With the exception of Nurmi, who competed when the sport was in its virtual infancy, in an era when competition was nothing like it later became, all the other athletes you identify could well have doped.
So could have Elliott, Snell, Halberg, Quax, Dixon, Walker.
Elliott, Snell and Halberg competed in the late '50's and early '60's. It wasn't the same as the '70's, when Walker, Dixon and Quax competed. But what do you know of the past, when you have no memories of anything in the last century.
I didn't say Snell never lost but that his losses were few at his peak and not in important races. You began by falsely claiming he had many losses - as though that was typical of his career. It wasn't.
Few at his peak? Around 15 in five seasons isn't few for me. He has won all the big races, that's why is an all-time great.
"Around" 15? For one who claims exactitude that is a very approximate figure. If you can't produce a list of those races then you are just pinning the tail on the donkey. But even if correct - and I dispute it - your guess of 3 losses at a minor level in each of 5 seasons hardly makes the point you think it does.
I'm not "trying to show" anything. I saw a wrong statement of yours (one of hundreds) and I corrected it. Since you never accept when proved to be wrong this goes on and on.
Not many? Well, that's relative. Around 15 in 5 seasons is a lot for me. Than 10 or so more in 1965.
Edwin Moses hasn't lost a single race in 9 years, 9 months and 9 days.
Snell is famous for his Gold medals and his WRs - not for never losing.
I didn't say Snell never lost but that his losses were few at his peak and not in important races. You began by falsely claiming he had many losses - as though that was typical of his career. It wasn't.
Nobody said you did say that. You said he has lost once, to his countryman John Davies. I said and showed you that this is completely wrong.
15 during 1960 to 1964 plus more than 10 in 1965 isn't many to you?
So could have Elliott, Snell, Halberg, Quax, Dixon, Walker.
Elliott, Snell and Halberg competed in the late '50's and early '60's. It wasn't the same as the '70's, when Walker, Dixon and Quax competed. But what do you know of the past, when you have no memories of anything in the last century.
When do you think Iolanda Balas competed? In the 2020s?
I almost never get into discussions about who was the greatest whatever of all time or if Athlete A was greater than Athlete B or vice versa. But I do have to comment about the comparative length of Snell's and Coe's careers. Snell was always an amateur. He had to earn a living from something more than running as did everyone from his time. Elliott was done at 22 or 23. If the sport had been in their times as it was in Coe's you may have seen either or both with careers as long or longer than Coe's. I get your point and am not arguing but I don't believe you can make a valid comparison of Snell and Coe using length of career as a measuring stick.
There was no rule which had the athletes to stop after a few seasons also back then,
There were many others with long careers like Paavo Nurmi in the 1920s/'30s, Iolanda Balas or Al Oerter in the 1950s/'60s, Kip Keino in the 1960s/'70s, Irena Szewinska from the 1960s up to the '80s to name a few.
When Herb Elliott finishes his career at age 22 it's obviously his own decision and he was free to do so. But for sure it reduces his career (the reason why he quits is completely irrelevant - "had to make a living" or lost interest or whatever). He could have easily competed at the 1972 Olympics in Munich - would he have been as dominant in all those years in between like he was in 1960?
All of which is true. As now, people had different lives and different priorities. Keino had a police job which was specifically arranged so that he could train and race as much as he wanted to, sort of along the lines of Japan's corporate system. Szweninska was from and Eastern Bloc country where all their top people were really professionals. Ron Clarke had a much longer career and also had to make a living in a way other than running. But Ron always said his running was purely recreational. When he resumed running in 1961 his only goal was to be a decent club runner. He never seemed to feel any sort of burden about running and working.
Both Snell and Elliott seemed to feel like they'd done everything they wanted to do in the sport and that it was time to move on. Cerutty said Elliott quit because his sex drive got the best of him. Elliott himself once said that he didn't like the person he had to become to be the runner he was and that if he'd kept on he was afraid he would become some sort of animal. Snell never really seemed to love training and decided there was nowhere to go from up and decided it was time to do something else.
Sure, both could have kept on and if they had who knows what would have happened? Elliott would have to have dealt with Snell in Tokyo. Snell would have had to deal with altitude in Mexico. Again, I'm not saying either had a better career than Coe or a worse one and nothing prevented either from sticking around for as along as Coe did. But sticking around was much EASIER for Coe than it was for Snell and if the sport for Coe had been the way it was for Snell you can't be sure he would have had as long a career as he did.
Elliott, Snell and Halberg competed in the late '50's and early '60's. It wasn't the same as the '70's, when Walker, Dixon and Quax competed. But what do you know of the past, when you have no memories of anything in the last century.
When do you think Iolanda Balas competed? In the 2020s?
Another E Bloc athlete - of course they weren't doping. I remember her competing. You don't. Everything you refer to is from a book of statistics.
Few at his peak? Around 15 in five seasons isn't few for me. He has won all the big races, that's why is an all-time great.
"Around" 15? For one who claims exactitude that is a very approximate figure. If you can't produce a list of those races then you are just pinning the tail on the donkey. But even if correct - and I dispute it - your guess of 3 losses at a minor level in each of 5 seasons hardly makes the point you think it does.
You dispute everything which you don't like - and then you are proved to be wrong again and again.
I already showed you 6 losses in the years 1960 and 1961 (without the local ones) and you still dispute the number around 15?
You will dispute also when you get the list (I will do it). Because you have absolutely no interest in the truth. You long have realised that YOU were completely wrong and that I'm not talking nonsense. But you can't say sorry for calling me a liar.
"Around" 15? For one who claims exactitude that is a very approximate figure. If you can't produce a list of those races then you are just pinning the tail on the donkey. But even if correct - and I dispute it - your guess of 3 losses at a minor level in each of 5 seasons hardly makes the point you think it does.
You dispute everything which you don't like - and then you are proved to be wrong again and again.
I already showed you 6 losses in the years 1960 and 1961 (without the local ones) and you still dispute the number around 15?
You will dispute also when you get the list (I will do it). Because you have absolutely no interest in the truth. You long have realised that YOU were completely wrong and that I'm not talking nonsense. But you can't say sorry for calling me a liar.
There weren't 6 losses in those early years. (Olympic rounds don't count). I saw he lost a couple of mile races in '60/'61 before he began to focus on the event. So from early '62 onward to the end of '64, what were the half mile and mile races he lost? They are certainly difficult to recall because they were obviously not big races.
There was no rule which had the athletes to stop after a few seasons also back then,
There were many others with long careers like Paavo Nurmi in the 1920s/'30s, Iolanda Balas or Al Oerter in the 1950s/'60s, Kip Keino in the 1960s/'70s, Irena Szewinska from the 1960s up to the '80s to name a few.
When Herb Elliott finishes his career at age 22 it's obviously his own decision and he was free to do so. But for sure it reduces his career (the reason why he quits is completely irrelevant - "had to make a living" or lost interest or whatever). He could have easily competed at the 1972 Olympics in Munich - would he have been as dominant in all those years in between like he was in 1960?
All of which is true. As now, people had different lives and different priorities. Keino had a police job which was specifically arranged so that he could train and race as much as he wanted to, sort of along the lines of Japan's corporate system. Szweninska was from and Eastern Bloc country where all their top people were really professionals. Ron Clarke had a much longer career and also had to make a living in a way other than running. But Ron always said his running was purely recreational. When he resumed running in 1961 his only goal was to be a decent club runner. He never seemed to feel any sort of burden about running and working.
Both Snell and Elliott seemed to feel like they'd done everything they wanted to do in the sport and that it was time to move on. Cerutty said Elliott quit because his sex drive got the best of him. Elliott himself once said that he didn't like the person he had to become to be the runner he was and that if he'd kept on he was afraid he would become some sort of animal. Snell never really seemed to love training and decided there was nowhere to go from up and decided it was time to do something else.
Sure, both could have kept on and if they had who knows what would have happened? Elliott would have to have dealt with Snell in Tokyo. Snell would have had to deal with altitude in Mexico. Again, I'm not saying either had a better career than Coe or a worse one and nothing prevented either from sticking around for as along as Coe did. But sticking around was much EASIER for Coe than it was for Snell and if the sport for Coe had been the way it was for Snell you can't be sure he would have had as long a career as he did.
Both Elliott and Snell said that after their Olympic triumphs they had accomplished everything they had wanted in the sport. They weren't making a living from it. Earning an income became their priority.
You mean, experience that skips Peter Snell's losses? If anything your memory is betraying you.
You wouldn't know because you don't know anything about that era that doesn't come out of a book of statistics.
I know more than you do. But hey! According to your logic, never again mention anything that happened before you were born. Because you won't know nothing about it that doesn't come out of a book.
You dispute everything which you don't like - and then you are proved to be wrong again and again.
I already showed you 6 losses in the years 1960 and 1961 (without the local ones) and you still dispute the number around 15?
You will dispute also when you get the list (I will do it). Because you have absolutely no interest in the truth. You long have realised that YOU were completely wrong and that I'm not talking nonsense. But you can't say sorry for calling me a liar.
There weren't 6 losses in those early years. (Olympic rounds don't count). I saw he lost a couple of mile races in '60/'61 before he began to focus on the event. So from early '62 onward to the end of '64, what were the half mile and mile races he lost? They are certainly difficult to recall because they were obviously not big races.
OK I overestimated your ability to search a name in a file (I should have known better).
You wouldn't know because you don't know anything about that era that doesn't come out of a book of statistics.
I know more than you do. But hey! According to your logic, never again mention anything that happened before you were born. Because you won't know nothing about it that doesn't come out of a book.
But when it comes to the '50's and '60's I have experiences of what it was like in that era that you don't have - and that is the time we are discussing, not the Middle Ages.
There weren't 6 losses in those early years. (Olympic rounds don't count). I saw he lost a couple of mile races in '60/'61 before he began to focus on the event. So from early '62 onward to the end of '64, what were the half mile and mile races he lost? They are certainly difficult to recall because they were obviously not big races.
OK I overestimated your ability to search a name in a file (I should have known better).
Since Snell's losses are what figure so much in your estimation of him - or your reduced estimation - perhaps you could do the same for Coe and itemise all the losses in his career. There were so many weren't there - and unfortunately so many at championship level and to his major rivals. But you don't hold any of that against him. Somehow - in his case, but not Snell's - it doesn't matter.
Because he was a 1:42 guy whose poor training held him back😂Guys like snells 800, Ryuns mile, and Clarke a 5k/10k were insanely good performances where you can make some assumptions (1s/lap for tack, .5s for spikes,..) and they become the best ever. In the end we are talking elite genetics and good training. It isn’t shocking that the only difference between now and then is equipment
Poor training my ass
Look at how it was all periodized, the science still holds up
the training was sophisticated, with volume as hard as the athlete could stand
cross training and sports medicine were very limited
diet was not sophisticated
PED culture nor drugs did not exist in NZ, they though you would burn out, get a hangover, etc.
a grass or clay track can be pretty fast, but not in the same league as today's better synthetics
the 144 on grass, is a testament to a super star athlete with a super star coach.
Snell was one of the first pros, working "fake" jobs ....
There was another guy in the Lydiard group, Michael Mackey, who Lydiard said had better speed and endurance than Snell. Mackey had other interests and left the sport. Lydiard said, over and over, that there were potential champions in every neighborhood.
I don't know where Arthur supposedly said that, but he could be contradictory. When he first saw Snell he said that with his speed and the right endurance training Peter could be a top middle distance runner. Did he say that about Mackey, who came to the sport before Peter, who was 19 before he began focussing on athletics?
Snell's raw talent was formidable. In early speed work sessions with Halberg and the others in the Lydiard camp Peter asked Arthur if it was ok to run the 220's faster. Halberg's eyes popped - he was flat out. He thought, who is this young big-head! Arthur said to Peter, go ahead and Peter then regularly finished a good 10 yards ahead. Snell later went on to win the national cross country, which were tough courses with plenty of hills.
love the old stories
Snell was 21 mid high 200 (without intense precise training), with 100 miles a week and cross country ability that spells world class, the Lydiard formula in an nut shell.
Snell had real middle distance talent, as his aerobic threshold development was superior to the average 21 200m person, by a wide margin
guys like Coe and Ovett were in the 21x club, and had the cross country base, same kind of basic formula, though Coe's training was more intelligent when it came to speed development. though Snell changed the Lydiard schedule more to speed, and i'm not sure what kind of speed hill work bounding Snell really did, and in what volume, that resistance training stands to allow next level performance.
in a race today, in one of those perfect setups, with the shoes, and bicarb, I have the same Snell of 143 at 141 low and Coe near 139.