4:45 is "pedestrian"? Nah, you're not elitist (note my sarcasm).

To repeat what I said before, irrespective of Hamilton's talent, there are many runners (and I know a bunch on my own team and others in our conference) who train hard (sometimes too hard and get injured), train intelligently, and 4:45 has not yet happened for them. That's a fast time. Not in the same stratosphere as a sub-4 minute mile or even a national class high schooler (4:05-4:20), but it's fast and even those who train hard have not always managed it.

So I beg to differ when someone says "I was fat and clumsy and popped a 4:30" or something equally ridiculous, claiming they have no talent. It's not easy. For you, maybe, but not for all, or even close to all.

What's your point. We are talking about elite athletes, which you obviously aren't. For most people with some degree of athletic ability a 4:45 mile shouldn't be that hard. It may insult you, but it's true. Go play ping-poing or video games.

hey, Cry me a river. go relieve yourself because your full of shit.

Craig Cooney wrote:

To put your dad's 5:29 mile in perspective, consider that a 4:30 miler usually ranges from sub 16 min to around 16:30 on the slow side for a 5k (3.1 miles). That means that they are typically capable of running each mile faster than your dad for 3.1 times the distance, and sometimes they are "true" distance runners as well, meaning they have don't have jack for sprint speed like your dad. Call it nitpicking, but the ability to run 10 seconds (or even 5 seconds) faster for a mile can make a world of difference.

True, but my dad didn't train to run at all. The only running he did was the mile they had to run during basketball practice, lines, etc. If Rip is talented to run sub 4:10 for the mile, I could see him running 4:30 off of practically nothing. All that sprint speed combined with the right body type is what makes the difference between say, a 5:00 miler and a low 4:00's miler. If someone can't break 60 (my dad definitely could not, and neither can I), then they will be limited greatly in the mile. But if someone like Rip comes along and can run say, 50 seconds for a quarter, they will have a much easier time running a fast mile.

Cry me a river wrote:

What's your point. We are talking about elite athletes, which you obviously aren't. For most people with some degree of athletic ability a 4:45 mile shouldn't be that hard. It may insult you, but it's true. Go play ping-poing or video games.

Safe to say you're not elite either, because no elite I ever knew would speak to another serious runner like that.

And I train as hard as anyone relative to my abilities as do the others on my team and in my conference, some of whom can break 4:45 or 4:30, others who cannot. To suggest I am some sort of fringe video game player who doesn't work hard is indicative of your extreme stupidity.

i'm an elitist asshole. don't think i've ever denied that.

i dunno. i consider 4:45 to be an average mile time for someone to attain. there are lots of people who have trained hard who have never reached what the average is. hell, i'm a way below average golfer and i've spent plenty of time on that. i wouldn't be insulted if someone said my handicap was below average because, well, it is. "pedestrian" isn't meant to be insulting, it's meant to mean exactly what it's definition says: ordinary. i have no statistical proof to back that up with but i have plenty of anecdotal experience. feel free to enlighten me as to what a better avergage would be.