do nba players have elite endurance ?

[mhsbasketball]

do you think nba players can run 5k or 10k better than an nfl,mlb, or nhl players that aren't fat?


I know soccer players have crazy endurance, how would nba players stack up against them.


im obviously not talking about Fat centers like Perkins, but even he would have to have decent endurance to get back on defense and not gas out.


What do you reckon are the mile times for nba players?

[Teanett]

basketball players have no chance against soccer players when it comes to endurance.

let's put this into perspective: a basketball court is smaller than the penalty box in soccer...

[Marchesk]

Elite Endurance looks like this:

http://www.globerunner.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/geb-tergat-sydney.jpg

[swagga]

Elite Endurance looks like this:

http://www.globerunner.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/geb-tergat-sydney.jpg

when lions chase your ass everyday you have alot of work ethic tbh. :roll:

[chocolatethunder]

do you think nba players can run 5k or 10k better than an nfl,mlb, or nhl players that aren't fat?


I know soccer players have crazy endurance, how would nba players stack up against them.


im obviously not talking about Fat centers like Perkins, but even he would have to have decent endurance to get back on defense and not gas out.


What do you reckon are the mile times for nba players?
I'm probably the only serious distance runner here so I think that I can answer that question fairly well.

You can pretty much take the NFL and MLB players out of the argument because in football you have a 10 second play and then 45 seconds of rest. And the MLB guys do very little activity each game. That doesn't mean that there aren't guys in each sport who could be good distance runners if they trained for it, it just means that their training for their particular sport probably doesn't lend itself to good distance running.

In distance running soccer would smoke NBA players. There's really no comparison. While some basketball players would be good distance runners, pretty much almost any soccer player who is worth a damn can run a decent 5k. I mean you'd be hard pressed to find a professional soccer player who couldn't run a 5K under 20 minutes (which is a shit time) but you would be hard pressed to find an NBA player who could. Guys like Rip and Ray Allen (who were/are runners) and Nash (soccer) could. But the NBA game is more sprint and stop and sprint and stop. They have a better chance of being a decent 100/200/400 runners and maybe 800m but I doubt it. Trying to imagine any of those guys (outside of soccer guys and runners like Rip etc) running a 10K is laughable.

The hockey guys are really fit and they have plenty of endurance but they all have massive legs but are probably slower in a footrace than the NBA guys. I would suspect that this would probably even out over anything over 800m so their mile results would probably be the same.

You've got to realize how very different those events you've mentioned are. You can take the best miler in the world and he still may not be able to run a super fast 5000m even with training. Say for instance Hicham El Gerrouj and Bernard Lagat. Granted, neither of them ever trained specifically for the 5000m in their primes and EL G did win gold in the 5000m in the olympics and Lagat won the 5000m in the world champs ( they both won the 5000m and the 1500m double) but El G has the world record in the 1500m and Lagat was a fraction of a second yet neither of them ever broke 12:50 for the 5000m because El G never trained for it specifically and Lagat didn't until just a few years ago when he was in his mid 30's. The world record is 12:37 so these dudes never came anywhere CLOSE to the WR.

As far as mile times go in the NBA, if you exclude guys with a running background like rip and Ray and Nash and whoever else, you'd be lucky to have many of them break 5:00 and you would have no one run under 4:30. Are there some dudes who may run something decent in something shorter? Yeah for sure but the difference between 800m and the mile is huge. 800m and the mile are considered mid distance but some 800m runners are more 400/800 runners than they are 800/1500m runners. The way all sports other than soccer is played would lend itself to the lower number but a sport like football would be more like 50m/100m. These guys go really hard for really short burts. A 200m to a football player would feel hard and a 400m would just kill them.

I could go into a lot more bullshit that's not interesting at all about blood lactate and fast twitch and slow twitch and speed endurance but if you don't know what that stuff means it's just confusing.

[chocolatethunder]

Elite Endurance looks like this:

http://www.globerunner.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/geb-tergat-sydney.jpg
That was easily the best olympic 10000m final and one of the best races in history.

[dannywpt]

I imagine the difference in mile times between your average center and your average shooting guard is bigger than between shooting guards and soccer players.

[Rake2204]

In distance running soccer would smoke NBA players. There's really no comparison. While some basketball players would be good distance runners, pretty much almost any soccer player who is worth a damn can run a decent 5k.

I mean you'd be hard pressed to find a professional soccer player who couldn't run a 5K under 20 minutes (which is a shit time) but you would be hard pressed to find an NBA player who could. Guys like Rip and Ray Allen (who were/are runners) and Nash (soccer) could. But the NBA game is more sprint and stop and sprint and stop. They have a better chance of being a decent 100/200/400 runners and maybe 800m but I doubt it. Trying to imagine any of those guys (outside of soccer guys and runners like Rip etc) running a 10K is laughable.
Your entire post falls in line with what I believed, but I did not have the distance running background to say it with any type of conviction.

Personally, I've always been a borderline awful distance runner. I'd train with non-basketball players and we'd do comparatively short distances (2 miles) and they'd absolutely wreck me - literally running circles around me (extending a lead forward, jogging back around me, back forward).

However, when I'd get those same guys on the basketball court, they were often done after a few trips up & down. I always used that as vindication for my own shape. I could sprint and stop really well but my extended endurance always seemed limited.

That said, to speak in the favor of soccer players - I knew many who played both sports (soccer and basketball) and they seemed to most often have the best of both worlds. They were frequently quick with the ability to mosey effectively through most endurance-based drills during basketball season.

[chocolatethunder]

Your entire post falls in line with what I believed, but I did not have the distance running background to say it with any type of conviction.

Personally, I've always been a borderline awful distance runner. I'd train with non-basketball players and we'd do comparatively short distances (2 miles) and they'd absolutely wreck me - literally running circles around me (extending a lead forward, jogging back around me, back forward).

However, when I'd get those same guys on the basketball court, they were often done after a few trips up & down. I always used that as vindication for my own shape. I could sprint and stop really well but my extended endurance always seemed limited.

That said, to speak in the favor of soccer players - I knew many who played both sports (soccer and basketball) and they seemed to most often have the best of both worlds. They were frequently quick with the ability to mosey effectively through most endurance-based drills during basketball season.

Well, there's a difference between running shape and basketball shape. However, when I'm in my best shape for running (100miles a week and 2-3 workouts a week) that's better than basketball shape. I could play basketball and not get tired and play pretty much all day. That's only when in peak shape. But two miles isn't gonna get you there. I'm talking about waking up and running 15 miles and then running 7 more miles at night. On workout days I'd do a 5 mile warm up a 5 mile workout and a 5 mile cool down. It's impossible to describe or quantify the difference in fitness at 60 miles a week vs 100. Even 60 miles and being sharp for a race is nothing like 100 miles a week. For me, if I'm not running at least 60 miles a week, then I don't really consider it running.

[Rake2204]

Well, there's a difference between running shape and basketball shape. However, when I'm in my best shape for running (100miles a week and 2-3 workouts a week) that's better than basketball shape. I could play basketball and not get tired and play pretty much all day. That's only when in peak shape. But two miles isn't gonna get you there. I'm talking about waking up and running 15 miles and then running 7 more miles at night. On workout days I'd do a 5 mile warm up a 5 mile workout and a 5 mile cool down. It's impossible to describe or quantify the difference in fitness at 60 miles a week vs 100. Even 60 miles and being sharp for a race is nothing like 100 miles a week. For me, if I'm not running at least 60 miles a week, then I don't really consider it running.Yeah, that's wild. I like exercising, but I don't think I could ever mess with that.

I envied the basketball players who were in running shape.

[chocolatethunder]

I imagine the difference in mile times between your average center and your average shooting guard is bigger than between shooting guards and soccer players.
I know that it seems like it would be but if you take out the fat lumbering centers like Perk and just the larger guys and use just dudes who were more athletic looking and not as heavy, it wouldn't be the same. The soccer guys really would just smoke any of the basketball guys. When I wasn't even a really fit runner and was still playing basketball regularly, no one I played basketball with could hang with me endurance wise. I would run 4 miles to the game, play a game and then run home. Basketball is essentially sprinting with a little hard running. All of it done in short bursts. There are stoppages in play. In soccer, theres lots of hard running and moving constantly with no stoppage in play. They are two different types of endurance and the soccer type lends itself to distance running and the basketball type just doesn't.

Although because basketball players are so fit it would seem like they would be able to run a decent mile or whatever but it's a different kind of fitness. It's like trying to take a 100/200/400/800 or any of those guys and trying to make them a distance runner. Say Bolt can run under 10 and under 20 in the 200. The you could say that he could go out in 21 and come back in 22 and run a 43 second 400m to beat Michael Johnson's WR. While it may be possible with several years of proper training, it would be very difficult to achieve. Or to take a guy like Jeremy Wariner or LaShawn Merritt. You would think that because they've both run 43.xx for the 400m that they would easily be able to run a world class 800m. That's certainly not always the case. You can say well if they just go out in 50 seconds and come back with a 50 then they could run 1:40. That would be a world record first of all and secondly although Wariner may be built for the 800m, Merritt would have a difficult time for sure. Even with a ton of training, either of those guys would have a hard time breaking 1:45. If you then moved these guys up to the mile, they would run so slowly it would surprise you. So to try and take untrained athletes (who are used to sprinting essentially) like basketball players and get them to run a mile, they just aren't going to perform well regardless of their position. Obviously a guy like Kanter or Perk will do much worse than others but guys like Dirk and KG and KD wouldn't perform any worse than the average SG basically because none of the them are going to perform very well.

That being said, that doesn't mean that they couldn't be much better with specific training.

[chocolatethunder]

Yeah, that's wild. I like exercising, but I don't think I could ever mess with that.

I envied the basketball players who were in running shape.
Just so you know that's not even really considered high milage to a runner. I was running 100 miles a week to run a 5000m (3.1 miles). If I were to train for marathon I would run at least 120 miles a week for at least a 12 week block. The year I was running decent mileage, I averaged 63 miles a week for the year. That means that in the winter I was probably running 40 miles a week for six weeks or so. I haven't played basketball in 8 years and I haven't run competitively for about three years now. I am just starting to run regularly and it will take me a year of running before I can really start training properly.

[f0und]

Well, there's a difference between running shape and basketball shape. However, when I'm in my best shape for running (100miles a week and 2-3 workouts a week) that's better than basketball shape. I could play basketball and not get tired and play pretty much all day. That's only when in peak shape. But two miles isn't gonna get you there. I'm talking about waking up and running 15 miles and then running 7 more miles at night. On workout days I'd do a 5 mile warm up a 5 mile workout and a 5 mile cool down. It's impossible to describe or quantify the difference in fitness at 60 miles a week vs 100. Even 60 miles and being sharp for a race is nothing like 100 miles a week. For me, if I'm not running at least 60 miles a week, then I don't really consider it running.

*UCK THAT!!

as Kenny Powers would say, "I'm trying to get in shape, not try to be the best at exercising."

[iamgine]

I know that it seems like it would be but if you take out the fat lumbering centers like Perk and just the larger guys and use just dudes who were more athletic looking and not as heavy, it wouldn't be the same. The soccer guys really would just smoke any of the basketball guys. When I wasn't even a really fit runner and was still playing basketball regularly, no one I played basketball with could hang with me endurance wise. I would run 4 miles to the game, play a game and then run home. Basketball is essentially sprinting with a little hard running. All of it done in short bursts. There are stoppages in play. In soccer, theres lots of hard running and moving constantly with no stoppage in play. They are two different types of endurance and the soccer type lends itself to distance running and the basketball type just doesn't.


That's regular people though.

I imagine most NBA players had done some long distance running and should easily able to push themselves to 5k in good speed. These are prime athletes we're talking about here. Maybe they would lose, but it might not be to the extent you're thinking.

[Marchesk]

But the NBA game is more sprint and stop and sprint and stop. They have a better chance of being a decent 100/200/400 runners and maybe 800m but I doubt it. Trying to imagine any of those guys (outside of soccer guys and runners like Rip etc) running a 10K is laughable.


Wilt supposedly ran a 1:58 in the 800, and a 49 in the 400 back in the 50s, but he was a freak of nature.

[Marchesk]

I was running 100 miles a week to run a 5000m (3.1 miles). If I were to train for marathon I would run at least 120 miles a week for at least a 12 week block.

Ouch, I think I got to 80 miles once in my life (when I used to run), and that felt like a lot. I was tired. I think that was the week we went on a 17 mile run, and it felt like a long ass ways.

[chocolatethunder]

Wilt supposedly ran a 1:58 in the 800, and a 49 in the 400 back in the 50s, but he was a freak of nature.
That's not the 800, that was the 880 which means that was prob 157.x in meters. That is a good time but the world record was already 1:45 at that time and a 1:57 would have been a good high school time back then but not world class by a mile. That being said, I know 800m runners who can barely break 5:00 in the mile.

[Marchesk]

That's not the 800, that was the 880 which means that was prob 157.x in meters. That is a good time but the world record was already 1:45 at that time and a 1:57 would have been a good high school time back then but not world class by a mile. That being said, I know 800m runners who can barely break 5:00 in the mile.

Right, and Jim Ryun came along a few years later. I thought it was an impressive time for a 7'1" basketball player.

[chocolatethunder]

Right, and Jim Ryun came along a few years later. I thought it was an impressive time for a 7'1" basketball player.
Very impressive for sure but Wilt was a freak and great at track. He was obviously a 400/800 guy. Ryun was in the 60s and to give you an idea of what kind of stud he was, he ran a 1:44 at age 19. He was a freak. The US had some freaks like him and Lindgren. Lindgren was just hurt at all the wrong times. Pre while good in the US wasn't really much internationally. He was a lot more style than substance. I love him because he was a badass but he had the worst tactics and couldn't win a race that counted outside of the US. Viren really just made that dude his bitch.

[Done_And_Done]

Well, there's a difference between running shape and basketball shape. However, when I'm in my best shape for running (100miles a week and 2-3 workouts a week) that's better than basketball shape. I could play basketball and not get tired and play pretty much all day. That's only when in peak shape. But two miles isn't gonna get you there. I'm talking about waking up and running 15 miles and then running 7 more miles at night. On workout days I'd do a 5 mile warm up a 5 mile workout and a 5 mile cool down. It's impossible to describe or quantify the difference in fitness at 60 miles a week vs 100. Even 60 miles and being sharp for a race is nothing like 100 miles a week. For me, if I'm not running at least 60 miles a week, then I don't really consider it running.

That's beast :applause:

[Mass Debator]

I've known cross country runners who couldn't even come close to my basketball stamina and endurance. I was one who would run 2 miles and get tired. Then I would sometime play wide and corner in football and would be exhausted after one drive. You gotta be in that specific sport shape and not just running shape.

[Elosha]

Cool thread and thanks to Chocolate Thunder for all his runner insights. I come from a basketball and football background with a little bit of intramural soccer in my college days, so here are my thoughts. That being said, I'm more of a weightlifter who runs about 10 miles per week and plays basketball once or twice a week (much less now that I'm 40), so I have no real authority to speak of when it comes to truly serious running.

I generally agree that most professional soccer playing would have better long term distance running times than NBA players, probably from a mile on up to the longer distances. I will say that from my own soccer experience and in watching soccer, players run a bit less than you might expect, with the exception of midfielders. Strikers get quite a break when the ball's on the opposite side of the field, and same with defensive players. In fact, in order of endurance, I'd have to say it's generally, midfielders first, then strikers, then defensive players (who run decidedly less than strikers since their function is to defend, not attack). But midfielders are quite probably the best players with endurance and also quite often as fast as the strikers.

That said, most athletic NBA players would beat even the most athletic soccer players in 100, 200 and possibly 400 meters and would certainly beat them when it comes to jumping ability. Different class of athleticism for different sports. Both basketball and soccer are consummate games of skill first and athleticism, second. Exceptional athleticism is a byproduct of the sports, but of course the athleticism is expressed in different ways to best compliment the necessities of the game.

Last, I want to comment on Wilt since the thread is going that way. He was no doubt an exceptional athlete in track and field, but again thanks to Chocolate Thunder for pointing out that even his best track time, was merely good, but not world class. Still an amazing accomplishment for a 7+ footer. However, one thing that slightly irritates me is when Wilt fans state he could run "x" world class time and bench 500+ pounds. It's fairly obvious that the inference is that Wilt could do all of that at the same time. But look at Wilt in high school and college when he was running those exceptional 400's and 800's. He was rail-thin and probably 50-70 pounds lighter (not to mention much younger), than Wilt was in the late 60's and 70's when he was around 300+ pounds and at his peak strength during his NBA career. There's no possible way Wilt could have bench pressed anywhere close to 500 pounds in his high school, college, or early NBA career. I'm a fairly serious weight lifter and looking at Wilt's early frame, I can tell that he's wiry and strong for his light frame. However, people with that skinny frame simply cannot bench press over two times their body weight. Not possible.

What happened is that Wilt had ample genetic potential for weight gain and strength gain, and began to work out and add a huge amount of weight to his frame in his mid to late NBA career. That had probably good and bad consequences, since he may have ultimately been carrying more weight that what was natural for his frame, which may have led to his knee injuries. However, there's no doubt that he became far stronger and heavier in his mid to late NBA career. But there are always pluses and minuses to such activity. While Wilt was much heavier and stronger later in his career, and may have been able to bench 400-500 or more, he was almost certainly not capable of running as fast a 400 or 800 meter dash, as he could when he was ten years younger and 50+ pounds lighter.

In the limited (but still fairly extensive) footage that we've seen of Wilt, you can see that in his younger years he looks lighter on his feet, more agile, and quicker. In his older footage like with the Lakers, you can see quite a few times when he seems much more ponderous, slowly trotting down the floor (sometimes getting beat on defense or not getting into the offense). Now his role with the Lakers was different and not so centered on scoring, but there is a noticeable difference in speed and agility between the relatively light young Wilt and the powerful and heavier older Wilt.

The only exception to this is that I've noticed that Wilt actually seems to jump a bit higher in the footage from his older years than in his younger years. I recognize we are missing tons of footage, but still there's enough dunks and blocks for me to cautiously state that Wilt's vertical seemed a bit more impressive in his later years. Perhaps this is due to his extensive weightlifting, which added weight but also more explosive power conducive to jumping. Wilt's explosion and vertical leap as a Warrior and 76er seems relatively modest, but seems a bit more impressive as a Laker. Again this may be based on sampling error, given our limited footage, but we have enough footage that it does seem indicative of a trend.

I'm also not going to rely on anecdotal evidence of strength, speed, or vertical leap. Although those testimonials are not without value, we certainly have enough footage to make some preliminary observations of Wilt's actual athletic capabilities. To me, in comparing footage, Shaq appears more physically dominant and explosive than Wilt, but Wilt seems more skilled and versatile than Shaq, with a greater variety of moves, although Shaq was also quite skilled for a huge center.

I believe that would have been a Herculean match-up. Shaq's bigger frame and power/explosiveness v. Wilt's also powerful frame and all around skill. I'm honestly not sure who would have come out on top, but it would have been a battle for the ages. Both of them would absolutely dominate this era or any other era.

And to bring it back around to the thread -- a good soccer player would wreck young or old Shaq in a mile and would probably beat Wilt too, although not by nearly as much. :lol

[oarabbus]

That said, most athletic NBA players would beat even the most athletic soccer players in 100, 200 and possibly 400 meters and would certainly beat them when it comes to jumping ability. Different class of athleticism for different sports. Both basketball and soccer are consummate games of skill first and athleticism, second. Exceptional athleticism is a byproduct of the sports, but of course the athleticism is expressed in different ways to best compliment the necessities of the game.

Not so sure about that. A basketball court is ~30 meters in length, whereas a soccer field is ~100m. Basketball players will win at the 100 I'm sure. 200 most likely as well. I'm more inclined to take the fastest soccer players over basketball players in a 400m dash. And I'd take a D1 college 400m runner who can't make it to the pros over either.


Wilt supposedly ran a 1:58 in the 800, and a 49 in the 400 back in the 50s, but he was a freak of nature.


Those are excellent times - for a national-level high school athlete. Those are incredible times and I'm not trying to put them down in any way, but if Wilt decided to join the UCLA or Oregon teams, he'd probably be stuck on the Club team, and maybe if lucky get a shot to actually compete for the school after redshirting and training a year or two. You might say he was more suited to basketball. As you guys have mentioned guys like Jim Ryun, Gerry Lindgren, and Steve Prefontaine were on another level.

A guy like Alan Webb would likely smoke every NBA player at ANY given distance above 200m, unless they trained for years to beat him at a short distance. Even then he's too much of a running freak most likely.

And if you're talking Bekele at the 10k or Gebreselassie in a marathon? You could have a relay team of the 5 best endurance runners in the NBA and they would get DESTROYED against either of those guys at their respective events. I'm talking 5 guys switching off running 1/5th the distance each, while Bekele/Gebreselassie goes the whole distance. Just like Kobe or Wilt might legitimately be able to beat 5 marathon runners in a 1v5, the reverse is MORE true in running.

Soccer players have a much better chance at stacking up (even they would get wrecked), but if you're talking about actual elite endurance... NBA players don't have it. I'd wager even with considerable training your most fit NBA athletes wouldn't be pushing it much farther than a 4:30 mile. I don't have much faith in any of them running a 5k in the low-14s either.

Playing basketball all day is a type of endurance most certainly... but not the same as running 6.2 miles consecutively averaging faster than 4:15 per mile. Or running 26.2 miles consecutively and averaging under 4:40 per mile. The endurance gap between the best NBA runners and Gebreselassie is certainly much larger than an All-Star and a DIII player, believe that.

[kshutts1]

As far as mile times go in the NBA, if you exclude guys with a running background like rip and Ray and Nash and whoever else, you'd be lucky to have many of them break 5:00 and you would have no one run under 4:30.

Sorry to delete most of your post, but the above is all I'm responding to.

In HS I was 6'1, 210. Out of shape, not muscle. My best mile time was 8:30.
In my freshman year of college I got in to shape by lifting, playing ball, and running two separate one mile runs every day. I got my mile down to 5:20.
I also have serious asthma, to the point that I carry a rescue inhaler with me everywhere I go.

All the above are facts. And because of those facts, I will argue to my death (or until PROVEN otherwise) that the average NBA guard/wing could run a sub-5m mile at any point, without training.

No way in hell is a just-got-into-shape asthmatic, D3-level-bball player a better mile runner than a professional basketball player.

[oarabbus]

Sorry to delete most of your post, but the above is all I'm responding to.

In HS I was 6'1, 210. Out of shape, not muscle. My best mile time was 8:30.
In my freshman year of college I got in to shape by lifting, playing ball, and running two separate one mile runs every day. I got my mile down to 5:20.
I also have serious asthma, to the point that I carry a rescue inhaler with me everywhere I go.

All the above are facts. And because of those facts, I will argue to my death (or until PROVEN otherwise) that the average NBA guard/wing could run a sub-5m mile at any point, without training.

No way in hell is a just-got-into-shape asthmatic, D3-level-bball player a better mile runner than a professional basketball player.

Nah. Give any of em 6 months or a year of training with a coach who knows what they're doing, and the average wing will break 5, BARELY, I'll believe that. That's specifically limited to in shape guards/wings, by the way. Without any training? Doubt it.

Beyond that there's a big gap between 5:00 and 4:45. An even bigger one between 4:45 and 4:30. And so on. There are few NBA players in history who could honestly break a 4:30 in the mile even after YEARS of dedicated training.

[chocolatethunder]

Sorry to delete most of your post, but the above is all I'm responding to.

In HS I was 6'1, 210. Out of shape, not muscle. My best mile time was 8:30.
In my freshman year of college I got in to shape by lifting, playing ball, and running two separate one mile runs every day. I got my mile down to 5:20.
I also have serious asthma, to the point that I carry a rescue inhaler with me everywhere I go.

All the above are facts. And because of those facts, I will argue to my death (or until PROVEN otherwise) that the average NBA guard/wing could run a sub-5m mile at any point, without training.

No way in hell is a just-got-into-shape asthmatic, D3-level-bball player a better mile runner than a professional basketball player.
Ok, that's fine but running a mile twice a day will have a huge impact and is a lot different than playing basketball. Your basketball spriting couple with your running is what made you improve. That's normal. If every NBA player did that they would be a lot faster too. I'm sure NBA players are a lot more fast twitch than you are and that means that your potential in the mile is higher than their beloeve it or not. As far as the athsma goes lots of runners have it and run really well.


Edit:if you think running 20 seconds faster in the mile is a breeze you'd be surprised how much training it would take you to do that. So it's very easy as a runner to think that with no training, an NBA player would have difficulty breaking 5:00. You were training for it even if you didn't realize it. So no, I don't think that a bunch of NBA players would break 5:00. Some would sure but not many but zero would break 4:30.

[kshutts1]

Ok, that's fine but running a mile twice a day will have a huge impact and is a lot different than playing basketball. Your basketball spriting couple with your running is what made you improve. That's normal. If every NBA player did that they would be a lot faster too. I'm sure NBA players are a lot more fast twitch than you are and that means that your potential in the mile is higher than their beloeve it or not. As far as the athsma goes lots of runners have it and run really well.


Edit:if you think running 20 seconds faster in the mile is a breeze you'd be surprised how much training it would take you to do that. So it's very easy as a runner to think that with no training, an NBA player would have difficulty breaking 5:00. You were training for it even if you didn't realize it. So no, I don't think that a bunch of NBA players would break 5:00. Some would sure but not many but zero would break 4:30.
I will never argue that basketball players have elite endurance relative to soccer or running or track, etc. But a mile is not an endurance run. Also, I'd wager that 99% of guards/wings already do running as part of their daily workout (much like I did in college). Maybe they don't go for speed/time, but they do run.

Again, I completely agree with your overall point, about the distinct differences, but just talking a mile, and that 5 minute mark, I'm confident that the majority of wings can break that. The FOUR minute mark is the difficult barrier for a mile.

[chocolatethunder]

I will never argue that basketball players have elite endurance relative to soccer or running or track, etc. But a mile is not an endurance run. Also, I'd wager that 99% of guards/wings already do running as part of their daily workout (much like I did in college). Maybe they don't go for speed/time, but they do run.

Again, I completely agree with your overall point, about the distinct differences, but just talking a mile, and that 5 minute mark, I'm confident that the majority of wings can break that. The FOUR minute mark is the difficult barrier for a mile.
Anything over 800m is distance. Sprints end at 400m. The mile is most certainly without a doubt an endurance run. You know about basketball and I know about basketball and running. 5:00 is not that easy. I've played w and against guys who played all divisions, Europe and the NBA. I know none of them who could run a 5:00 mile and always busted my balls for being a runner and running to games.

[Myth]

Wilt supposedly ran a 1:58 in the 800, and a 49 in the 400 back in the 50s, but he was a freak of nature.

That is more than believable. I wouldn't have been surprised if you said faster.

[oarabbus]

Ok, that's fine but running a mile twice a day will have a huge impact and is a lot different than playing basketball. Your basketball spriting couple with your running is what made you improve. That's normal. If every NBA player did that they would be a lot faster too. I'm sure NBA players are a lot more fast twitch than you are and that means that your potential in the mile is higher than their beloeve it or not. As far as the athsma goes lots of runners have it and run really well.


Edit:if you think running 20 seconds faster in the mile is a breeze you'd be surprised how much training it would take you to do that. So it's very easy as a runner to think that with no training, an NBA player would have difficulty breaking 5:00. You were training for it even if you didn't realize it. So no, I don't think that a bunch of NBA players would break 5:00. Some would sure but not many but zero would break 4:30.


I think there are a few guys (probably count them on one hand since the shot clock era) who, if they were to have devoted years of their life to running, could have broken 4:30. Maybe. It's not a guarantee but there might be a couple dudes in NBA history who could have done it.

[chocolatethunder]

I think there are a few guys (probably count them on one hand since the shot clock era) who, if they were to have devoted years of their life to running, could have broken 4:30. Maybe. It's not a guarantee but there might be a couple dudes in NBA history who could have done it.
I meant off of basketball training. Sure plenty could run it with proper running training. I mean strictly off of basketball.

[SpanishACB]

I'm probably the only serious distance runner here so I think that I can answer that question fairly well.

You can pretty much take the NFL and MLB players out of the argument because in football you have a 10 second play and then 45 seconds of rest. And the MLB guys do very little activity each game. That doesn't mean that there aren't guys in each sport who could be good distance runners if they trained for it, it just means that their training for their particular sport probably doesn't lend itself to good distance running.

In distance running soccer would smoke NBA players. There's really no comparison. While some basketball players would be good distance runners, pretty much almost any soccer player who is worth a damn can run a decent 5k. I mean you'd be hard pressed to find a professional soccer player who couldn't run a 5K under 20 minutes (which is a shit time) but you would be hard pressed to find an NBA player who could. Guys like Rip and Ray Allen (who were/are runners) and Nash (soccer) could. But the NBA game is more sprint and stop and sprint and stop. They have a better chance of being a decent 100/200/400 runners and maybe 800m but I doubt it. Trying to imagine any of those guys (outside of soccer guys and runners like Rip etc) running a 10K is laughable.

The hockey guys are really fit and they have plenty of endurance but they all have massive legs but are probably slower in a footrace than the NBA guys. I would suspect that this would probably even out over anything over 800m so their mile results would probably be the same.

You've got to realize how very different those events you've mentioned are. You can take the best miler in the world and he still may not be able to run a super fast 5000m even with training. Say for instance Hicham El Gerrouj and Bernard Lagat. Granted, neither of them ever trained specifically for the 5000m in their primes and EL G did win gold in the 5000m in the olympics and Lagat won the 5000m in the world champs ( they both won the 5000m and the 1500m double) but El G has the world record in the 1500m and Lagat was a fraction of a second yet neither of them ever broke 12:50 for the 5000m because El G never trained for it specifically and Lagat didn't until just a few years ago when he was in his mid 30's. The world record is 12:37 so these dudes never came anywhere CLOSE to the WR.

As far as mile times go in the NBA, if you exclude guys with a running background like rip and Ray and Nash and whoever else, you'd be lucky to have many of them break 5:00 and you would have no one run under 4:30. Are there some dudes who may run something decent in something shorter? Yeah for sure but the difference between 800m and the mile is huge. 800m and the mile are considered mid distance but some 800m runners are more 400/800 runners than they are 800/1500m runners. The way all sports other than soccer is played would lend itself to the lower number but a sport like football would be more like 50m/100m. These guys go really hard for really short burts. A 200m to a football player would feel hard and a 400m would just kill them.

I could go into a lot more bullshit that's not interesting at all about blood lactate and fast twitch and slow twitch and speed endurance but if you don't know what that stuff means it's just confusing.

what he said.

However, endurance also acconts for other things. There's plenty of movement in Basketball that decreases your endurance pretty heavily when compared to jogging, be it jumping, lateral movement or even hitting each other in the paint.

NBA players have good endurance, it's just a different type. With those bodies, it's only normal they have more in the strength department than in the aerobic, but they both affect endurance.

[FKAri]

These are prime athletes we're talking about here.

Preceisely what makes you athletic in one department can sometimes actually make you unathletic in another.

[oarabbus]

I meant off of basketball training. Sure plenty could run it with proper running training. I mean strictly off of basketball.

Oh, gotcha :cheers:

Yes, then absolutely 0 considering all NBA players in league history. There is no NBA player who is running a 4:30 mile off basketball training.

[RoseCity07]

Chris Kaman? F*ck no. Mike Conley? I think it's possible.

[deja vu]

when lions chase your ass everyday you have alot of work ethic tbh. :roll:
Yeah because you can outrun a lion.

[chocolatethunder]

Chris Kaman? F*ck no. Mike Conley? I think it's possible.
Not possible for either. Maybe Conley w training but right now no way. Especially fast twitch guys they will have a much harder time at endurance events like the mile or even the 800m.