How on Earth did Peter Snell run 1:44.3 on grass running 100 miles per week??

Dominance.

Open image

Falsifying what I say is the only way I will appear to say anything you can approve of.

"Smaller" races? So a few races that didn't really matter. They only appear to matter to you. He didn't lose the ones that did matter, which is why he has the standing he does in the sport. Unfortunately, we can't say the same about your hero, Coe, who lost quite a few big races as well as "smaller" races.

His 6th race in 9 days and his second gold at the same Games. No one's done this Olympic double since, in over 60 years.

Of course not. Competition is not what it used to be nowadays. It's a lot harder.

Not with drugs, it isn't. And there's plenty of it out there.

Wanyonyi has also just shown that winning can be quite easy today.

Yes it is. Don't be dishonest. How many athletes in the whole world were sponsored professionals in 1964?

You had the entire Eastern Bloc whose athletes were sponsored as such things went behind the Iron Curtain.

You were completely wrong. Those losses don't matter really that much to me.

Coe is not my hero (I know, just the idea to rank athletes only because of their performances is completely beyond you) . Why is it "unfortunately" that Coe has lost several big races? He has lost because others were better or he run really badly or overestimated his capabilities - unfortunately?

Snell's championship record is clearly better than Coe's. I definitely still rank Coe ahead of Snell because of Coe's fantastic records (*) and his much longer time at or close to the top than Snell. But I can tell this 10 times to you and you still would not understand.

Almost everything which you have written to the subject in this thread was wrong - so it's just an average Armstronglivs thread.

(*) 90% of all the effort in conversations with you, is to clarify what completely misinterpret (I'm uncertain if by purpose or by stupidness). I have never compared just their PBs while ignoring the era when they were set - as you claimed at least two times.

...
is to clarify what you completely misinterpreted...

Both Snell's last 250m in Tokyo and Coe's last 200m in L.A. are things of beauty. Why argue about who is better?

Lydiard and Snell watched the 1964 marathon win for Bikile and both thought that was the most impressive performance of the games.

None of them (outside the E Bloc) that were know of in '64 were doping. Now at least 1 in 2 at the top are. That is "sponsored professionals" for you.

If the losses "don't really matter much" to you why have you gone on about them? It was your first main point about Snell and you've sought to itemise every one in detail, as though they represent his career. They don't. The losses - which you've conceded were "small" - don't appear to have mattered to anyone else, including Snell.

Because he was a strength based runner who possessed good foot speed. Something like Seb Coe or Steve ovett

You forgot about that race when Snell lost to his 5 year old daughter while running around their back garden ... That one would have really cemented your argument.

Still, my point stands. Where were the Africans in 1964?

Laughable comment.

Your friend claims his god is almost unbeaten (something like Balas, Moses, Lewis LJ). That's completely wrong. To clarify something like this with him takes days or even weeks.

You also prefer wrong Infos over correct ones like Army?

they didn't have testing yet in Peter Smell's day

did they even have standardized tracks yet? How do you measure a standardized 400m or 440y track? In the modern world they have to use steel tape. Not sure how that would work on grass.

Steel wasn't invented until after Peter Snail's retirement from competition.