Usain Bolt - Marathon

HarryHump

How would Usain Bolt or his sprint colleagues fair if they were to do a marathon based just on whatever training they currently do for their sprint disciplines? Would they do well, as in sub 2.30? or is their make up so different that they would be lucky to finish the 26 miles still running?

ThePiedPiper

Based on solely the training they do for current discipline, I would think that they would fail to finish (Bolt), or else run somewhere slower than 3:30. Bolt's too lazy to train for the 400m. Sure, doesn't everyone know he's going to sign for Manchester Utd whenever he finishes his running career!!! A 100, 200, 400 runner could never complete a respectable marathon off sprint training.

An international class 800m runner might however be able to just turn up and run a very respectable marathon, depending on the type of 800m runner they are.

Chivito550

A lad I trained with in Melbourne ran a marathon before he took up sprinting. Big unit of a lad, used to play Aussie Rules before he took up sprinting I believe. Anyway, he's around 12.0 for the 100m. His marathon time was an appalling 5:xx. Don't know what shape he was in when he did the marathon mind you.

Chivito550

ThePiedPiper wrote: »

Based on solely the training they do for current discipline, I would think that they would fail to finish (Bolt), or else run somewhere slower than 3:30. Bolt's too lazy to train for the 400m. Sure, doesn't everyone know he's going to sign for Manchester Utd whenever he finishes his running career!!! A 100, 200, 400 runner could never complete a respectable marathon off sprint training.

An international class 800m runner might however be able to just turn up and run a very respectable marathon, depending on the type of 800m runner they are.

What do you mean by respectable marathon? Sub 2:30? Sub 2:40?

barryoneill50

Chivito550 wrote: »

What do you mean by respectable marathon? Sub 2:30? Sub 2:40?

Sure anything slower than 2:40 would be hobby jogging:D(joke, joke)...

Chartsengrafs

Plug his 100m time into a McMillan or other calculator. This will give you a projected marathon time which would be 100% accurate.

ThePiedPiper

Chivito550 wrote: »

What do you mean by respectable marathon? Sub 2:30? Sub 2:40?

I don't know really, pure speculation of course, but I think I remember reading somewhere that Rudisha generally does a long run of 12-15km at altitude. Yes, its not long from a marathon point of view, but I would guess that there are other elite 800m runners that probably run longer than that again in training, so it wouldn't be off the charts to suggest that they could run at what would be a very easy pace for them to around 2:30. I'll try and look it up..

That 5+ hours for the sprinter in Aus is ridiculously slow, I'd imagine there was little to no proper training done for that. I think anybody with any sort of reasonable sporting background should be capable of around 3:30 with just 1 or 2 long runs.

Chivito550

ThePiedPiper wrote: »

I don't know really, pure speculation of course, but I think I remember reading somewhere that Rudisha generally does a long run of 12-15km at altitude. Yes, its not long from a marathon point of view, but I would guess that there are other elite 800m runners that probably run longer than that again in training, so it wouldn't be off the charts to suggest that they could run at what would be a very easy pace for them to around 2:30. I'll try and look it up..

That 5+ hours for the sprinter in Aus is ridiculously slow, I'd imagine there was little to no proper training done for that. I think anybody with any sort of reasonable sporting background should be capable of around 3:30 with just 1 or 2 long runs.

No idea what his training was like. Not very good at a guess. But he's a well built and explosive lad. Anything over 200m and he struggles.

5 hours is truly terrible though. And I thought my 4:07 was a shocker!

ECOLII

ThePiedPiper wrote: »

I don't know really, pure speculation of course, but I think I remember reading somewhere that Rudisha generally does a long run of 12-15km at altitude. Yes, its not long from a marathon point of view, but I would guess that there are other elite 800m runners that probably run longer than that again in training, so it wouldn't be off the charts to suggest that they could run at what would be a very easy pace for them to around 2:30. I'll try and look it up..

You would be surprised of the fall off to be honest. You don't just account for the lack off aerobic fitness there is also the muscle density, muscle fibre composition etc. If a well trained sprinter at the 10/21 level dedicated about 6-12 months to specific training I would reckon 2.50-3.10 would be a very good result but realistically I would say DNF for +90% of elite sprinters

Off top of my head I can think of a few examples which should give some idea of dramatic drop off of long sprinters/middle distance guys

- Sub 46 400 runner with a background in XC as juvenile running around 18 min for 5k during winter training
- 1.48 800m runner clocking a 1.14 HM during winter XC training
- 3.48 1500m runner clocking 71 for HM during winter training

Would be very surprised to see any 400/800 guys running sub 2.30 for marathon without a dramatic change in training approach

Chivito550

ECOLII wrote: »

- Sub 46 400 runner with a background in XC as juvenile running around 18 min for 5k during winter training

Which runner is this? That 5k is pretty slow. Was it in a race or solo TT?

I've a 19:46 on a slow course, during end of season break, and am 9 seconds slower over 400.

ECOLII

Chivito550 wrote: »

Which runner is this? That 5k is pretty slow. Was it in a race or solo TT?

I've a 19:46 on a slow course, during end of season break, and am 9 seconds slower over 400.

Race. The point I am trying to make is that it is not just aerobic fitness that is an issue, muscle weighs more than fat so in elite sprint athletes muscle density becomes an issue as well as muscle fibre types (i.e Type II fibres fatiguing quicker)

Chivito550

ECOLII wrote: »

Race. The point I am trying to make is that it is not just aerobic fitness that is an issue, muscle weighs more than fat so in elite sprint athletes muscle density becomes an issue as well as muscle fibre types (i.e Type II fibres fatiguing quicker)

Yeh agree completely. A slighter 400m runner would probably fare better over a longer distance than a fairly big 400 runner.

A lad in my club in Melbourne who specialises in 800m and has run 1:58, every time he runs long distances he performs pretty poorly in comparison. 31ish minutes for 5 miles.

I still reckon I'd beat that 4:07 marathon if I ran one tomorrow though.

menoscemo

Chivito550 wrote: »

I still reckon I'd beat that 4:07 marathon if I ran one tomorrow though.

Sounds like a challenge

Netwerk Errer

ECOLII wrote: »

- 1.48 800m runner clocking a 1.14 HM during winter XC training
- 3.48 1500m runner clocking 71 for HM during winter training

Steve Ovett ran a 65 minute HM with no specific training and an on the day entry.

Chivito550

I remember reading in Eamonn Coghan's book about him running a marathon with no great preparation. John Treacy was in the same race and had been targeting it. Treacy had a nightmare and Coghlan flew past him late on and Treacy said something along the lines of "what the hell are you doing here". It's a funny read. Think he ran low 2:20s.

EDIT: 2:25 in 1991 NYC Marathon. Seems like Treacy ran 2:15 in that race. Will have to read that story again. I remember it being funny though.

RayCun

He said he was at the press conference the day before and Liz McColgan was there, the favourite to win the women's race, and he decided he wasn't going to be chicked :pac:

Hard Worker

Seb Coe ran 46 minutes for 10 miles in training.

Pherekydes

Hard Worker wrote: »

Seb Coe ran 46 minutes for 10 miles in training.

Of course he did.

Sure I ran ten flat for 100m in training and later the same day I did a 20 mile long run in one hour forty minutes.

robinph

Iwan Thomas with a 44.36 pb for 400, but can only just break 4 hours and is now getting slower despite more distance experience.

http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=1604

RoyMcC

robinph wrote: »

Iwan Thomas with a 44.36 pb for 400, but can only just break 4 hours and is now getting slower despite more distance experience.

http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=1604

Thank you Robin. I thought I'd wandered into a parallel universe with talk of mediocre 3:30s

Hard Worker

Pherekydes wrote: »

Of course he did.

Sure I ran ten flat for 100m in training and later the same day I did a 20 mile long run in one hour forty minutes.

Brendan Foster mentioned that he saw a 48 minute 10 mile training run listed in Coe's diary. The reference to 46 minutes came from David Miller, his biographer.
Do I believe it? Hard to tell, considering Coe's 3000M and 5000M times are "quite slow".

walshb

Interesting thread. Always wondered what sort of times athletes would achieve in other disciplines with little or no training. You couldn't get more different than a bulky/heavy power sprinter to a marathon runner. Training or not, the physical make up is going to really hurt them.

Clearlier

ECOLII wrote: »

You would be surprised of the fall off to be honest. You don't just account for the lack off aerobic fitness there is also the muscle density, muscle fibre composition etc. If a well trained sprinter at the 10/21 level dedicated about 6-12 months to specific training I would reckon 2.50-3.10 would be a very good result but realistically I would say DNF for +90% of elite sprinters

Off top of my head I can think of a few examples which should give some idea of dramatic drop off of long sprinters/middle distance guys

- Sub 46 400 runner with a background in XC as juvenile running around 18 min for 5k during winter training
- 1.48 800m runner clocking a 1.14 HM during winter XC training
- 3.48 1500m runner clocking 71 for HM during winter training

Would be very surprised to see any 400/800 guys running sub 2.30 for marathon without a dramatic change in training approach

Some fairly shocking drop off in times there ecoli. A pointer though to what they need to do improve their times at 800 and 1500 respectively? Is the 800m guy really a 400m runner or just really badly trained aerobically? He must struggle if there are rounds in competition? If he's a genuine 800m runner and the half was a real effort then surely he must be good for a couple of seconds faster with a bit more aerobic development?

Peter Snell was an 800m world record holder who ran 2:41 for a marathon. IIRC he didn't train specifically for it, ran with the leaders until about 20 miles when he had a major bonk including a sit down at the side of the road.

I was going to mention Iwan Thomas but robin got in ahead of me. Caroline Wozniacki whose athletic training could be either sprint based or 400/800 type training ran 3:26 at New York this year which I was impressed with.

I guess that the answer to the OP's question is that it depends on the athlete, some really struggle whereas others can adapt reasonably well.

ECOLII

Clearlier wrote: »

Some fairly shocking drop off in times there ecoli. A pointer though to what they need to do improve their times at 800 and 1500 respectively? Is the 800m guy really a 400m runner or just really badly trained aerobically? He must struggle if there are rounds in competition? If he's a genuine 800m runner and the half was a real effort then surely he must be good for a couple of seconds faster with a bit more aerobic development?

Peter Snell was an 800m world record holder who ran 2:41 for a marathon. IIRC he didn't train specifically for it, ran with the leaders until about 20 miles when he had a major bonk including a sit down at the side of the road.

I was going to mention Iwan Thomas but robin got in ahead of me. Caroline Wozniacki whose athletic training could be either sprint based or 400/800 type training ran 3:26 at New York this year which I was impressed with.

I guess that the answer to the OP's question is that it depends on the athlete, some really struggle whereas others can adapt reasonably well.

Ironically the 800m guy in my opinion is actually naturally more suited to the 1500m and has done well through rounds in the past.

With regards Wozniacki I would probably say 400/800 is probably an underestimation given she supplemented her Tennis schedule with runs as well as having a number of 2-3 hour games this season I would say that their was alot of aerobic work done to the point where it was closer to 800/1500.

Looking at power of 10 website you can see many 400 runners of 44-46 standard with times of 17 high/18 low so seems like a good yardstick.

Clearlier

ECOLII wrote: »

Ironically the 800m guy in my opinion is actually naturally more suited to the 1500m and has done well through rounds in the past.

With regards Wozniacki I would probably say 400/800 is probably an underestimation given she supplemented her Tennis schedule with runs as well as having a number of 2-3 hour games this season I would say that their was alot of aerobic work done to the point where it was closer to 800/1500.

Looking at power of 10 website you can see many 400 runners of 44-46 standard with times of 17 high/18 low so seems like a good yardstick.

That's very interesting. Naturally high VO2max but not much aerobic work/low miles? Maybe doing the longer runs at threshold and slightly faster pace?

walshb

Netwerk Errer wrote: »

Steve Ovett ran a 65 minute HM with no specific training and an on the day entry.

That doesn't surprise me at all. The dude was a sub 3 min 50 miler.

ultrapercy

walshb wrote: »

That doesn't surprise me at all. The dude was a sub 3 min 50 miler.

The original post was a question about Bolt running a marathon. Someone like Ovett probably ran big miles in training for his event and lots of those miles would be specific to a Half marathon, just because his event was 800/1500 it didnt mean his training was meaningless to half marathon. Usain Bolt on the other hand would do almost no training relevant to a Marathon because it would be damaging to his ability at his event. I dont know what Bolt would run for a marathon, if for some reason he decided to run one, but without specific training my money would be on DNF most likely very early on.

robinph

Marathon Talk fairly recently spoke with some guy who was a sprinter doing up to 400m I think, not sure what his history was or why they were talking with him. But when he was asked about what time he thought he'd do a mile in he didn't think he'd even be capable of finishing the 4 laps as he wouldn't even have the endurance for that far.

walshb

ultrapercy wrote: »

The original post was a question about Bolt running a marathon. Someone like Ovett probably ran big miles in training for his event and lots of those miles would be specific to a Half marathon, just because his event was 800/1500 it didnt mean his training was meaningless to half marathon. Usain Bolt on the other hand would do almost no training relevant to a Marathon because it would be damaging to his ability at his event. I dont know what Bolt would run for a marathon, if for some reason he decided to run one, but without specific training my money would be on DNF most likely very early on.

Exactly. Hence why I am not surprised. Elite milers train hard and run varied distances. 65 mins with no specific HM training doesn't at all surprise me.

Chivito550

robinph wrote: »

Marathon Talk fairly recently spoke with some guy who was a sprinter doing up to 400m I think, not sure what his history was or why they were talking with him. But when he was asked about what time he thought he'd do a mile in he didn't think he'd even be capable of finishing the 4 laps as he wouldn't even have the endurance for that far.

I'd assume this is a 100/200 runner who runs the odd 400 for endurance and who has a huge drop off from 200 to 400. No way somebody who trains for 400 would not be able to finish 4 laps. 400m runners have to be fit! It's about 50% aerobic.

dna_leri

ECOLII wrote: »

Off top of my head I can think of a few examples which should give some idea of dramatic drop off of long sprinters/middle distance guys

- Sub 46 400 runner with a background in XC as juvenile running around 18 min for 5k during winter training
- 1.48 800m runner clocking a 1.14 HM during winter XC training
- 3.48 1500m runner clocking 71 for HM during winter training

Would be very surprised to see any 400/800 guys running sub 2.30 for marathon without a dramatic change in training approach

I don't see a whole lot wrong with those times tbh especially the 400/800.
Even the 800m guy doing winter training is probably not going above 10-12 miles long run and then at an easy pace. Probably very little work done at LT pace - not needed for an 800. Though it would probably be the area to work on if transitioning up to 1500.

robinph

Chivito550 wrote: »

I'd assume this is a 100/200 runner who runs the odd 400 for endurance and who has a huge drop off from 200 to 400. No way somebody who trains for 400 would not be able to finish 4 laps. 400m runners have to be fit! It's about 50% aerobic.

I think so, it sounded like he thought of 400m as an extremely long distance.

walshb

MJ was an endurance sprinter. Would a 4 min 20 mile be a bit much for him?

Netwerk Errer

ultrapercy wrote: »

The original post was a question about Bolt running a marathon. Someone like Ovett probably ran big miles in training for his event and lots of those miles would be specific to a Half marathon, just because his event was 800/1500 it didnt mean his training was meaningless to half marathon.

My post was just adding to ecoli's point. Butas you've brought it up, Ovett was running 50mpw with a long run maxing out at 90 minutes during his base phase. He was supposed to be running a 1500m race that weekend. You're talking about a guy who would have done only sharpening of 800,400 and 200m reps in the run up to a half marathon with no long tempo's or any long runs at all and he still runs a 65. A time that would still to this day qualify him for the World HM championships. In America, it would get him a place in the Olympic marathon trials.

This guy is a 800/1500 runner. Think about what he could have run if he prepared. I don't know what Ovett could run for 400 but I presume it would be sub-48s. Just think about that range for a minute.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

MJ was an endurance sprinter. Would a 4 min 20 mile be a bit much for him?

No he wasn't. He was very much a speed based 400 runner. He just dipped under 5 for the mile in training. Gillick, on the other hand, was more of an endurance based 400 runner and could run a 4:30 mile.

menoscemo

robinph wrote: »

I think so, it sounded like he thought of 400m as an extremely long distance.

It was this guy
I think he said at his Peak he was running 10.9 100m, 21 high 200m and low 50 for 400m.
As a +60 Vet he is running 12, 24, 56 I think (world masters champ for all 3 distances).

Edit: this is his power of 10 profile http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=35078

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

No he wasn't. He was very much a speed based 400 runner. He just dipped under 5 for the mile in training. Gillick, on the other hand, was more of an endurance based 400 runner and could run a 4:30 mile.

I would associate him more as a speed based 400 runner with endurance. But he still was an endurance sprinter, no? Not your typical 100 metre sprinter. Not explosive enough over 60-100 metres.

Netwerk Errer

walshb wrote: »

I would associate him more as a speed based 400 runner with endurance. But he still was an endurance sprinter, no? Not your typical 100 metre sprinter. Not explosive enough over 60-100 metres.

I think his 19.32 says it all. A lot of guys were running 43:xx before but none of them were in the same picture in the 200m.

walshb

Netwerk Errer wrote: »

I think his 19.32 says it all. A lot of guys were running 43:xx before but none of them were in the same picture in the 200m.

Indeed. Hell of a time. Still too slow over 100. He had the endurance to maintain a very high speed. Had not go the explosion or kick over 100. I am assuming this, as had he then I am sure the 100 meters would have been tried. He was a 10.10 - 10.15 100 metre guy at best? Top end speed probably 25-26 mph.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I would associate him more as a speed based 400 runner with endurance. But he still was an endurance sprinter, no? Not your typical 100 metre sprinter. Not explosive enough over 60-100 metres.

Nobody who runs 19.32 can be considered endurance based. Sure he wasn't as good out of the blocks as the top 100 guys, but his top end speed was incredible.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Nobody who runs 19.32 can be considered endurance based. Sure he wasn't as good out of the blocks as the top 100 guys, but his top end speed was incredible.

Ok, but I always thought of the 200 as an endurance based sprint? The 400 as more endurance and less speed; of course, MJ was speed and endurance for both. He had it all over one lap. I guess I think of real raw speed/power more for the 100 guys. The elites there. I think these lads can touch 27-28 mph at top end. Johnson was, as mentioned, more speed than endurance.

Netwerk Errer

walshb wrote: »

Ok, but I always thought of the 200 as an endurance based sprint? The 400 as more endurance and less speed; of course, MJ was speed and endurance for both. He had it all over one lap. I guess I think of real raw speed/power more for the 100 guys. The elites there. I think these lads can touch 27-28 mph at top end. Johnson was, as mentioned, more speed than endurance.

The 100m requires brutal acceleration, high top end speed and still needs speed endurance. If your missing one, the race passes you by. There is more time for compensation in the 200m but if you're the WR holder, you have to have the top end speed in the first place.

walshb

Netwerk Errer wrote: »

The 100m requires brutal acceleration, high top end speed and still needs speed endurance. If your missing one, the race passes you by. There is more time for compensation in the 200m but if you're the WR holder, you have to have the speed.

I agree fully. Speed an essential over 200. I just always would have described it as an endurance based sprint. Sprint being in the description. MJs top end speeds was not as impressive as his counterparts over 100. Maurice Greene/Donovan Bailey. I think they got close to 28 mph.

BTW, I have always thought that a certain level of pacing is needed in all races, even 100 and 200. Is that daft?

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I agree fully. Speed an essential over 200. I just always would have described it as an endurance based sprint. Sprint being in the description. MJs top end speeds was not as impressive as his counterparts over 100. Maurice Greene/Donovan Bailey. I think they got close to 28 mph.

BTW, I have always thought that a certain level of pacing is needed in all races, even 100 and 200. Is that daft?

His top end speed was as good, if not better, than those guys. He just took longer to get up to top end speed, which is why he wasn't great over 100 IMO.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

His top end speed was as good, if not better, than those guys. He just took longer to get up to top end speed, which is why he wasn't great over 100 IMO.

I didn't realize that. I always had him penciled as a 25-26 mph max kind of top end guy. I could have sworn that I read an article where he mentioned this. It's usually at the 50-70 metres range where the 100 guys reach peak speed, very close to 28 mph.

Netwerk Errer

walshb wrote: »

I agree fully. Speed an essential over 200. I just always would have described it as an endurance based sprint. Sprint being in the description. MJs top end speeds was not as impressive as his counterparts over 100. Maurice Greene/Donovan Bailey. I think they got close to 28 mph.

BTW, I have always thought that a certain level of pacing is needed in all races, even 100 and 200. Is that daft?

First of all, the highest top speed recorded is by slow starter Usain Bolt at 27.44mph. Bailey and Greene never even got close to 28mph. If they did with their speed out of the blocks, the world records would have been untouchable for Bolt. Of course MJ had better endurance than Mo or Bailey, he trained for the 400m but he still had the speed to run 19.32.

Think of it this way. If during MJ's Wr, he ran the first 100 in 10.10. That means he ran the second 100 in 9.22. His poor acceleration over the first half was compensated by his monstrous speed in the 2nd 100.

If he was an endurance based sprinter, his 400m time would be better than his 200. It's not though. Therefore, he's a speed based 200/400 runner.

ultrapercy

Netwerk Errer wrote: »

My post was just adding to ecoli's point. Butas you've brought it up, Ovett was running 50mpw with a long run maxing out at 90 minutes during his base phase. He was supposed to be running a 1500m race that weekend. You're talking about a guy who would have done only sharpening of 800,400 and 200m reps in the run up to a half marathon with no long tempo's or any long runs at all and he still runs a 65. A time that would still to this day qualify him for the World HM championships. In America, it would get him a place in the Olympic marathon trials.

This guy is a 800/1500 runner. Think about what he could have run if he prepared. I don't know what Ovett could run for 400 but I presume it would be sub-48s. Just think about that range for a minute.

Ovett was a very talented athlete, I dont dispute that at all. I just dont understand the significance of what Ovett ran for a Half in a discussion about what Bolt would run for a marathon.

walshb

Netwerk Errer wrote: »

First of all, the highest top speed recorded is by slow starter Usain Bolt at 27.44mph. Bailey and Greene never even got close to 28mph. If they did with their speed out of the blocks, the world records would have been untouchable for Bolt. Of course MJ had better endurance than Mo or Bailey, he trained for the 400m but he still had the speed to run 19.32.

Think of it this way. If during MJ's Wr, he ran the first 100 in 10.10. That means he ran the second 100 in 9.22. His poor acceleration over the first half was compensated by his monstrous speed in the 2nd 100.

If he was an endurance based sprinter, his 400m time would be better than his 200. It's not though. Therefore, he's a speed based 200/400 runner.

They have Bolt listed as almost 28 from Berlin 2009. 27.79 mph, 12.42 m/s

http://www.topendsports.com/resources/records/speed.htm

Sorry, I was describing the 200 as an endurance based sprint. I am with you as regards MJ being a speed man over 200 and 400.

To be clear, I never said MJ was an endurance based sprinter. I said he was an endurance sprinter. I would interpret that as a sprinter with endurance.

Netwerk Errer

ultrapercy wrote: »

Ovett was a very talented athlete, I dont dispute that at all. I just dont understand the significance of what Ovett ran for a Half in a discussion about what Bolt would run for a marathon.

I was just adding to the ecoli's post about degradation. The point I was making with the Ovett point was that different peoples speed doesn't degrade in a linear fashion. Ovett would destroy a lot of sprinters over 400m but he could still run a 65 minute half. Another runner who has the same 400m time as Ovett might struggle to break 2 hours for the half.

pistol_75

Netwerk Errer wrote: »

I was just adding to the ecoli's post about degradation. The point I was making with the Ovett point was that different peoples speed doesn't degrade in a linear fashion. Ovett would destroy a lot of sprinters over 400m but he could still run a 65 minute half. Another runner who has the same 400m time as Ovett might struggle to break 2 hours for the half.

Are you serious about that?

Netwerk Errer

pistol_75 wrote: »

Are you serious about that?

that depends on your definition of a sprinter.