Which is easier, getting a sprinter to become an OK distance runner, or getting a distance runner to become an OK sprinter?

Predictor wrote:

No question that a distance guy can’t sprint. After all, that’s why they became distance guys in the first place.

Gottem

kartelite wrote:

like really bro wrote:

However, the question is more about who would do better in a different discipline. An elite distance runner could still probably be in the top 99% of sprinters on the planet. I have extreme doubts that the same could be said about a large, powerful, pure 100m specialist.

A typical 30 minute 10k runner could probably run about 52-53 for 400m, which is way better than 99% of the population. A typical 11.0 100m guy would probably run about 7 minutes for the mile, which is fine but nowhere near the level that a distance runner can sprint.

The 10k guy could probably put together a respectable 100m (say 13.0, same as his 400m pace so think it's conservative enough) for a local all-comer'a meet. Doubt the 100m guy would be as good over 10k.

Uhm No, not even close.

practically anybody with God given talent to run 11.0 can EASILY be trained for A decent 800 or 1500/mile.

It's laughable that you think they couldn't break 7!!

You must be REALLY slow and insecure about your distance credentials to throw that kind of BS out there.

Unless you're talking about Usain Bolt running a 2:30 marathon, these claims that sprinters can't do any distance work are nonsense.

Besides comparing 53-54 second 400 time @ 99% can't do may be true but 11.0 100 time is something 99.99% of people can't do...

BTW, you do realize that your 2:10 800 "speed" is not very good, don't you??!

what will happen wrote:

Sub 12.5 in the 100 is harder than sub 5 in the 1500.

The sprinter can succeed but won't try. The distance runner will try but won't succeed.

I disagree. sub 5 is like a sub 12. 12.5 for 100m is a garbage time.

bricked wrote:

kartelite wrote:

A typical 30 minute 10k runner could probably run about 52-53 for 400m

Not even close unless they devoted a year to train specifically for the 400.

The top women elites are running in the 30 minute range, and I doubt that more than 20-30% of them could break 56 from a standing start off of pure 10k training.

Paula Radcliffe probably fits the OP's criterion the best (30 flat 10k PR and is a pure distance type). Her 1500 PR is only 4:05, which can be done off of 58" 400 speed.

I think the fact you're comparing the flat out speed of a typical 30 min girl and 30 min guy says it all. A "typical" guy who runs 30:00 will be around 14:15-20 for 5k and low 3:50s for 1500m. Most guys who can do that will be able to turn a 52-53. My 5k PR was just under 15, and my 800/1500 were 1:59/4:02 and my one open 400m was 53.66 (set less than a year after the 5k and 800m times when I'd basically stopped training).

The girls who can run 30 flat are aerobic monsters, your comparison is ridiculous to say the least.

Draco wrote:

what will happen wrote:

Sub 12.5 in the 100 is harder than sub 5 in the 1500.

The sprinter can succeed but won't try. The distance runner will try but won't succeed.

I disagree. sub 5 is like a sub 12. 12.5 for 100m is a garbage time.

Sub 5 is pure garbage.

12.5 is too.

Don't worry slow distance guys, there is always the ultra world.

You can go as slow as you want, just keep going! Eventually you'll go far enough that its a record!

You can be the "fastest" slow person to cover a 400 km course too. Walking or jogging!

kartelite wrote:

My 5k PR was just under 15, and my 800/1500 were 1:59/4:02 and my one open 400m was 53.66 (set less than a year after the 5k and 800m times when I'd basically stopped training).

What's more, I actually placed 5th of 9 in the 400m that day (it was a pretty bad D3 meet), and beat people in each of the high jump (hurdle style, btw I can still dunk at 34 how many of your sprinters can do that), long jump, and 400m hurdles even though I'd never done them before. I placed 2nd in the 5k also in around 17:20, so yeah it was basically like a mediocre HS meet the fact is a distance runner can still step down to those distances but I highly doubt your 11.0 sprinter could have moved up and beaten a single person in the 5k without a lick of training for it.

ULTRA-WORLD wrote:

Draco wrote:

I disagree. sub 5 is like a sub 12. 12.5 for 100m is a garbage time.

Sub 5 is pure garbage.

12.5 is too.

Don't worry slow distance guys, there is always the ultra world.

You can go as slow as you want, just keep going! Eventually you'll go far enough that its a record!

You can be the "fastest" slow person to cover a 400 km course too. Walking or jogging!

Yea. I'm not saying sub 5 is not garbage but it is a bit harder than 12.5 I think. to me, sub 5 is the distance equivalent of 12.5.

LIke really bro wrote:

No elite distance runner needs to "train" to break 12.5.

You may be right, but we're talking about 30 minute 10k guys, not sub 27 elites.

You're correct. HS XC teams often have sprinters who not only use it to get in shape but contribute. Some run 17 minute 5ks which is very good. I've never seen a distance runner contribute in the 4x100 relay.

No contest here. No matter how mcc training, most people, let alone distance runners could not run 11.0 in the 100m. However, take that sprinter with fast twitch muscle fibers and increase their mileage a 30 minute 10k. Granted it would take years and years to establish that aerobic base but its more physiologically possible then trying to stimulate the worn down fast twitch muscle fibers of a 10k runner.

ex-runner wrote:

https://youtu.be/KJMIwlQB-28

For those that haven't seen it. Please don't anyone try and say Farah wasn't trying. Total nonsense just watch the video

This video perfectly demonstrates that a well trained and fairly agile distance runner can sprint faster than the typical weekend warrior, but is clearly out classed by anyone with real athletic (explosive power) talent.

Since when is athletic talent defined as having explosive power?

Anyway, a data point: Stéphane Diagana, European record holder at 400mH turned to distance running after his professional career:

http://bases.athle.com/asp.net/athletes.aspx?base=bilans&seq=504949504653485146535148

. Definitely world class at 200m, 400m and 400mH; way above average, but nowhere near world class at distance running. Between 2004 and 2005, he went from a 47.07 400m to a 1:21:26 half marathon. Not bad. That kind of half-marathon would be a pretty hard training session for me, but his 400m is so utterly unachievable it's not funny.

grox wrote:

Since when is athletic talent defined as having explosive power?

Anyway, a data point: Stéphane Diagana, European record holder at 400mH turned to distance running after his professional career:

http://bases.athle.com/asp.net/athletes.aspx?base=bilans&seq=504949504653485146535148

. Definitely world class at 200m, 400m and 400mH; way above average, but nowhere near world class at distance running. Between 2004 and 2005, he went from a 47.07 400m to a 1:21:26 half marathon. Not bad. That kind of half-marathon would be a pretty hard training session for me, but his 400m is so utterly unachievable it's not funny.

Most sports actually require explosive power.

Athletes that earn 100s of millions $$$ are talented in explosive power. Explosive power usually is also a good measure for how well one can balance and is also a good indicator of ball skills. Like it or not, the reason that these athletes can get million$ is that these skills are coveted by most.

If you dont have it, then you are deemed less athletic. Distance guys, save for 800 & 1500, don't have this athletic gift. They are good at endurance and their sport doesn't require balance at all, just perpetual forward motion.

Athletic in the sense of endurance but not needing other athletic skills.

Follow the $$$. That is where you will find athletic traits valued by our society.

Mo is the highest paid distance runner today.

He barely makes the league minimum NBA salary.

(BTW, did you guys know that at 7'1" and 300 lbs. Wilt Chamberlain had a 36" vertical, could bench press 500 pounds, squat 1000, and he ran sub 50 400s in college where he was mostly a 400 hurdler??

Oh, and he also slept with an average of 3 women per day for over 20 years!

Athleticism!

If it helps , my friend Pedro Elias Ortiz was a sub 30 10k guy and I remember seeing him run between 12.30-12.50 in to 100. He also won the L.A. marathon a few decades ago. He was a freak of nature, still running at over 60 in Bucaramanga, Colombia.

Donyiyo wrote:

If it helps , my friend Pedro Elias Ortiz was a sub 30 10k guy and I remember seeing him run between 12.30-12.50 in to 100. He also won the L.A. marathon a few decades ago. He was a freak of nature, still running at over 60 in Bucaramanga, Colombia.

I meant he is a freak of nature.

Athletism is fundamentally about high muscle power. The ability to move ones body at high speeds. It’s best expressed in elite running ability. A 4.5 40yd is elite as is a 28 min 10k. If you can run 28 min10k or a 2:10 marathon you’ve got some really powerful muscles. And we can expect that that caliber of athlete will be capable of performing well in a wide range of sports. Body size, hight/ weight will be a factor in certain sports though.

In sports like boxing/ wrestling you can’t expect a 130 pounder with skill equal to a 190 pounder to out perform the 190 pounder simply because of the weight deferential. Is weight an aspect of athleticism?

Is it reasonable to claim that a 2:10 marathoner is less athletic than a 10.5100m athlete ? The 2:10 guy can’t do the 10.5 but the 10.5 guy can’t do the 2:10. Both performances are expressions of high end muscle power. Which is more athletic?

I was a bottom-string sprinter in NCAA (11.5/23.0) and without training I ran 2:20 for 800m only like 30 mins after being exhausted by running a 400m race, and in that same year just for fun at practice I ran 5:20 for 1600m while in trainers. If I could nearly do it, I'm pretty certain any person running 11.0 in the 100m can run sub-5min for 1500m., especially if they're going to train for a few weeks.

It's also a complete myth that somehow sprinters are just "born" fast. We all worked our asses off, no less than distance runners, in order to compete. Of course some kid who runs 10.1 at age 20 was born with the right stuff. But no different than a college kid who is able to run 13:15 over 5000 metres.

Twitching wrote:

Fast twitch muscles can be converted to slow twitch, but slow twitch cannot convert to fast twitch.

Once again, get an Fing clue people. Muscle tissue is created and destroyed all the time. You don't need to "convert" one to the other, bro. And it doesn't matter anyhow to run 12.50, you don't need to be Captain Type 2X. You just need to understand how to sprint.

Go ahead folks, come at me with your denial and your spite, you know I'm right. You can't stand it, but you know it. Let out your frustration and then you can submit happily to my wisdom.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Twitching wrote:

Fast twitch muscles can be converted to slow twitch, but slow twitch cannot convert to fast twitch.

Once again, get an Fing clue people. Muscle tissue is created and destroyed all the time. You don't need to "convert" one to the other, bro. And it doesn't matter anyhow to run 12.50, you don't need to be Captain Type 2X. You just need to understand how to sprint.

Go ahead folks, come at me with your denial and your spite, you know I'm right. You can't stand it, but you know it. Let out your frustration and then you can submit happily to my wisdom.

An addendum, not a disagreement:

Sprinting fast is mostly a combination of brute strength and neuromuscular coordination. It's how one lives their very yearly years. Playing full court basketball at an early age, playing t-ball/baseball at an early age and playing Am. football at an early age makes one faster than sedentary peers. Sprinting is like ballet and playing the violin, one must start young. Genetic muscle twitch ration is not the answer. I was a faster sprinter than my son when he was eleven. Now that my son is twelve, he's faster than me. My son has a better combination of brute strength and neuromuscular coordination today than me. My father, his 200m PB is more than two seconds faster than my 200m PB. I am a significantly faster sprinter now than my father. Today, I have a better combination of neuromuscular coordination and brute strength than my father. Why does my father have a 200m PB more than two seconds faster than my 200m PB? My father as a youth raced trolleys travelling at 20 to 25 mph daily all year. It's how one lives one's life as a youth people!