Dave Bedford said Ron Clarke woud have won Olympic 5,000 at sea level

Dusty Bones wrote:

Weren't most of Clarke's WRs run in races that were not particularly competitive? In championship races, he just wasn't a good enough finisher to win.

He wasn't a very good kicker - and the championship races he was in were kicker's races. In several of his WR's, he went out and ran the legs off Keino, Jazy, etc. He went out in '68 to run people off their feet in the 10k and almost dropped dead. At sea level he could have run the others off their feet if he had just taken off and run for time (to win) rather than a tactical race. It is interesting that other Kenyans (Jipcho, Temu) say Keino couldn't hang in the 10k in Mexico - it was too tough even for him at the altitude, and that he claimed he had physical problems that weren't really there. In the end, who knows? I think at sea-level, IF Clarke went out to run under 28:00, the rest of the field would have been running for silver. Don't know about the 5k, but Clarke did look capable of at least sub 13:10 (his 13:16 looked easy) while Keino and others were working very hard to run mid 13:20's. But that does't mean they couldn't have run under 13:20. Someone on the board may have more knowledge about this, but wasn't it determined part of Clarke's 'kick' problem may actually have been related to his heart? I remember reading

The one athlete who stands out in terms of altitude costing him gold seems to be Ryun, even if he was sub-par. The altitude would undoubtedly affect a sea-level athlete more severly and he still ran 3:37. He probably would have won at sea-level, as Keino had tried different tactics to beat Ryun before Mexico city and none of them worked. One time he even waited to try and outkick Ryun which was a big mistake in a moderately paced race. But that's the way the cookie crumbles. Look at Coe and Kipketer in the 800. Great records. No gold at the Olympics in the 2-lapper. Stones in the HJ. You have to be first across the line on the day, and it isn't always the best who wins, never mind the way drugs have completely altered the sport. Now we have guys who might not quite be the most talented, but they are the best responder to drugs, and it gives them enough to beat out those with more talent.

How did he damage his mitral valve?

Let's not forget that Gammoudi managed to beat the Africans in the 5,000. He was raised at sea level, but he did train extensively at altitude. Can someone from sea level overcome the advantage of high altitude runners by training at altitude off and on for just a year or two?

My thinking is that you cannot eliminate the advantage in such a short period of time, if ever. The East Africans probably have a genetic advantage for running at altitude. I think Gammoudi deserves a lot of credit for winning the 5,000 in 1968.

Years after the '68 Olympics Clarke had some severe heart problems. Upon examination, at least one of the Doctors determined that Clarke's mitral valve was kaput. Clarke, that Doctor and others feel that the '68 race at altitude in which Clarke collapsed was the onset of the damaged valve.

Bedford was a 10k runner who did marathon training.

Yes, Clarke won a lot of minor medals at international championships, set a lot of world records, and had by the standards of the day a long international career. Getting up to win medals at 3 Commonwealth Games in a row is admirable consistency. No one doubts that, least of all me.

But ... the specific proposition being debated here is that Clarke would certainly have won if Mexico had been at sea level. On the one hand you have the world records and Clarke's dominating form in 1967/68. On the other, you have Clarke's consistent record of not winning gold in other championships.

If Clarke had won Tokyo, or if he'd won at least one gold at the Commonwealth Games then the idea that Clarke would have won a gold medal at 1968 Olympics, had they been held at sea level, would be a lot more defensible.

I know that's kind of a subtle argument, but I think that even on letsrun it should be understood.

Here, let's take a counter-example to show how this sort of evidence works. If the 2007 World Cross Country champs had been held in more temperate weather conditions would Bekele have won ... Almost certainly. Bekele has both world records on the track and a dominating record in world cross in temperate (even hot, Lausanne 2005 for example) conditions, but the heat in Mombasa was extreme like the altitude in Mexico was extreme (for championship level distance races). This suggests Bekele not only can run fast (like Clarke), but also can win (gold).

Flightless, Ron Clarke ran 5 Commonwealth Games races and 5 Olympic Games races = 10 opportunities to win a major championship. That statistic speaks for itself. Plenty of great runners (Marty Liquori) never had close to that many ops.

Flightless...personal question. Are you a Kiwi pretending to be an American?

Even if 1968 had been at sea level Keino & Gammoudi would still have beaten Clarke. Based on what Gammoudi did at Munich, how the heck did he lose to Mills at Tokyo????

LITP Gammoudi trained at Font Romeu (Pyrenees, I believe) courtesy of the French Federation. Clarke also trained there (sporadically; too much of a family man). Clarke may have been a better RACER in this generation; he had to feed a family back then.

Living in the Past wrote:

So there was a statute that contained a provision prohibiting sea level athletes from training at altitude more than four weeks? Is that why Clarke didn't train at altitude as much as Gammoudi? Should Gammoudi have been disqualified for violating the code?

To compete in those days you needed a permit from your national federation and they were issued for only thirty days. But you could go anywhere you wanted for as long as you wanted if you weren't competing. I'd imagine the "four weels" reference was about his need to be at his job.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Look at the logs of Sell and company, upwards of 150, 130 consistently with nothing more than scheduled and structured "tempo runs".

Alan

Except for the fact that this statement is completely wrong. Look at the Hanson's training logs, and you will see a good amount (ie almost weekly) sessions of 5x 2 miles, or 5 4 3 mile repeats, etc. Not just "tempo runs" as you say. Depending on the runner, most of these longer intervals are well under 5 min pace.

I made that statement and I was obviously wrong.

I think the Australian Federation, whatever it is called,

had the four week rule.

Clarke mentioned training a bit in France. The French offered him the use of their altitude site in exchange for being able to have their physiologists test him.

HRE should be able to clear a lot of this up.

Kiwi living in America. How did you guess :)

desert rodent wrote:

Flightless...personal question. Are you a Kiwi pretending to be an American?

Concerning altitude training(Clarke), you have to consider that the benefits of altitude training had not been established at that time(1967). This was the first Olympics held at altitude, and scientific studies had not been completed on the subject.

Bedford's statement about the sub 2:00 marathon in his lifetime (next 30 yrs.)makes me think he had too many pints before the interview?

And I would have won that $200 million lottery a month ago if I had known the number in advance. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for your informed posts, Desert Rodent. Not many posters would know that Gammoudi trained in a locale called Font Romeu at the expense of the French Federation.

You make a good point that if Clarke had the same support, he would have likely performed better at Mexico City.

Most elite dedicated runners put this kind of work/effort in those days. It was thought that more meant better and other runners were putting in ther miles so you had to follow suit. Now it is quality not quantity and lots of mental preparation that wins races. Is it better or worse?

Comments!

PS my pack would never be able to cope with this workload as they think 80-100 pw is tough!

Bob,

When I raced in Scandanavia in 1975 I had to get a permit from the AAU in order to compete. I wouldn't have been allowed into their competitions (theoretically, I don't recall ever showing the thing to anyone) without it and it was valid for only about a month. By the end of August I wouldn't have been allowed in any races in Scandanavia, again theoretically as no one ever looked at it.

But Clarke, as a much higher profiled athlete, probably would have had his permit scrutinized and it too would have expired after a month or so. At that point he couldn't have competed anymore.

But the permits didn't control your ability to travel. If I'd wanted to spend the autumn of 1975 in Scandanavia I could have done so. I just wouldn't have been able to race as an American. The same would have been true of Clarke. If he'd wanted to stay in Europe he could have done so. The federation couldn't have controlled his travel or place of temporary residence. He could have spent a year at Fort Romeau but would have needed to get a new permit in order to race for any of that time beyond the original thirty days.

You have to admire Ron Hill's seventh place in that race done on NO altitude living or training. He'd read that Tracy Smith had gotten ready for the altitude by staying at his dad's summer home in the Sierras and wondered if he should have gone to his own dad's house and trained by running around the local water tower.

It was actually against the rules to train at altitude for Mexico City if you were not from altitude. It is beleive that of the athletics powers back then only Britian didn't build/have an altitude camp. The US of course built their track at Lake Tahoe. By 1972 Britain changed and used Font Romeo

I remember that now. I recall wondering how that would have been enfored in the US if someone decided to "move" to Flagstaff or Tahoe. I know that Jim Ryun, George Young, Conrad Nightengale and Tom von Ruden were in Flagstaff for a good while and all did well at the Trials.