Can you beat Judd's time?

Remove this Banner Ad

pansies said:
I'm wondering if that 10kms was a loop circuit because if it was then it makes no difference if it was hilly. Basically what goes up must come down and if you are traveling in a loop then you are going uphill the equal to the time you are going downhill which is the same as if you were spending the whole time on a flat course.
Click to expand...

This is one of the stupidest comments of ever heard and if you've been around these forums a bit you'll know that's a big call. Uphill = harder than flat. Downhill also = harder than flat. Hills = harder than flat.

Quixote said:
It's a good time, but only for a footballer.

10 and a half minutes for a click over 3 k is really nothing special.

My old man was doing times like that in his 40's as a fun-runner - and doing them in training.

3 and a half minutes per k is nothing special kids.

Granted, he's a CHAMPION footballer.

But I could have knocked him off when I was 14 and today, in my late twenties with an impressive drinking record, a liking of Winfields and no training, I'd still come close. Very close.
Click to expand...

There's a quote from The Castle that would apply. Or the more literary might note the appropriateness of your screen name. You're tilting at windmills Don.

Warwick said:
WTF?? :eek: I find that very difficult to believe.

Is there an article on that floating around somewhere?
Click to expand...

I agree. a 21 beep test is inconcievable. Elite AFL standard is 15 or 16. I've never heard anyone break the teens, I'm not even sure it's possible.

For what it's worth I ran Princes Park last night. Same route as the AFL boys but different starting point. I'm about the same height as Judd (190cm) but a bit heavier (99kg). I played in D4 of the Ammos this year.
I did 12:31 and almost blew myself out. (I'm 29 for a few more months)
That's down from my first post season run of 15:30 about a month ago. I've never known anyone (and I know guys a lot fitter and faster than I am) go under 11minutes who wasn't a professional athlete.
 
Red Gum said:
I agree. a 21 beep test is inconcievable. Elite AFL standard is 15 or 16. I've never heard anyone break the teens, I'm not even sure it's possible.

For what it's worth I ran Princes Park last night. Same route as the AFL boys but different starting point. I'm about the same height as Judd (190cm) but a bit heavier (99kg). I played in D4 of the Ammos this year.
I did 12:31 and almost blew myself out. (I'm 29 for a few more months)
That's down from my first post season run of 15:30 about a month ago. I've never known anyone (and I know guys a lot fitter and faster than I am) go under 11minutes who wasn't a professional athlete.
Click to expand...

As I said i train around 10 hrs a week. Triathlon training. I ran 11 09. You dont need to be a pro athlete to break 11 mins. I do weights to retain some size ect. Its pretty easy without doing upper body weights and training for running 5 tmes a week.
 
Red Gum said:
This is one of the stupidest comments of ever heard and if you've been around these forums a bit you'll know that's a big call. Uphill = harder than flat. Downhill also = harder than flat. Hills = harder than flat.



There's a quote from The Castle that would apply. Or the more literary might note the appropriateness of your screen name. You're tilting at windmills Don.



I agree. a 21 beep test is inconcievable. Elite AFL standard is 15 or 16. I've never heard anyone break the teens, I'm not even sure it's possible.

For what it's worth I ran Princes Park last night. Same route as the AFL boys but different starting point. I'm about the same height as Judd (190cm) but a bit heavier (99kg). I played in D4 of the Ammos this year.
I did 12:31 and almost blew myself out. (I'm 29 for a few more months)
That's down from my first post season run of 15:30 about a month ago. I've never known anyone (and I know guys a lot fitter and faster than I am) go under 11minutes who wasn't a professional athlete.
Click to expand...


Here here. And later on he tried to use the laws of physics to justify his ridiculous opinions. Unfortunately, he fails to realise that the while the laws of physics may apply to a perfect sphere rolling up and down hills in a vacuum, the human body doesn't quite work like that :D
 

Log in to remove this ad.

pansies said:
Sorry to burst your bubble but this is a common misconception.

Firstly we can assume that wind resistance is equal in both scenarios.

So when you are running uphill you need to produce a force in the forward direction as well as to counter a larger fraction of gravity (downwards) than as if you were running on a flat. Therefore the first part of the uphill will be slower compared to the flat course however things change in the second half. When coming downhill that same portion of gravitation force, which is a constant, that you were fighting against is now helping and you are running faster than someone on the flat course.

The reason running tracks are flat and not hilly is for practical reasons only. A 400m running track has to service events that are a fraction of 400m, but that doesn't detract from the fact that physics and the laws that govern the conservation of energy, work and momentum do not lie.
Click to expand...

are you really that dumb?
 
Lance_Armstrong said:
As I said i train around 10 hrs a week. Triathlon training. I ran 11 09. You dont need to be a pro athlete to break 11 mins. I do weights to retain some size ect. Its pretty easy without doing upper body weights and training for running 5 tmes a week.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I probably used the word professional fairly flippantly. :eek:
If you're doing dedicated running training 5 times a week and demonstrating that level of commitment then you could break 11. That's a pretty rigorous regime though.
 
Red Gum said:
Yeah, I probably used the word professional fairly flippantly. :eek:
If you're doing dedicated running training 5 times a week and demonstrating that level of commitment then you could break 11. That's a pretty rigorous regime though.
Click to expand...
Would definately be painful. Lol.
 
SaintSyd said:
Have you ever run down a hill?

Quite often including high altitude training at Thredbo

If it's steep enough you actually have to work to slow yourself down.

Why are you trying to slow down?

It's not like riding a bike where you can fully make use of the gradient. If a 400m metre track was slightly uphill and then slightly down then it wouldn't make a great deal of difference. But running uphill slows you down much more than running downhill speeds you up and the difference is more stark the steeper the hills get.
Click to expand...

When running downhill you should make use of the gradient. In fact the more you lean back as you run down the higher chance you have injuring yourself because you end up landing on an awkward angle on your ankle and then slap your foot down which can lead to both problems in your foot and shin splints.

SaintSyd said:
What about rhythm? Running is all about rhythm and it's pretty hard to achieve running up and down hills mate. Switching from high intensity uphill running and then downhill running totally stuffs you!!!!
Click to expand...

The rhythm that is important is not related to the speed you are running but how hard you are working. If you are running a range of flats and hills over a long distance then you should maintain, for instance, an even heart rate. This means that you try not to overdo it and press to hard going uphill and likewise don't relax to much going downhill

Red Gum said:
This is one of the stupidest comments of ever heard and if you've been around these forums a bit you'll know that's a big call. Uphill = harder than flat. Downhill also = harder than flat. Hills = harder than flat.

Did you go to Harlem Globetrotter U? Because that is some funky logic you've got going on there. Running downhill, if the aim is a race against time, is harder that running on a flat?
Click to expand...

SaintSyd said:
Here here. And later on he tried to use the laws of physics to justify his ridiculous opinions. Unfortunately, he fails to realise that the while the laws of physics may apply to a perfect sphere rolling up and down hills in a vacuum, the human body doesn't quite work like that :D
Click to expand...

The laws of physics apply to all environments which is why people consider them as 'Laws' and not guidlines. Everything in the universe is subject to many different forces and calculating running up and down hills is not very difficult.

__aria__ said:
are you really that dumb?
Click to expand...

Do you always question someone else's intelligence when you yourself don't seem to fully understand what they are talking about? Maybe it's time to pick up a mirror and ask yourself. "Is it possible that someone else knows more than me?"
 
Re: Can you beat Judd's time? ** MB Thread moved here**

OK Pansies........

If the laws of physics apply perfectly to running then let's imagine this hypothetical. An olympic 100m sprint finalist runs a 100m where the first 40m is uphill at a 20 degree gradient, the middle 20m is flat and the final 40m is downhill at a 20 degree gradient. Does he run sub 10 sec? According to you........YES! :confused:

Also, are you seriously trying to tell us that if we are out running and come to a downhill stretch with say a 30 degree gradient (which is pretty f*#%en steep) we should lean forward and let loose?
 
WN123 said:
Did a quick search on Google. Nothing about lap records around Princess Park.
BUT
Craig Mottram ran the Tan last year in 10.08. The Tan is 3.8km and has the Anderson st hill to boot. Apparently he did it with the Richmond footballers and beat them home by 2 and a half minutes.
FWIW I ran the Tan in 11.30 (20 years ago) But I was specifically training for middle distance running and was about 72kilos.
Judd's time is pretty good for a footballer who is carrying a fair bit of muscle mass but not close to the standard of elite runners.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Judd's all round fitness (strength, speed, endurance etc) is top notch but the world record for 3000m is 7:20.67. If Judd stopped the clock at 3km his time would have been a touch under 10mins. Thats 2:30 or 2 whole laps behind the elite runners of the world. Judd was only running at 3/4 of the pace of a world class runner. In other words, For every lap of a 400m track Judd falls 100m behind. But of course Judd isn't a pure runner, he's a footy player and his training is no where near as specific.
 
pansies said:
Did you go to Harlem Globetrotter U? Because that is some funky logic you've got going on there. Running downhill, if the aim is a race against time, is harder that running on a flat?
Click to expand...

I'll pay that. That's pretty funny!

It's harder to rats. Like us they need to recruit muscles they wouldn't otherwise use. Consider also that as we are bipedal these problems are compounded.

There is also the mental aspect to consider. This runner explains his experience (after a bit of waffling - it starts at about the 8th paragraph)

These tips for X Country runners explains why track runners struggle to adapt to hilly terrain. He goes on to support some of what you say; if you don't fight gravity and utilise the momentum you'll go quicker, but it takes training to develop this skill.

The idea that uphill and downhill running will balance exactly equitably over a course is nonsense.

For the trained runners downhill running may be easier than flat, but for most casual runners this is not the case. The savings on the downhill will rarely match the expenditure uphill.

Robert DeCastella was an advocate of running hard up the hills. He did alright.

Regardless Princes Park is flat (very flat) so it's a non-issue.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Red Gum said:
I'll pay that. That's pretty funny!

It's harder to rats. Like us they need to recruit muscles they wouldn't otherwise use. Consider also that as we are bipedal these problems are compounded.

There is also the mental aspect to consider. This runner explains his experience (after a bit of waffling - it starts at about the 8th paragraph)

These tips for X Country runners explains why track runners struggle to adapt to hilly terrain. He goes on to support some of what you say; if you don't fight gravity and utilise the momentum you'll go quicker, but it takes training to develop this skill.

The idea that uphill and downhill running will balance exactly equitably over a course is nonsense.

For the trained runners downhill running may be easier than flat, but for most casual runners this is not the case. The savings on the downhill will rarely match the expenditure uphill.

Robert DeCastella was an advocate of running hard up the hills. He did alright.

Regardless Princes Park is flat (very flat) so it's a non-issue.
Click to expand...


Exactly. While you may gain a slight speed advantage from running downhill as opposed to flat running, the disadvantage in terms of speed when running uphill is far greater.

When a marathon course or professional road running course (ie 10km, half marathon) is mapped out the organisers always try to find the least hilly route possible. There is good reason for this. Why would they bother if the hills just cancel each other out?
 
Re: Can you beat Judd's time? ** MB Thread moved here**

pansies, your sheer pompousness whilst being spectacularly wrong is astounding. I'm just going pick out 2 bits of idiocy at random.

pansies said:
Well since we live in a democracy looks like I'm out voted considering the 2 guys who would back up my argument are dead. You may have heard of them, one's called Newton the other is Einstein.
Click to expand...

Pray tell - what exactly does Einstein have to do with classical Newtonian physics?

Perhaps next time you decide to invoke dead physicists, find relevant ones. :rolleyes:

pansies said:
The laws of physics apply to all environments which is why people consider them as 'Laws' and not guidlines. Everything in the universe is subject to many different forces and calculating running up and down hills is not very difficult.
Click to expand...

Yep, in your ideal world, where one doesn't take into account running mechanics, the internal chemistry of a runner, etc...everything is easy!

Simplified school physics models ftw!
 
Red Gum said:
I agree. a 21 beep test is inconcievable. Elite AFL standard is 15 or 16. I've never heard anyone break the teens, I'm not even sure it's possible.

For what it's worth I ran Princes Park last night. Same route as the AFL boys but different starting point. I'm about the same height as Judd (190cm) but a bit heavier (99kg). I played in D4 of the Ammos this year.
I did 12:31 and almost blew myself out. (I'm 29 for a few more months)
That's down from my first post season run of 15:30 about a month ago. I've never known anyone (and I know guys a lot fitter and faster than I am) go under 11minutes who wasn't a professional athlete.
Click to expand...

agreed. I ran a 12 something in like yr 9 and i asked him to pump it up to 21. WOW! i couldnt even do it in a recovered state. its not possible.

Lance_Armstrong said:
As I said i train around 10 hrs a week. Triathlon training. I ran 11 09. You dont need to be a pro athlete to break 11 mins. I do weights to retain some size ect. Its pretty easy without doing upper body weights and training for running 5 tmes a week.
Click to expand...
would've thought u go better than that?

SaintSyd said:
Here here. And later on he tried to use the laws of physics to justify his ridiculous opinions. Unfortunately, he fails to realise that the while the laws of physics may apply to a perfect sphere rolling up and down hills in a vacuum, the human body doesn't quite work like that :D
Click to expand...
yeah. pretty much what i said earlier. in a perfect world, he is correct. but there is too many external factors.
 
BigBadCam said:
gouldy_34 said:
agreed. I ran a 12 something in like yr 9 and i asked him to pump it up to 21. WOW! i couldnt even do it in a recovered state. its not possible.
/quote]

David Beckham has finished the beep test.
Click to expand...
That sounds more likely.

I would love to see how the really fit cricketers like ponting and the elite boundary umpires go, cus this test suits them really well.

I did a sub-max VO2 test not too long ago, which is measure of your natural fitness. I think everyone should give this test a go because its not at all strenuous. I got 4/5 which is basically professional athlete level (what a majority of AFL players would get).
Click to expand...
 
Re: Can you beat Judd's time? ** MB Thread moved here**

van berlo got 9.46 today and burton holds club record at 9.36:eek:(not this year though)

be interesting to see what they could get a few rounds into the start of the year when they would be at their best.
 
Re: Can you beat Judd's time? ** MB Thread moved here**

dylan123 said:
van berlo got 9.46 today and burton holds club record at 9.36:eek:(not this year though)

be interesting to see what they could get a few rounds into the start of the year when they would be at their best.
Click to expand...
that is over a shorter distance
 
TheGeneral said:
I'm still surprised that Craig Bradley didn't hold the record at Carlton.
Click to expand...

I was surprised as well but have also heard Gleeson was just about unbeatable in the 3.2km Princes Park time trial.

Probably just perception in that Bradley was very quick (and still an unbelievable endurance runner) but forget that Gleeson had a very good engine.
 
Re: Can you beat Judd's time? ** MB Thread moved here**

i got 5.47 in the 1500 so double that plus 200m with buliding fatigue and my time would be 13.00 approximatley.

and btw, Judd got 10.22 to be exact.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Can you beat Judd's time?

Similar threads

Wormkilla
What’s your weekly training schedule look like?
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Makeshift Park
Makeshift Park

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top