fitness challenge

[JuanTheSydSainter]

The 1500m world record is 3min 26sec.
The 3000m world record is 7min 20 sec.

So that means an elite runner can run a 1500m 46.8% faster than a 3000m (ie. in a touch less than half the time which makes sense).

Lets apply that logic in the context of the AFL. From memory Chris Judd ran Princes Park (3200m) in 10min 27sec last year and was the Blue's quickest by a fair margin. Multiply that time by 46.8% and Judd runs 1600m (1 mile) in 4mins 53 sec.

So Chris Judd was the only 2009 Carlton player who could run a 5min mile. While other clubs have better time trialists than Judd there would only be a handful at each club.

Can't fault the maths, but the logic doesn't work. You would actually need to know how fast the world record holder over one distance could run the other distance. Comparing the abilities of different people in different events and then using that to work out the performance of one athlete in one event by their performance in another event doesn't work. Someone who can run within 5% of the world record in the 100m wouldn't be able to run within 5% of the marathon world record.

I would suggest that plenty of people can run 1500m in significantly less than half the time that they can run 3000m. The fact that Chris Judd was the fastest over 3000m doesn't mean he is the fastest over 1500m, or 100m or 10m (Although in his case he probably would be because he is a freak).

I would be very surprised if Chris Judd was the only 2009 Carlton player who could run a five min mile.

My logic is fine. Your argument actually supports my point even further. Daniel Komen is the 3000m world record holder at 7min 20sec and Hicham El Gherrouj holds the 1500m at 3min 26sec. If we just compare Daniel Komen to Daniel Komen, then he must run the 1500 even slower than 3min 26sec as he doesn't hold that world record. In fact Daniel Komen's best 1500m is 3min 29sec.

And your point about comparing the 100m Sprint to the Marathon is a bit rich. There's a big difference between comparing those and the 1500m/3000m which use the same energy systems. The 3 sec difference between Gherrouj and Komen over 1500m proves this.

[Quixote]

I wouldn't be basing any arguments on that supposed Judd time and distance measurement.

A five-minute mile is quite easy. When I was 14, and albeit a pretty good runner, I was tracking 4:30 1500's.

A five minute mile would almost be base level for most AFL players.

[plugger66]

I wouldn't be basing any arguments on that supposed Judd time and distance measurement.

A five-minute mile is quite easy. When I was 14, and albeit a pretty good runner, I was tracking 4:30 1500's.

A five minute mile would almost be base level for most AFL players.

If it is base level then our club must have only about 3 players in it. We would have 3 maybe 4 players who could do a 5 minute mile this year and they would be Dempster, Eddy and Geary. Fisher if fit would be the only other player. The reason for this is that it isnt important to recruit players with that skill. A player these days must be good a repeat running and have pace. We only do the longer stuff early in the year to get a fitness base.

By the way maybe when these players were younger many more could have run a 5 minute mile but years of weights, injuries and lack of training for that distance means most cannot anymore.

[Moods]

I have to admit that after perusing some of the posts and on reflection tend to agree with the school of thought that it may not be as common as everyone thinks (despite my original stance)

I based my comments on 1500m rather than 1600m. Also after researching the times that players do in their time trials I found them to be surprisingly poor considering how highly I rate these guys as athletes. AS PLugger rightly points out, fitness for footy is more about repeat sprinting with a reasonable fitness base. They train far more specifically than they did 15 years ago.

[samoht]

I think the time over 1500 metres or 3000 metres does not necessarily reveal the level of fitness.

.. it's not surprising that Judd runs the best time at Carlton - he's very quick over 100 metres and therefore he would be jogging along at the 5 minute mile pace.

A 5 min mile means you're running at around 5metres/sec .. Judd sprints at close to twice that speed... let's say 9m/sec.... so he's running at 5/9ths of his top speed.

So I suggest that someone whose top speed is 7 metres/sec and can do the
mile in 6 minutes is actually fitter than Judd as he's running at closer to his top speed.

So there could be a 6 minute miler at Carlton who's fitter than Judd the 5 minute miler.

So applying it to our group of players - we know Lenny Hayes isn't quick over 100 metres, so if Lenny Hayes runs a 6 minute mile that could mean he's fitter than Judd.

[bigmicka]

Lets apply that logic in the context of the AFL. From memory Chris Judd ran Princes Park (3200m) in 10min 27sec last year and was the Blue's quickest by a fair margin. Multiply that time by 46.8% and Judd runs 1600m (1 mile) in 4mins 53 sec.

Princes Park is 3200 meters, so 18m short of 2 miles. How can it be 4:53? wouldn't it be 5:13, give or take a few seconds?

mic

[JuanTheSydSainter]

Lets apply that logic in the context of the AFL. From memory Chris Judd ran Princes Park (3200m) in 10min 27sec last year and was the Blue's quickest by a fair margin. Multiply that time by 46.8% and Judd runs 1600m (1 mile) in 4mins 53 sec.

Princes Park is 3200 meters, so 18m short of 2 miles. How can it be 4:53? wouldn't it be 5:13, give or take a few seconds?

mic

Yes, but it is not simply a matter of halving the time as an athlete can run half the distance at a slightly quicker speed (ie in 47% of the time rather than 50%).

47% of 10:27 is 4:53
50% of 10:27 is 5:13

[JuanTheSydSainter]

I think the time over 1500 metres or 3000 metres does not necessarily reveal the level of fitness.

.. it's not surprising that Judd runs the best time at Carlton - he's very quick over 100 metres and therefore he would be jogging along at the 5 minute mile pace.

A 5 min mile means you're running at around 5metres/sec .. Judd sprints at close to twice that speed... let's say 9m/sec.... so he's running at 5/9ths of his top speed.

So I suggest that someone whose top speed is 7 metres/sec and can do the
mile in 6 minutes is actually fitter than Judd as he's running at closer to his top speed.

So there could be a 6 minute miler at Carlton who's fitter than Judd the 5 minute miler.

So applying it to our group of players - we know Lenny Hayes isn't quick over 100 metres, so if Lenny Hayes runs a 6 minute mile that could mean he's fitter than Judd.

I don't understand what you mean? So if a fat blob runs the 100m in 25sec (4 m/sec) and somehow runs the mile in 8min (3.35 m/sec) he is fitter than Judd even though Judd flogs him in both?

[samoht]

We are not talking about fat blobs are we ? ... we are talking about fit AFL footballers.

So what i say re: Judd and Hayes applies.

If Hayes runs a 6 minute mile .. it could indicate he's actually as fit as Judd at 5 minutes.

After all Judd at 80% pace would be the same as Hayes running flat out.

Judd's obviously faster there's no arguments there...

but we're talking about fitness here (and 2 very fit players) .. put it this way..
If Hayes could actually run a 5 minute mile he'd be perhaps 25% fitter than Judd...as that would prove he can work a lot harder over a mile than Judd (who has to drop his pace right back).

[plugger66]

We are not talking about fat blobs are we ? ... we are talking about fit AFL footballers.

So what i say re: Judd and Hayes applies.

If Hayes runs a 6 minute mile .. it could indicate he's actually as fit as Judd at 5 minutes.

After all Judd at 80% pace would be the same as Hayes running flat out.

Judd's obviously faster there's no arguments there...

but we're talking about fitness here (and 2 very fit players) .. put it this way..
If Hayes could actually run a 5 minute mile he'd be perhaps 25% fitter than Judd...as that would prove he can work a lot harder over a mile than Judd (who has to drop his pace right back).

What are you talking about. Bolt can run 100 in 9.5 but I doubt he could run a 5 minute mile. I reckon he is pretty fit.

[samoht]

A 100 metre sprinter does not necessarily need to have the stamina or the aerobic capacity of a distance runner does he ?
They train with power and explosiveness in mind.

.. there'd be people who'd run 13 sec 100 metres who'd be (aerobically) fitter than Bolt and they could be tri-athletes or squash players or long distance swimmers and runners.

How would Bolt go in a swimming pool .. he'd probably suck, but does that mean he's not fit ?

you don't have to run over a certain event or distance and a certain time to prove your level of fitness - some people are proving it on the squash court or the swimming pool and it could be more to do with their resting heart rate or how quickly their resting heart rate recovers.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bolt has the fitness right now to run a 5 min mile .. but that would only indicate to me that that there are plenty of AFL footballers who possess more stamina and a higher fitness level than him.

So when I say fitter - i'm talking aerobic fitness - and isn't that what we're discussing here ?

[JuanTheSydSainter]

We are not talking about fat blobs are we ? ... we are talking about fit AFL footballers.

So what i say re: Judd and Hayes applies.

If Hayes runs a 6 minute mile .. it could indicate he's actually as fit as Judd at 5 minutes.

After all Judd at 80% pace would be the same as Hayes running flat out.

Judd's obviously faster there's no arguments there...

but we're talking about fitness here (and 2 very fit players) .. put it this way..
If Hayes could actually run a 5 minute mile he'd be perhaps 25% fitter than Judd...as that would prove he can work a lot harder over a mile than Judd (who has to drop his pace right back).

If Judd runs a 5min mile and Hayes runs a 6min mile (he'd actually be closer to 5 than 6) then Judd is aerobically fitter. It's simple and has nothing to do with their respective top sprinting speed. The faster person over the distance is fitter.

[Moods]

Samoht - your logic certainly is interesting, if not scientifically questionable. Whoever runs that distance quicker is the better athlete over that distance. Simple really.

Maybe before they run the 1500m at the Olympics, they should run the same athletes over 100m to see who really is the fitter athlete. They can hand out the medals after all the calculations are made....

[samoht]

good discussion -

Anyway i say running a 5 minute mile doesn't necessarily qualify judd as being the aerobically fittest at the Blues.
he's obviously very fit - but is he necessarily aerobically the fittest at his club ?

2 different things .

The mile should not be thought of as a pure endurance event - you also need speed and plenty of it as well .. as you basically have to run 4 fast 400 metres.
so the olympic champion milers would have been able to run a 400 metre event in around 50 secs or better - 100 metres in around 11 seconds otherwise they wouldn't have been champion milers.

Here's a hypothetical ....

runner A can run a 10 sec / 100 metres

runner B can run a 13 sec / 100 metres

runner A would finish 30 metres ahead of runner B over 100 metres - he's super fast.


now picture this - the same runner B and runner A are running the last 100 metres
of the 1500 metres race and runner B starts 2 metres behind runner A and they end up dead heating.

Same time but who has displayed the greatest staying power and the ability to "keep on keeping on ?".

why wasn't A able to display his superior running speed at the end of the 1500 metre race - and dash away from B and win by 20 metres plus over the last 100 metres ?

did he tire and drop away more than B ? ... you bet he did !

Has B therefore displayed a greater aerobic ability , thereby compensating for his lack of pace ?

i think B has displayed that.

Away from running - would B be able to play more consecutive squash games and have the quickest recovery to his resting heart rate ... I think he would !

[Stephen Theodore]

Am pretty sure I heard that G.Train bench pressed 180-190. Not many stronger than him

[plugger66]

good discussion -

Anyway i say running a 5 minute mile doesn't necessarily qualify judd as being the aerobically fittest at the Blues.
he's obviously very fit - but is he necessarily aerobically the fittest at his club ?

2 different things .

The mile should not be thought of as a pure endurance event - you also need speed and plenty of it as well .. as you basically have to run 4 fast 400 metres.
so the olympic champion milers would have been able to run a 400 metre event in around 50 secs or better - 100 metres in around 11 seconds otherwise they wouldn't have been champion milers.

Here's a hypothetical ....

runner A can run a 10 sec / 100 metres

runner B can run a 13 sec / 100 metres

runner A would finish 30 metres ahead of runner B over 100 metres - he's super fast.


now picture this - the same runner B and runner A are running the last 100 metres
of the 1500 metres race and runner B starts 2 metres behind runner A and they end up dead heating.

Same time but who has displayed the greatest staying power and the ability to "keep on keeping on ?".

why wasn't A able to display his superior running speed at the end of the 1500 metre race - and dash away from B and win by 20 metres plus over the last 100 metres ?

did he tire and drop away more than B ? ... you bet he did !

Has B therefore displayed a greater aerobic ability , thereby compensating for his lack of pace ?

i think B has displayed that.

Away from running - would B be able to play more consecutive squash games and have the quickest recovery to his resting heart rate ... I think he would !

What are you on about. Comparing a 100 metres to a mile is like comparing Judd to Favier. It is irrelevent. My bet is judd may even beat Bolt in a mile race but that has nothing to do with fitness at all. It is genes, training and so on.

[samoht]

This is what I'm on about ..

If you don't think speed comes into play in a mile event - especially when applied to a group of similarly fit individuals (like AFL players) - then you're wrong !

So I suggest you can't look at times and say - yep Judd is the aerobically fittest player as he finished ahead over the mile.

the guy is fast (we know he's inherited fast genes) - and you need to take that into account over a mile, which is 4 x 400 metre sprints basically - obviously both the 3rd and 4th 400 metres would be a killer.

so if someone Judd blows away over a 400 metre dash by 10 seconds - given his superior pace - finishes up with him in a mile race - whoever that is must be remarkably fit - and aerobically fitter than judd.

I suggest even if he finishes 30 seconds behind Judd and given the discrepancy in pace (and the importance pace plays in a mile) .. he's probably as aerobically as fit as him.

[The_Merchant]

My logic is fine. Your argument actually supports my point even further. Daniel Komen is the 3000m world record holder at 7min 20sec and Hicham El Gherrouj holds the 1500m at 3min 26sec. If we just compare Daniel Komen to Daniel Komen, then he must run the 1500 even slower than 3min 26sec as he doesn't hold that world record. In fact Daniel Komen's best 1500m is 3min 29sec.

But, more significantly, Hicham El Gherrouj can't run the 3000m in 7min 20sec (not that his best time is that much different 7min 23).

And your point about comparing the 100m Sprint to the Marathon is a bit rich. There's a big difference between comparing those and the 1500m/3000m which use the same energy systems. The 3 sec difference between Gherrouj and Komen over 1500m proves this.

Point taken that they use different energy systems, perhaps you would be happier with a comparision of a 1500m race to a marathon, my point was that, particularly when dealing with people who are not training for as middle distance runners, 1500m and 3000m times are not really comparable.

If you look at my own fitness levels, I can still run 1500m (not overly quickly) but there is no way that I could keep up the same speed over 3000m which is what you need to be able to do to achieve a time comparison similar to that of an elite distance runner. An elite distance runner can run flat out for 3000m, meaning that their time over 1500m will be almost half their time over 3000m. An AFL player may only be able to jog 3000m but run almost flat out over 1500m meaning that their 1500m time would be significantly less than half of their 3000m time.

I don't know what percentage of AFL players could run a 5min mile, I am just saying that it is impossible to calculate it from 3000m times.