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

Given the way that Gammoudi upped his game in the 1964 10000m (you think *Mills* was unknown before that race?), I have to think that Gammoudi could have come up with something extra in a 1968 sea-level 5000. God, what a pleasure it was just to watch Gammoudi move during his top years...

But bear in mind: Clarke in 1967/8 was absolutely aces and spades above every other distance runner--utterly dominant. I believe T&FN ranked him no. 1 at both his primary distances in both those years. (I won't look it up, so feel free to correct me.) He was capable at that time of running away from every runner in the world. In a sea-level 10000m he could have run the first half in around 13:45--though I would love to have seen such a race, because he certainly would have had some company (especially Gammoudi) and he wasn't always at his best in company.

Still, I don't think Clarke would have done that. In his book, he talked about being the fastest 5000m runner in a 10000 field, and how he had come to feel that the ideal tactic for such a man would be to run the first half of that race moderately, then go "bing." Running the first half moderately, against G and others, would simply have given them hope--no way (I think) that he'd have dropped them all in the second half.

Regarding the mitral valve (I believe it was eventually replaced with a pig's valve): Clarke collapsed at the end of the 1968 10000, something he had never done in his career, and for a time it was feared that he might die. (Recall Ryun's comments after the 1500, when he sat down for ~30mins--simply couldn't move--and honestly felt that his time had come.) Clarke really may have run himself into damage there, and his later participation in the 5000 seems unwise in retrospect.

As I recall Clarke said that he had no recollection of the end of the race and about an hour following, he literally ran himself into oblivion. Rather like Jim Peters he feared that further competition would cause irreparable damage.

I'm an old bloke.

Bit worried about Roger Bannister's mile record, when John Landy shattered it not long after.

Didn't really care about who did stuff next.

Herb Elliot was the next big thing. My hero.

Then Ron Clarke did amazing stuff at the longer middle distances. No idea how anybody could have set out with no pace-makers to just change expectations. Extraordinary physical and mental combination. Just amazed me. I was an athlete (retired into work mode) but watched stuff I could never have perceived as feasible.

So sorry that Ron never won that gold.

Years after his peak, I saw him jog out of a building in London City for a lunch time run. Managed not to approach or address him.

If I had, it would have been "You and Herb were my heroes. You challenged stuff for longer......"

Living in the Past wrote:

Here's an email response from Bedford to the following question: People say there is a similarity between yourself and Clarke, that neither earned the rewards his talents merited. Do you agree?

Ans: "He broke 17 world records, I broke one. I ended up running faster than him over 10,000 metres, but Ron had an awful amount of bad luck. The year he was winning everything the Olympics were at altitude in Mexico. If they had been anywhere else he would have won the 5,000m and 10,000m easily."

This is totally false, and shows Bedford's ignorance.

Clarke's best years were 1966 and 1967.

He hardly raced in 1968 and was NOT in the same fitness as previously.

All that heart nonsense later on was due to his poor eating habits, nothing to do with running one or two races in Mexico.

Clarke would disagree with both of your statements. He believed he was very fit going to Mexico City but was never the same after the 10,000 there. I'm no doctor but I don't think eating habits have much to do with a leaking mitral valve and actually, Clarke was disciplined with his eating. In hindsight, he believes he might have been able to continue with his career and run decently in Munich had he not run in Mexico.

Yeah Clarke would disagree but he didn't do so well did he, and ended up having open heart surgery later on, because his diet was total crap and he didn't eat well at all. Disciplined eating unhealthy food is not healthy.

1965 ~ 27:39.4 WR

1966 ~ 13:16.6 WR + 27:54.0

1967 ~ 13:18.8 + 27:21.6 for 6 miles

1969 ~ 27:49.4 + 13:27.8 in 3 days * raced 17 times in the previous 2 months

Then NO RACING for the 8 weeks before Mexico

10000m ~ 29:44.8

5000m ~ 14:12.4

4 weeks later ~ 3 miles 13:24.4

4 weeks later ~ 10000m 29:25.6

Clarke ran well when he raced prolifically, but he didn't race at all for the 2 months prior to Mexico City.

1969 ~ 28:03.6 * raced 12 times in the previous month.

He gave a talk at your running club (price 2 pints) and told us he did do quite a lot of track workouts. Of course the main thing was big miles. He said he didn't try to work on his sprint speed too much as he would still have been too slow and always planned to drop the opposition. Maybe this changed as he got older & more injured

Runningart2004 wrote:

Bedford was a 10k runner who did marathon training.

I am pretty sure he was doing 3k/5k/10k training as that is what he was racing and setting WRs in.

AT 3k ...

7:46 in 1972

(when the WR was 7:39.6 by Kip Keino)

He lead the world in 1971 at 5k ...

1971 13:22.2 Dave Bedford (GBR) Edinburgh

He lead the world several times in the 70sat 10k ...

1970 28:06.2 Dave Bedford (GBR) Warsaw

1971 27:47.0 Dave Bedford (GBR) Portsmouth

1972 27:38.4 Lasse Viren (FIN) Munich

1973 27:30.80 Dave Bedford (GBR) London

Additionally he ran ...

28:24 in 1969,

28:26 in 1970,

28:04 in 1971,

27:52, 27:53 and 28:05 in 1972,

28:14 and 28:14 in 1974

Just because you are running 150 mpw doesn't mean it isn't for the 3k-10k

I recall reading in Noakes' Lore of Running that Clarke returned to sea-level from altitude in 1968 to break the 2 mile WR and come within 6 s of the 10000 m WR on a windy night. Sounds like he was in pretty good form prior to Mexico City.

J.R. wrote:

This is totally false, and shows Bedford's ignorance.

Clarke's best years were 1966 and 1967.

He hardly raced in 1968 and was NOT in the same fitness as previously.

All that heart nonsense later on was due to his poor eating habits, nothing to do with running one or two races in Mexico.

Just one more reason to hate you.

J.R. wrote:

Yeah Clarke would disagree but he didn't do so well did he, and ended up having open heart surgery later on, because his diet was total crap and he didn't eat well at all. Disciplined eating unhealthy food is not healthy.

1965 ~ 27:39.4 WR

1966 ~ 13:16.6 WR + 27:54.0

1967 ~ 13:18.8 + 27:21.6 for 6 miles

1969 ~ 27:49.4 + 13:27.8 in 3 days * raced 17 times in the previous 2 months

Then NO RACING for the 8 weeks before Mexico

10000m ~ 29:44.8

5000m ~ 14:12.4

4 weeks later ~ 3 miles 13:24.4

4 weeks later ~ 10000m 29:25.6

Clarke ran well when he raced prolifically, but he didn't race at all for the 2 months prior to Mexico City.

1969 ~ 28:03.6 * raced 12 times in the previous month.

Only a doctor can tell you if your diet is causing problems with your heart. You are emphatically not a doctor.

And naturally you'd know better than Clarke would what with being there for all his meals and all. Once again, Clarke's surgery was to repair a leaking mitral valve. This time I checked on what would cause that and there is no mention of diet, crap or otherwise. The listed causes are things like rheumatic fever, an infection of the heart lining, drugs, another thing or two, and trauma. The cause which comes closest to Clarke's situation was trauma experienced during the '68 10,000. Yeah, if he'd a bypass you could theorize that diet was the problem but that wasn't the case.

He wasn't racing as much prior to Mexico because he was trying to adapt to running at altitude. Of course no one knows what would have happened if the Olympics weren't at altitude but Bedford is far from the only person who thinks Clarke had a gold medal taken away when the Olympics were given to Mexico City.

I'm not convinced, because Clarke did not have a kick, from the races I've seen. Gammoudi blew his doors off in Tokyo, as did Mills. He was a fine runner, obviously, but did not have that extra gear in tactical races.

Gary Oldman wrote:

Only a doctor can tell you if your diet is causing problems with your heart.

That is absurd, and totally false.

HRE wrote:

And naturally you'd know better than Clarke would what with being there for all his meals and all.

Right, thank goodness.

Once again, Clarke's surgery was to repair a leaking mitral valve. This time I checked on what would cause that and there is no mention of diet, crap or otherwise. The listed causes are things like rheumatic fever, an infection of the heart lining, drugs, another thing or two, and trauma. The cause which comes closest to Clarke's situation was trauma experienced during the '68 10,000. Yeah, if he'd a bypass you could theorize that diet was the problem but that wasn't the case.

The same false reasoning and beliefs, which lead to the issues in the first place.

He wasn't racing as much prior to Mexico because he was trying to adapt to running at altitude.

It didn't work too well did it, again proving my point.

J.R. wrote:

This is totally false, and shows Bedford's ignorance.

Clarke's best years were 1966 and 1967.

He hardly raced in 1968 and was NOT in the same fitness as previously.

Sorry but you are just flat-out incorrect on this.

In his build up to the Mexico City Olympics Ron Clarke ran a 10000m race in 27-49, only 10 seconds short of his world record. He ran the race pretty much solo and the conditions were very windy so it could be argued that he was in even better condition that when he set the 10000m world record.

From Racing Past:

"His pre-Olympic racing in 1968 gave him the confidence to assert that he was running better than in any time in his career. He lowered his 2 Miles world record by 0.2 with an 8:19.6, and then he ran a fine 10,000 in 27:49.4, just ten seconds off his world record. As this race was run in very windy conditions, many believed his time was superior to his world record. "

In 1968 Clarke ran a 10k at Crystal Palace, London in awful conditions - wind, rain etc. Every athlete in the race who has commented on it says that Clarke's performance wthat day was superior to his 10k WR. not sure about his exact time but he broke 28 minutes and beat a good field by a hell of a long way.

When I mention the other guys in the field I'm talking about people like Jim Hogan, Ron Hill, (Bedford himself?). These guys know something about the sport so their opinions on Clarke's run that day have to be respected. Renowned UK coach Harry Wilson (Ovett etc) said something very similar in the great coaching book "The Complete Middle Distance Runner" - well worth seeking out, though it's probably out of print now.

J.R. wrote:

Gary Oldman wrote:

Only a doctor can tell you if your diet is causing problems with your heart.

That is absurd, and totally false.

Of course you would say that.

See a doctor.