Why did Peter Snell never break the 1500m world record?

Camilla Martin wrote:

treadmiler wrote:

Snell raced a mile against Elliott in Dublin shortly after the 1960 Olympics, but failed to break 4. It was the only time Gordon Pirie broke the 4 minute barrier right at the end of his career.

http://rhodesiansportprofiles.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/terence-allman-sullivan.html

Was this the only time Snell raced Elliott?

No. Snell beat Elliott over 800m at least once. Picture is in his book.

OK, I will give Snell 7/10 head-to-head. They were both killers, but the guy with the better kick always have the advantage when their overall fitness is comparable.

Totally wrong wrote:

Gryptic wrote:

head-to-head: Snell 9/10

You have no clue about Elliott.

Gryptic wrote:

OK, I will give Snell 7/10 head-to-head. They were both killers, but the guy with the better kick always have the advantage when their overall fitness is comparable.

Totally wrong wrote:

You have no clue about Elliott.

Herb Elliott's racing ability should not be underestimated. For someone to be unbeaten in the 1500m and mile, he must know how to position himself and race his opposition.

Too bad there is not too many footage of Elliott's races on YouTube.

But Snell was a very smart runner as well nevertheless.

Tyrrell Hatton wrote:In terms of a mile race, would you class Elliott as a front runner and Snell as finishing kicker?

I've seen more of Snell's races and he did have a tremendous finishing kick.

If both were level with 150m to go, who would win?!

very very hard to say

elliott had tremendous speed but not really interested in 2 lap race as 1500 was prestige event

he split an incredible 50.5 2nd lap in a 1'49.3 for 880y to win commonwealth gold in '58 as just a kid

there is brief clip of that race & he had to run wide entering 2nd lap

analysis of that run after rounds :

-> factor out the huge -ve splits to convert to 2s +ve splits : i use formula

correction = [2nd lap - 1st - 2]*(1/3)

-> correction of 3.5s

-> 1'45.8

-> knock off 0.6s to convert to 800m -> 1'45.2

-> knock off 1s/lap to convert to a '70s track -> 1'43.2

-> knock off some tenths for extra run on bends, not too much drafting & fatigue of rounds

->~ 1'42-mid/high

elliott in '58 in a fully rested "zurich" of '70s, drafted smoothly to bell off 2s +ve splits with 0 extra run wide, when just a kid wouda been looking at ~ 1'42-mid/high

that wouda given snell all the trouble he wouda ever wanted at 800 let alone 1500 !!!

Snell was more of an 800m runner, while Elliot was more of a 1500m/mile runner.

I would definitely pick Snell in an 800m race.

Just an interesting tidbit: In that same 1958 Commonwealth/Empire half, Elliott's 50.5 got him home just ahead of Brian Hewson's 49.9 second lap--for yards, remember!

Audio of the race:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD0yGw5xjZI

Very brief footage, starting a 1:38:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMwbZwiT6EU

Finish picture:

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/herb-elliott-of-australia-winning-the-880-yards-final-from-brian-picture-id637480532?s=612x612

calculo wrote:

-> factor out the huge -ve splits to convert to 2s +ve splits : i use formula

correction = [2nd lap - 1st - 2]*(1/3)

This is flawed, it is asymmetrical and unreliable, totally unscientific. So if an 800m runner runs a 60s 1st lap & 50s 2nd lap (1:50) he is in 1:46 shape. But if he runs a 50s 1st lap and a 60s 2nd lap (1:50) he is somehow only in 1:52.66 shape, which is absurd.

lease wrote:

Just an interesting tidbit: In that same 1958 Commonwealth/Empire half, Elliott's 50.5 got him home just ahead of Brian Hewson's 49.9 second lap--for yards, remember!

Audio of the race:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD0yGw5xjZI

Very brief footage, starting a 1:38:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMwbZwiT6EU

Finish picture:

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/herb-elliott-of-australia-winning-the-880-yards-final-from-brian-picture-id637480532?s=612x612

What was Herb Elliott's PB for the 800m?

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:This is flawed, it is asymmetrical and unreliable, totally unscientific. So if an 800m runner runs a 60s 1st lap & 50s 2nd lap (1:50) he is in 1:46 shape. But if he runs a 50s 1st lap and a 60s 2nd lap (1:50) he is somehow only in 1:52.66 shape, which is absurd.

once more you show you are completely outta your depth with no clue about the sport

you can't even read properly

the formula says :

CORRECTION

if 2 guys run 1'50.00, one with huge +ve splits, the other with same huge but -ve splits, a 100y of stats shows the -ve split guys run was by far the most impressive

1'50.00 off 50/60 -> correction of 2.67s

-> 1'50.00 - 2.67 ->

1'47.33

1'50.00 off 60/50 -> correction of 4.00

-> 1'50.00 - 4.00 ->

1'46.00

in both cases the 2 guys are worth far better than 1'50.00 if they had run race off 2s +ve splits but as we all know, the intrinsic effort of the -ve split guy is superior to that of the +ve spliter...

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:This is flawed, it is asymmetrical and unreliable, totally unscientific. So if an 800m runner runs a 60s 1st lap & 50s 2nd lap (1:50) he is in 1:46 shape. But if he runs a 50s 1st lap and a 60s 2nd lap (1:50) he is somehow only in 1:52.66 shape, which is absurd.

once more you show you are completely outta your depth with no clue about the sport

you can't even read properly

the formula says :

CORRECTION

if 2 guys run 1'50.00, one with huge +ve splits, the other with same huge but -ve splits, a 100y of stats shows the -ve split guys run was by far the most impressive

1'50.00 off 50/60 -> correction of 2.67s

-> 1'50.00 - 2.67 ->

1'47.33

1'50.00 off 60/50 -> correction of 4.00

-> 1'50.00 - 4.00 ->

1'46.00

in both cases the 2 guys are worth far better than 1'50.00 if they had run race off 2s +ve splits but as we all know, the intrinsic effort of the -ve split guy is superior to that of the +ve spliter...

correcting huge disparate splits for me came about because of trying to quantify Wilson's incredible 1'41.24 off utterly suicidal 23.0 !!!! & 48.3 !!!

now, to offer a correction for that 23.0 is very hard & for another day but we know we can offer something for that 48.3

we "know" if he'd run that off 49-low/mid ( assumed 24-low opening 200 ), he wouda run ~ 1'40-low & factoring in that 23.0 wouda indicated more like 1'40-flat ( but like i said, that one is for another day )

trying formula on splits of 48.3/52.94

-> correction of [ 52.94 - 48.3 - 2 ] * (1/3) = 0.88s

-> corrected time off 2s +ve splits of 1'41.24 - 0.88 =

1'40.36

& certainly more meat to come off that bone as 23.0 is even more absurd split than 48.3 !!!

calculo wrote:

correcting huge disparate splits for me came about because of trying to quantify Wilson's incredible 1'41.24 off utterly suicidal 23.0 !!!! & 48.3 !!!

now, to offer a correction for that 23.0 is very hard & for another day but we know we can offer something for that 48.3

we "know" if he'd run that off 49-low/mid ( assumed 24-low opening 200 ), he wouda run ~ 1'40-low & factoring in that 23.0 wouda indicated more like 1'40-flat ( but like i said, that one is for another day )

trying formula on splits of 48.3/52.94

-> correction of [ 52.94 - 48.3 - 2 ] * (1/3) = 0.88s

-> corrected time off 2s +ve splits of 1'41.24 - 0.88 =

1'40.36

& certainly more meat to come off that bone as 23.0 is even more absurd split than 48.3 !!!

But you are conveniently switching from positive to negative when it suits who you like. Switching around the first and second laps is a sneaky little ploy to generate times that you like.

As for the negative 2 constant, why? What, two laps? Then use a division sign, but again it is meaningless, an abstract from reality that doesn't work in the real world.

[quote]calculo wrote:

correcting huge disparate splits for me came about because of trying to quantify

[quote]

Yeah, stop trying to change reality.

Herb Elliott's PB for the 800m: 1:46.70 (estimated from 880 yard time of 1.47.30)

is this a joke ???

you have no clue about basic math

that is a stand alone formula, no switching of laps, just using the examples you posted of 1'50 run off 50/60 & 60/50

i posted the correction to a 2 s +ve split race

to make the formula understandable further for anyone with a basic grasp of math i'll repost it with the modulus signs :

Correction = | [2nd lap - 1st lap - 2] * (1/3) |

is this a joke ???

do you have any clue about the absurdity you are spouting ?

that is the empirical formula i have come up with for any elite 2 lap guy/gal who doesn't run 2s +ve spits, but any disparate splits whatsoever, & offering a correction for the actual splits to what they couda run off 2s +ve split

do you understand anything at all about basic math or logic ?

because that is part of the formula

if it was -ve 1, 3 or 4, i wouda used it, but -ve 2 is the value that makes the formula "work"

this is what is known as empiricism

what is this nonsense ???

i said specifically for the 2 laps as 400 or 440y split is the main one used in analysing 2 lap runs

i have empirical formulas for ideal clocking based on 200/220y or 600/660y splits but for another time

is this a joke ?

you do realise division is just reciprocal multiplication ?

you are waaay outta your depth

if you had any clue about the sport, you wouda known one of the biggest questions ever in 800 running was what coud Wilson have run that day if he hadn't got suicidal 23.0/48.3 pacing in his 1'41.24 but the expected 24-low/49-low opener ???

if you want comparison, the Big-Man in is brace of 1'41-flat WRS in '10 split 24-low/49-mid, virtually faultless splits albeit little drafting as too far back

Wilson wouda been entitled to same opening splits

impress board

tell us what you think Wilson's 1'41.24 wouda been off 49-low ?

tell us what you think Wilson's 1'41.24 wouda been off 24-low ?

either will do...

No you distort again, your original equation is designed to give a picture as the 800m runner's estimated time/fitness if they do an absurdly slow first lap and a very fast second lap giving a negative adjusted figure. You then used the same equation for Kipketer's WR where he ran a 48s 1st lap and 53s 2nd lap which required no adjustment because it is near his peak ability hence the WR, using your equation for this gives a positive adjustment and is meaningless. Yet you then subtracted this positive figure making Kipketer's figure even better, which is just silly. Your equation needs more work before it is ready for prime time.

Snell was undeniably one of the top few milers since 1950 (and aren't there a LOT to choose from), but Elliott is widely considered the greatest 1500m runner of the 20th century.

I don't want to debate it, because it is not MY feeling, but if you watch the Rome 1500m and how he dominates and runs away from everyone. How he runs a WR that is just 2 seconds behind some of the fastest championships of the past 40 years.

Then look at an all-time compilation of marks under 4:00y and 3:42m. It is astounding how many races he had ... an "Ovett-like" win streak 20 years before Ovett.

Also, even if he took drugs, he didn't have what is available now. The tracks were terrible compared to now and of course, the money was not what it was the last 40 years.

In short (too late) that 3:35.6 is probably the strongest WR (relative to the rest of the world at the time) that has happened in the last 70 years (maybe Coe's 1:41.73 was on par).

This is more succinct (from his wiki page):

" In August 1958 he set the world record in the mile run, clocking 3:54.5, 2.7 seconds under the record held by Derek Ibbotson; later in the month he set the 1500 metres world record, running 3.36.0, 2.1 seconds under the record held by Stanislav Jungwirth. In the 1500 metres at the 1960 Rome Olympics, he won the gold medal and bettered his own world record with a time of 3:35.6.

Few people have ever exercised such absolute authority in any branch of sport as Elliott did in middle distance running from 1957 to 1961. During that span he never lost a 1500 metres or 1-mile race.[2] During his career, he broke four minutes for the mile on 17 occasions."

Ryun took a nice swing at it, but the WRs for 1500/Mile were never beaten by such big chunks again.

is this a joke ?

no distortion

is this a joke ?

you show you have no clue whatsoever about basic math

that formula says absolutely nothing about whether the 2nd lap is quicker or slower than the 1st

can't you think ?

it is for any disparity of laps compared to gold standard of 2s +ve split laps

because if i have to explain it to you again for umpteenth time, it is formula for ANY disparity in laps compared to 2s +ve split race

is this an utter joke ???

can't you do even the most basic math ???

his splits were 48.3 & 52.94

that is disparity of

4.64s !!!

explain to universe how 4.64 is 2.00 ???

do you not realise that nominally, even though Big-Man ran suicidal 23.5 opener in his 1'40.91, his 2 lap differential was 2.35s ??? !!! which is much nearer 2.00 ideal

why is Wilson not entitled to 2.00 split differential as everyone expected was the aim in that race ???

did you follow the sport back then ???

is this a joke ???

Mal Whitfield ran 1'49.2y WR off 21.6y !!!! & 50.5y !!! for split disparity of 8.2s !!!

do you think he & the world woud not want to estimate what his clocking couda been that day off 2s +ve splits ???

is this a joke ???

he had 4.64s differential when gold standard is 2.00s

any serious analyst will attempt to correct notable split differentials to 2s +ve split

not only is this basic concept beyond you, it shows you are waay outta your depth, with no knowledge of the sport or how to analyse it

is this a joke ???

it gives exactly the figure experience told me that Wilson's run wouda been worth off 49-low, but i have not looked at even more absurd 23.0 split for further refinement

i ask you again :

tell us what you think Wilson's 1'41.24 wouda been off 49-low ???

tell us what you think Wilson's 1'41.24 wouda been off 24-low ???