Did Bannister really break four?

The real question, which I never noticed on that video, is why is everyone in the crowd wearing overcoats? Was it cold? Who sets a mid-d world record in cold weather? Didn't look like it was raining either. Maybe it was just the style to wear overcoats in all weather.

I believe from reading the book there were 3 official timers.

Even if they didn't add the .25 for hand timing it is still well under 4 minutes.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The real question, which I never noticed on that video, is why is everyone in the crowd wearing overcoats? Was it cold? Who sets a mid-d world record in cold weather? Didn't look like it was raining either. Maybe it was just the style to wear overcoats in all weather.

It was cold. Bannister was much tougher than you.

Nail in the Bannisster by R, Stornaway wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

The real question, which I never noticed on that video, is why is everyone in the crowd wearing overcoats? Was it cold? Who sets a mid-d world record in cold weather? Didn't look like it was raining either. Maybe it was just the style to wear overcoats in all weather.

It was cold. Bannister was much tougher than you.

It had rained earlier, and was windy. He almost called off the attempt because of the wind, but decided to give it a go. Back then an overcoat and hat was pretty normal outdoor attire.

Four minute mile wrote:

How accurate was hand timing? In the photos of Bannister breaking the 4 minute mile, you see a couple of guys with stopwatches. I'm sure each of their times were different by at least a few hundreds or even tenths of a second. Did they go with the fastest one or average? Human reaction time is around 0.25 seconds, did they add that in too?

Embarrassing post and disgraceful given the circumstances.

Not a single shred of evidence to suggest he didn't break it.

And to Bad Wiggins: His coach felt he could run 3:56 for the mile and so convinced him he could still break 4 given the bad weather, which he did. He ran 3:58.8 in the commonwealth final also to beat Landy who had run 3:57 previously.

It was windy and cool during the day but the wind died in the evening for the race. I would guess it to have been 50 degrees at race time. The runners are not wearing any extra clothing nor are the timers shown in one photo. 3 stopwatches are used so it was probably the average and let’s go with 3;59.6 FAT to settle down any conspiracy theories. The record steadily increased almost immediately.

Agree with the sentiments expressed here.

but why is Bannister's best competitive effort of 1954 hardly ever mentioned? I refer to his victory in the European 1500 in that year; he decimated a stacked field on the last lap.

The 3:59.4 was a very impressive time trial, in effect, and his defeat of Landy in the Commonwealth Games was very much like an old fashioned match race from the Victorian era given that there was no other runner in the race of anything close to the ability of those two.

milermb wrote:

there was no other runner in the race of anything close to the ability of those two.

Maybe not on that day but as far as ultimate ability goes there was. The fastest runner was fifth.

When you hand time you round up before making the additional adjustment. He may have run a tenth of a second faster.

Was it a New Zealand athlete who won Olympic gold six years later - at a longer distance?

Sorry to keep replying to posts on this thread but .... if my Dad was still alive he would be going berserk at this post. As a Grade 1 Timekeeper who officiated at lots of international fixtures he never tired of telling people that hand timing DOES NOT give faster times than modern electrical systems.

Yes there is a reaction time to the gun but there is also a reaction time at the end of the race. You do not anticipate the runner crossing the line, you stop your watch when you see him reach the line. The reaction time at each end of the race cnacel each other out. (Or something like this!)

People today don't understand how accurate hand timing can be.

During Coe's 800m WR the three/four official hand timers agreed on 1:41.6 for his WR and the electronic timing showed 1:41.73

He would have been travelling much faster than Bannister through the line.

milermb wrote:

Was it a New Zealand athlete who won Olympic gold six years later - at a longer distance?

Yes, and he ran a faster mile than either Bannister or Landy ever managed.

milermb wrote:

Yes there is a reaction time to the gun but there is also a reaction time at the end of the race. You do not anticipate the runner crossing the line, you stop your watch when you see him reach the line. The reaction time at each end of the race cnacel each other out. (Or something like this!)

Of course you anticipate him crossing the line? You can see him coming, for crying out loud, unlike the firing of the gun.

ex-runner wrote:

Four minute mile wrote:

How accurate was hand timing? In the photos of Bannister breaking the 4 minute mile, you see a couple of guys with stopwatches. I'm sure each of their times were different by at least a few hundreds or even tenths of a second. Did they go with the fastest one or average? Human reaction time is around 0.25 seconds, did they add that in too?

Embarrassing post and disgraceful given the circumstances.

Not a single shred of evidence to suggest he didn't break it.

And to Bad Wiggins: His coach felt he could run 3:56 for the mile and so convinced him he could still break 4 given the bad weather, which he did. He ran 3:58.8 in the commonwealth final also to beat Landy who had run 3:57 previously.

Agreed. How do these disgraceful threads not get axed? A shill for the site posts to "get things going" or just an uninformed moron.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The real question, which I never noticed on that video, is why is everyone in the crowd wearing overcoats? Was it cold? Who sets a mid-d world record in cold weather? Didn't look like it was raining either. Maybe it was just the style to wear overcoats in all weather.

If the weather was perfect, the whole story about Bannister almost calling off the attempt due to the weather wouldn't make much sense, would it?

notafatty wrote:

Even if they didn't add the .25 for hand timing it is still well under 4 minutes.

So Big Hawk Chief's 3:58 from 1876 would also be well under 4 minutes.

"In 1876, in the service of the U.S. Army Big Hawk Chief (Pawnee) ran a mile in under four minutes. Near the town of Sidney, Nebraska at the army barracks, Luther North, the commander of the scouts, and Hugh Bean, a citizen of Sidney, used a steel tape to measure out a half-mile track. Two army officers with stopwatches timed the mile race. Big Hawk Chief crossed the finish line in 3 minutes and 58 seconds. [National Museum of the American Indian magazine, Fall 2004]"

But you are trained not to anticipate!

Don't know what the situation is in the US, but in the UK in order to become a Grade 1 timekeeper - eligible to officiate at important meets - you have numerous practical exams (where your times are compared to automatic timings) and a three hour written exam. In effect you serve along apprenticeship and learn from more experienced colleagues. It is neither a simple nor an easy job!