Derek Clayton

bump, anyone more stuff on this guy? im eating this up.

Living in the Past wrote:

What's intriguing about Clayton is that the interval work might have actually helped him build a base for the marathon, even though most people would consider that to be the wrong way to go about it. Could it be that if you're genetically talented for the marathon, you'll improve in that event even though your training is geared for the mile?

Yes, I think it could lay the foundation for the marathon. Coincidentally, Clarke also ran a lot of interval work early in his career--under Stampfl, IIRC?

And at a somewhat lower level: Joe Henderson, purveyor of LSD running, did years of interval work. He finally said "the hell with this" (sore legs, injury, etc.) and started running longer and slower (NB: *not* as long and particularly not as slow as later on). He ran a marathon fairly soon after making his switch to longer/slower. What was his fastest marathon? That very first one. After doing everything "right" in later years ("right," in terms of the message he was delivering), he never ran the marathon as fast again. Hmmm....

Also, pretty sure Clarke's first world record was the 6mile/10k, around 1963. I'm thinking the latter was 28:15.6, but I could be dead wrong--I've got his delightful autobiography ("The Unforgiving Minute") in storage. He gives a great account of the race, which he basically started at "Lindgren pace," then managed to hold on.

bump, good stuff.

18th Dec. 1963 Ron Clarke ran WR of 27.17.6 for 6mls and 28.15.6 for 10000m.

You may be onto something re. the interval background being advantageous. I have seen this happen many times over the years.

The opposite happened with another great Aussie distance runner however. John Farrington was running 150mpw and 2.20 plus then cut back to 2x30 min runs per day(long runs on weekends)- a fast steady 6mls at lunch and a set of reps e.g. 12x400m after work. He improved to 2.13, 2.12 and 2.11 in the next 3 years.

Interesting stuff.

Clayton's marathon progression was 3:00 in his first marathon, 2:22 in his second, 2:18:28 in his third or fourth, and 2:09:36 in his fifth.

Does anyone know how many years it took him to go from 3:00 to 2:09?

Probably wil say in his book, "Run to the top"

According to Amazon, the title is currently unavailable. But if my memory serves, Clayton ran his first marathon at the age of 22 and ran his 2:09:36 at the age of 25.

So his development at that distance happened over a remarkably short period. It's even more remarkable considering that he had been doing mostly interval training until he was about 21, when he immigrated to Australia from Ireland.

So either he developed a solid base from interval training or he was so gifted that he only needed about three years of long, hard training to break 2:09. Or maybe there was some combination of the two at work. Either way, Clayton's run to the top was pretty unconventional.

Clayton ran his first marathon 3,00.02 in 1963 so he would have been 20 or 21 at the time. He ran his first serious marathon at age 22 (2d Oct.65) running 2.22.12.

He was 25 when he ran his 2.9.36.4 at Fukuoka and 26 when he ran 2.8.33.6 at Antwerp.

Thanks for update. Good stuff this thread is!

Not sure if this has been said in this thread, but Clayton also had a relatively low Vo2max of 69. As a marathon runner he didn't need to do much interval work, just long hard miles near marathon pace. Look at what the Hanson Boys do. The idea is similar, the Hansons are just a bit more specific about it. As an example: Say 20-30 years ago you went out on a hard 10 mile run, you picked it up pushing harder and harder, then really hard at the end. You might put down in your log "10 miles, knackered, 52:00". Today a runner might put down "10 miles, 5 at 5:00, then 3 "go" at 4:45" (A common Hanson workout). So, are we to assume that because runners are more specific about the type of running they are doing, about logging specifics, that they are really training any better today? I bet if you take the training specifics of the Hanson Boys and other elite runners and show it to a guy like Ron Hill, Derek Clayton, Malmo, Hodgie-San, Frank Shorter, Bill Rodgers, etc, they would say something to the effect of "oh yeah, we used to do that back in the day, but just didn't call it that". tomato, tomahto.

Alan

This sounds like a 10 miler in 49:15 if the last two miles were at 5:00 pace?

Pushing the fine line of what's good enough & what could be too much intensity. If the body could tolerate it, wonderful. If it couldn't then training would have to be modified.

bump

"I don't run to be regarded as anything by anybody. I don't care whether people think I'm the greatest runner ever or the greatest bum ever. I don't run for other people; I don't run for my country. I'm not very nationalistic. Derek Clayton comes first in my book." - Derek Clayton

Derek, thanks for weighing in by quoting yourslf.

bump.

Clayton underachieved because he overtrained.

He droped the world record by over a minute ....with ..lets say ...minimal competition.

His Vo2max was much lower...infering that his efficiancy was abonormaly good even for elites..yet he was 6'2" 160lbs?

perhaps he had to run as much as he did to become an efficiant runner.

Enough already wrote:

Clayton underachieved because he overtrained.

And you wouldn't be thrilled to have underachieved as he did?