Is Jim Ryuns mile the best ever? It was run on CINDERS!

bellcheese wrote:

I think people are forgetting that Jim Ryun ran his mile ON CINDERS. Any time ran on cinders is superior to current times. IT WAS A CINDER TRACK PEOPLE. THAT MEANS THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME.

I agree that his time on a cinder track would be faster on today's modern track, but as one who has run on a LOT of cinder tracks, some were MUCH faster than others. I ran on some where the inside lane was mostly very hard-packed dirt, and with spikes, it was almost indistinguishable from a more modern track.

Not saying today's tracks aren't better, because they clearly are, but a cinder track doesn't mean he was running in quick sand.

I think his sub 4 in a HS dual meet on dirt was the best ever. But that's me.

The Animal Within wrote:

I think his sub 4 in a HS dual meet on dirt was the best ever. But that's me.

It wasn't a dual meet. It was the State Championships.

unrequited love wrote:

The surface don't make that much difference

It makes a big difference.

The thing about Ryun's world records that stand out besides the track surface is the pacer -- Jim Ryun himself.

Wet grass vs. mondo makes a difference, but cinder vs. rubber, not much

My HS had a cinder track. I run mid 4:20's on all-weather synthetic and cracking 4:30 on our track is equivalent. I run 53 in the open 400, 55 on our track.

Bring back cinder tracks!

* wrote:

Bring back cinder tracks!

And the Mile!

On Friday, June 14, Cambridge Classic Mile on "old school" clay track - field includes Nate Brannen and Ed Whitlock:

Cinder tracks are slower...a lot slower compared with todays tracks. Cinders were Black coal rocks....nasty if you fell!

And in addition to the tougher surface, don't forget shoes. No space age fibers and featherweight materials. Probably was using fixed element shoes too. My dad still has several pairs he used from the era, and they're hefty, almost as much as what a trainer would be today.

On a modern track with the kinds of shoes we have today, Ryun could've easily gone under 3:50 I feel.

high school only competition as a senior, and the only junior to crack 4:00.

Ryun is still tops in my book.

A good cinder track was as fast or even faster than a typical rubberized track. For one thing, the stride was more natural on a cinder track. The spikes went into the surface, and didn't ride on the top and cause sore legs.

cinders were faster wrote:

A good cinder track was as fast or even faster than a typical rubberized track. For one thing, the stride was more natural on a cinder track. The spikes went into the surface, and didn't ride on the top and cause sore legs.

sorry to inform you sir but your above statement is incorrect

cinders were faster wrote:A good cinder track was as fast or even faster than a typical rubberized track. For one thing, the stride was more natural on a cinder track. The spikes went into the surface, and didn't ride on the top and cause sore legs.

no

from physics alone it is impossible that dirt tracks can be faster than synthetic if they were originally at same 65% energy limit return at start

running on a dirt track requires sinking into the track with spikes & then lifting up for each stride

potential energy required for this which is not required in a "non-sink" synthetic

each step on dirt will elicit dirt being displaced & usually thrown up/to the sides

this displaced dirt has acquired kinetic energy to do this

kinetic energy which comes from the runner's intrinsic chemical energy, thereby reducing his/her intrinsic energy to run the race

this again is not a consideration on synthetics

anyone who claims equally hard dirt/synthetic tracks are = speed has no clue about physics

unrequited love wrote:

The surface don't make that much difference

sorry to inform you sir but your above statement is incorrect

from another thread :"

dudette wrote:Vent, the guy's run 3:33 and 3:51. You think he could drop 9 and 10 seconds from those times? Really?

only 1s/lap for conversion from pristine dirt to a '70s synthetic

majority of time gain woud be from

- lack of pacing to bell

- uneven pace

- slow, unenforced laps where you are flushing time down the drain, even after you flatten out the splits ( that's good for races with little variation ) - same principle as a 3'50 guy who ambles to bell in 3'10 isn't going to run close to 40s for last lap - slow, unenforced laps throw away lot of time, 1/2 woud be a good number to start with

if you are running 59s laps when you're supposed to be running 56s you're 3s slower than expected & i reckon you've permanently flushed away maybe 1.5s which you can't recoup no matter how good your sprint

ryun used to run some 59 or 60s in his early laps & just went hard with 53s kicks in his last lap for wrs

his 3'51.1wr had split of ~ 1'59 when it shouda been more like 1'55 ( aiming for 3'50 ) - he probably threw away 2s upto there

probably threw away another 3/4s on 3rd lap

so we are talking nearly 3s lost even after splits are evened out

this was probably about a

3'47-low

solo effort on dirt if he'd run hard, solo, gun-to-tape ( after evening out splits & estimating for "thrown away" time )

you can knock off what you want for dirt -> synthetic conversion ( i go 1s/lap ) & what drafting to bell saves you ( it's usually quoted as 1s/lap )

-----------------------------------------------------------

You really believe his ideal race with modernized tracks/technologies would make that much of a difference?

-----------------------------------------------------------

just offer him a '70s track with some spikes picked up from local sports shop ( + above ( fast pacers to bell at even pace )), in his '67 shape

that's the only technology needed

-----------------------------------------------------------

What if his tall, long style minimized those effects?

-----------------------------------------------------------

err...

tall guys shoud be the best ( give it a few decades & the short guys will disappear from the lists )

- cram - a very poor ersatz version of ryun

- asbel - best we have around now ( when healthy ) but he's a stick insect

- oh & of course rudy ( another stick insect ) !!

height with power ( no stick insects ) is the ideal morphology - ryun at 6'2/160 was pretty damn close, if not perfect for 800/1500"

Before synthetic, athletes like Bob Hayes were running the 100 in 10.0. After synthetic, Jim Hines managed a 9.95 at altitude. The winning time in the first non-altitude synthetic olympics was 10.14. Despite the amazing speed boost of synthetic tracks, it would take 20 years (and steroids) to break the coveted 9.90 barrier. Bob Hayes must have been the GOAT.

Ten years after the introduction of synthetic tracks, the 800 WR had improved by a mere 0.9 seconds. Snell must have been the GOAT.

In 1963, Henry Carr was running 20.2 for 220y, an improvement of over .4 from the 1960 200m wr of 20.6. The amazing new synthetic surfaces caused the 200m wr to plummet another 0.4 seconds only 16 years later. Impressive. Henry Carr GOAT.

Tommie Smith ran 19.50 on cinder in 1966. Tyson Gay finally beat him in 19.41 - on synthetic. Tommie Smith GOAT.

In the spirit of you Ryun freaks I declare all cinder-track WR holders the GOAT.

Unlike most of them, Ryun had plenty of chances to back up all that "would have been faster on synthetic" guff by actually competing on synthetic tracks, and he failed badly. In Mexico City his excuse was basically that he didn't think he had to run very fast to win. That is not GOAT material. So actually, every cinder-track champ except Ryun is GOAT.

Yeah right... Maybe they should tear up the mondo track in Russia & run all the races on a 1967 circa track... Or maybe you'd rethink your post..?

unrequited love wrote:

Wet grass vs. mondo makes a difference, but cinder vs. rubber, not much

Ryun's WR on cinders compares to ElG's current WR. Ryun for those two years ('66&'67) was every bit as dominant as ElG.