Is the 2 mile speed or endurance?

well it's both just like the 800m & 1500m are.

Although this will depend on your projected time. If not very quick then mostly endurance will get you through but if you're aiming for a quick time then speed is very much required.

Imagine a sub 8:00 2 mile run - that needs tremendous speed-endurance.

What difference would it make? To paraphrase Billy Crudup as Prefontaine: "it's a completely arbitrary length no matter what you pick."

It's between 8:00-16:00 minutes in length depending on who's running it. That alone is a big difference. Your best training is going to be practicing running for 3-20 minutes at a little faster, a little slower, and right at your race pace. In order to do that, you are going to have to build a base of speed (muscular strength) and endurance (aerobic capacity).

If you had me choose who would win between a 800/miler and a 10k guy racing the two mile, like say Robby Andrews vs Chris Derrick, I'd take the distance guy.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

What difference would it make? To paraphrase Billy Crudup as Prefontaine: "it's a completely arbitrary length no matter what you pick."

It's between 8:00-16:00 minutes in length depending on who's running it. That alone is a big difference. Your best training is going to be practicing running for 3-20 minutes at a little faster, a little slower, and right at your race pace. In order to do that, you are going to have to build a base of speed (muscular strength) and endurance (aerobic capacity).

If you had me choose who would win between a 800/miler and a 10k guy racing the two mile, like say Robby Andrews vs Chris Derrick, I'd take the distance guy.

^This....especially the part about getting used to running 3-20 minutes fast.

It is considered a middle distance event.

In HS, if you are good at XC, you will also be good at the 2 mile compared with how well you run the mile. The big difference between XC and the 2 mile is that XC is slow enough so that even without great mile speed, if you lose focus for a while, you can still make up for it. For a XC runner, the 2 mile requires a continuous effort to stay on the red line with little room for error.

Agreed, it's a middle distance event. Gotta let us have some events! Can't have mile+ all classed as distance events! It is the event where Kiprop would trouble Farah, Ndiku, Kamworor, Kjelcha and the rest.

Bocephus wrote:

It is considered a middle distance event.

90% aerobic, 10% anaerobic

Lenny Leonard wrote:

If you had me choose who would win between a 800/miler and a 10k guy racing the two mile, like say Robby Andrews vs Chris Derrick, I'd take the distance guy.

I would take Andrews over Derrick in a 2mile. However I would take Farah over Coe, and Rupp over Webb.

3218er wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

If you had me choose who would win between a 800/miler and a 10k guy racing the two mile, like say Robby Andrews vs Chris Derrick, I'd take the distance guy.

I would take Andrews over Derrick in a 2mile. However I would take Farah over Coe, and Rupp over Webb.

Actually I would take Webb over Rupp.

Derrick would probably beat Andrews by at least 15 seconds in a 2 mile. No true US 800/1500 guys could run over 3200 meters and beat a top US 10k guy

Takes 4 times the hate to run 2 mile so I would call that endurance.

ehm depends wrote:

well it's both just like the 800m & 1500m are.

Although this will depend on your projected time. If not very quick then mostly endurance will get you through but if you're aiming for a quick time then speed is very much required.

Imagine a sub 8:00 2 mile run - that needs tremendous speed-endurance.

I disagree. A 400m sprinter might take 10 or more minutes to run a two miler, but has great speed and good speed endurance. Speed can help you to get an ok time, but look at the only guy who could actually run under 8 mins. He was all speed endurance and endurance, extreme aerobic efficiency from Daniel Komen. So running an extremely fast 2 mile is more about endurance than speed training.

Track work might help quite a bit, but by improving running economy at race pace. Repetitions any shorter than 400m not being needed. Doing high speed 200m reps would be overkill, target fast twitch fibers. I'd argue that would be alright 800 meter training though, so the races are different.

different perspective wrote:

Derrick would probably beat Andrews by at least 15 seconds in a 2 mile. No true US 800/1500 guys could run over 3200 meters and beat a top US 10k guy

i mean maybe, alan webb did run 8:11 though. leer ran a solid 8:19,

lagat(not true american i guess) ran 7:29 for 3k,

maybe you could argue ryan hill?? 3:37/13:05

also steve scott has an impressive 2k pr so maybe he could pull out a solid 2 mile.

different perspective wrote:

Derrick would probably beat Andrews by at least 15 seconds in a 2 mile. No true US 800/1500 guys could run over 3200 meters and beat a top US 10k guy

The U.S. Milers of the 60s/70s/80s/90s/00s would disagree with you.

The two mile is an endurance event - ESPECIALLY if you're in high school. The best way to improve is more endurance training (run more).

Whether Webb would beat Andrews or Derrick or Lomong or Rupp or vice versa is irrelevant because they're all endurance athletes. They would all beat Usain Bolt in it.

Maybe generalizations about milers vs 5k/10k guys is not the way to go. Need more hypothetical match ups.

how about top-3 1500 guys at USAs vs the top-3 10000 guys

Centro vs Rupp

Andrews vs True

Manzano bs Mead

Who wins 2 out of 3?

Metric Miler wrote:

It is the event where Kiprop would trouble Farah, Ndiku, Kamworor, Kjelcha and the rest.

False.

little jojo wrote:

90% aerobic 10% anaerobic

Also false.

Bocephus wrote:

It is considered a middle distance event.

No, 3,000m is on the cusp of middle and long distances and 2 miles is further

If you look at the best times for 3,000m and 2 miles they are mostly done by long distance runners

2 mile race requires both speed and endurance

Anything longer than 40 meters is endurance.