What does it mean to have "speed" as a distance runner

Depends on what event, usually Sub-50 400 speed for people competing in the 3K on up is exceptional.

Instead of trying to note how fast someome can run a 400m or whatever, think of it more simply like this: The runner has sufficient ability to do well in his desired event (1500m, 3000m, 5000m, etc.) and can turnover during a race at a much faster tempo than race pace for that event. And can do it on the fly, within a few strides.

"Speed" in terms of an event usually refers to ability at the shorter distances.

For example, an 800 runner with a PB of two minutes, as a clean number, and a sub 50 400 PB, he has speed. If another has a similar PB of two minutes, but is only able to run the 400 in 55, he does not have as much speed.

Just think sprinting/shoter-distance ability.

I get really pissed off with people get too caught up in words like fast, speed, strength, endurance, power, ect.

For example, I can run a 14:43 5k, but my best for 800 meters is 2 flat..

How are you going to tell me I don't have speed and that I'm not fast? Many people have.

I guess it's all relative. Relative bull shit.

Speed for a distance runner is the inborn ability to run sub 24 for a 200 at any time year-round regardless of you're condition or training.

Or after a few sharpeners, 36.0 or better for the 300.

If that comes relatively easy, you have speed.

That is the speed that the best distance runners in the world at 5000-10,000 possess.

Not entirely correct. Lydiard talks about this in one of his books - in the 1960 800m final, Snell was easily the slowest man in the field (~23s 200 speed) but he could run at a very high percentage of that speed when tired - allowing him to outkick "faster" runners.

I have always believed this - it really doesn't matter if you can run 23 second 200's. If you can run a 25 second 200 when tired you can outkick anyone in a 5 k.

a miler wrote:

Not entirely correct. Lydiard talks about this in one of his books - in the 1960 800m final, Snell was easily the slowest man in the field (~23s 200 speed) but he could run at a very high percentage of that speed when tired - allowing him to outkick "faster" runners.

I have always believed this - it really doesn't matter if you can run 23 second 200's. If you can run a 25 second 200 when tired you can outkick anyone in a 5 k.

IIRC Snell's best was 22.3 for a 220 (@22.1 for 200)...

Not, perhaps, that he ran it often at all when in top shape...

a miler wrote:

Not entirely correct. Lydiard talks about this in one of his books - in the 1960 800m final, Snell was easily the slowest man in the field (~23s 200 speed) but he could run at a very high percentage of that speed when tired - allowing him to outkick "faster" runners.

I have always believed this - it really doesn't matter if you can run 23 second 200's. If you can run a 25 second 200 when tired you can outkick anyone in a 5 k.

This gets close to my confusion. I sometimes read "someone doesn't have the speed for the 5k so he should move up to the 10k or marathon." Then I note his 5k time is only about 10 to 15 seconds slower. In this case, are they saying he lacks the ability to kick at the end and run 10 to 15 seconds faster?

Where I'm confused is what difference does your 200 time make? Run faster earlier in the race! If you average 1 second faster per 400 you have erased this deficit.

Where does speed come into it?

Running Newbie wrote:

Where I'm confused is what difference does your 200 time make? Run faster earlier in the race! If you average 1 second faster per 400 you have erased this deficit.

Often when people discuss speed like this, they're thinking in the context of tactical races, the way championships are usually won.

If you're an average runner, trying to run the best 5K you can, then the best thing to do is run an even pace. All that matters is the pace you can hold -- it doesn't matter if you would be able to suddenly accelerate in the middle of that race for a few hundred metres.

If you're talking about a member of the Olympic team, on the hand, then you need the ability to respond to surges and kicks, not just maintain a fast pace. At the elite level, there are so many extremely talented runners that the difference often comes down to who can change pace or kick best off a fast pace.

For example, Dave Beford set a world record for 10,000 metres in the 1970s. But at the European Championships in 1971, even though he set a very fast pace, he was outsprinted in the last lap and only finished 6th. The problem is, the five athletes in front of him all ran the last 400m faster than Bedford could run 400m when he was fresh! So in that case, even though Bedford was very, very FAST, he didn't have the SPEED to win that race under any circumstances.

(And just to head off the obvious question: yes, if Bedford had been able to run a world record at the championships, he still could have won. But it's not easy to summon up a world record performance at the drop of a hat. He was just off the world record, but still couldn't shake his pursuers.)

So to sum up: speed matters less if you're trying to run a fast time. But it's essential if you want to win races against roughly equal competition.

Running Newbie wrote:

Where I'm confused is what difference does your 200 time make? Run faster earlier in the race! If you average 1 second faster per 400 you have erased this deficit.

Where does speed come into it?

Um, you are correct, but you asked about SPEED, not endurance. Sure, if someone has a lot more endurance than another guy, but less speed (let's say 400 or even 800 speed) , and it is an endurance event (5k/10), then the endurance will prevail UNLESS it is a tactical race (in which case speed will prevail).

But let's take the Bekele vs EL G 5k matchups a couple years back. Bekele certainly has better endurance, and quite a bit of speed too (I guess that why he maybe the best ever). And that's why many on this board were saying, going into the first matchup in 2003 (WC's Paris) that Bekele would win no matter what type of race it turned out to be, hard from the gun OR tactical. These folks so believed in the power of endurance over speed , that they said: by the time it gets down to the last 400/800, Bekele won't be winded, but El G WILL be, and his supposed speed advantage will be gone. Now if El G had ZERO endurance this might have been true, but he had already run 12:50. So people like me were saying: a 3:43 miler/3:26 1500 guy, the best and fastest miler of ALL TIME is gonna get outkicked by a 10k/5k/X-C guy ?!?! No way we said (look it up). I said: El G WILL NOT get outkicked by Bekele. If he is there, and unless it is a 12:40 race, speed will prevail in a kicker's race.

Now I also said that if Bekele went hard from the gun and never looked back, he certainly could win (and likely would in a typical time-trial WR attempt). But being a championship race, speed would play a bigger factor. And sure enough, even though Bekele took it out hard, trying to neutralize El G's kick, the race slowed a bit in the middle, and El G outkicked Bekele (only to be outkicked himself by Kipchoge. But Kipchoge was fresh, and El G and Bekele had already won golds).

In the Olympics a year later, the race was even MORE slow/tactical (what was Bekele THINKING?), and El G outkicked Bekele even more easily (the race was close, but El G did it easily).

THERE are your examples where speed ruled over endurance in tactical races. And remember, Bekele HAS a lot of speed. Imagine if he didn't (like so many 5k guys)! He wouldn't stand a chance against a great miler in a tactical race.

Understand?

When we´re talking physiology, speed can mean 3 things:

1: all-out speed. The highest speed one can maintain for 6-8 seconds before the creatine phosphate is used up.

2: lactate tolerance. The ability to withstand high concentrations of lactate.

3: When a 10000 m runner says that another 10k runner with the same 10k PB is faster than him because "he can run 5k faster than I can", he is talking about oxygen uptake.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Understand?

Yes!

But this begs another question. 15 guys in a WC final. It's a slow tactical race. Everyone looks around and sees a EL G and/or Bekele in the race. 10 guys HAVE to know that cannot compete when it comes to a surge in the moddle or kick at the end (now that I understand speed). So, why don't we see some of these "back of the pack" guys pick up the pace early on? Anything can happen in a race but if resign yourself to running the race the guys gunning for the win want, you have absoutely no chance.

This is what frustrates me in some of the international races I've seen. So many times I see Americans hang-on to the back of the pack in a slow tactical race only to get dropped in the last 800 meters.

I recently saw a video of the 2000 Olympic 5k final. It was won in 13:35 by Million Wolde of Ethophia, something like the slowest time in 30 years. Very tactical until a mad sprint at the end.

So, what was Goucher thinking? Why didn't he go the front early and push the pace? His PR was 20 seconds faster than the winning time. He had to know he had zero chance in a race like that. Why not take it out and at least force the winner to run under your PR (which was 13:11 at the time)? Instead he finished something like 13th in 13:43.

well, you are asking the exact questions that many ask, and that many get frustrated by. I guess, to be fair, the guys that should push early and not wait for the kick are sometimes just outclassed all the way around: endurance, speed, experience, etc. So....they figure in a tactical sprint, anything can happen, and maybe even they, with less speed, could get lucky, and the better runners could get boxed. But still, that's hoping to get lucky. They may no chance at a medal period, but, as you say, they might as well run THEIR race, one that at least gives them the best shot at a high finish. Yeah, it's strange how many "slow" runners let races become kicker's races. Like I said, I guess they figure the longer they are with the leaders, the better off they are, and let's face it, it's damned hard to lead a long way.

But maybe that's where Ryan Hall is different. He LIKES to lead for long times, likes to be in front, doesn't mind the pressure. I can't see him in a championship 10k letting it get slow. No, he'd push early. But, on the other hand, he might no be as good in races where he leads, gets passed, leads again, and then is in a big pack hanging on. He might need to learn to do better in those situations, because he will not lead every race, that's for sure.

And let's give Webb some credit: though he got carried away a few times with HARD mid-race surges in big races, at least he knew that over the final 200 of a 1500, he didn't have the best kick, so tried to not let it come down to that. But he OVER-surged (too quickly, too soon), and also was just not the best runner in the field, so no matter what he did, he wasn't gonna win or even likely get top 3. But.....at least he didn't sit in the back, knowing he would never win in a kick. We should give he credit for trying SOMETHING!

(now in a 5k it would different, and Webb would LIKE a tactical race, because he has good speed, being a miler, compared to most 5k runners)

Yeah, Snell was a former sprint champ. And of course others have since run similar or superior marks at both 8 and 15 with similar speed and less training mileage.

One way of comparing your speed is to consider that Webb at his best will run 900m in 2' to your 800m. You are in better shape, but he is faster in 5k for reasons that show up even in a 50m stride.

With Webb speed, and your stamina, you'd be down near the AR, right w/ Kennedy. Actually, you'd most likely have the AR since I doubt w/ your heart and determination you'd get that close and not take it.

14.6 x 8/9 = <13' 5k

So the answer is yes, you are fast (youre a real stud in fact), but you dont have speed.

It is the combination of speed and stamina that wins races.