consider that the only extremely accurate timepieces in those days were on ships, used for navigation, and that until the 1940s or so, distance runners thought walking was a good method of increasing endurance.
consider that the only extremely accurate timepieces in those days were on ships, used for navigation, and that until the 1940s or so, distance runners thought walking was a good method of increasing endurance.
This story is total nonsense. Yes, there were pedestrians running in the 1770s, and, yes, they had decent ability. By "decent ability," I mean something on the order of 4:25-4:30. Timing was relatively casual then, and most of the races of this period were run on roads--often downhill, with a tailwind, etc.
Is sub-4 in the 1770s remotely believable? NO.
old tymer wrote:
This story is total nonsense. Yes, there were pedestrians running in the 1770s, and, yes, they had decent ability. By "decent ability," I mean something on the order of 4:25-4:30. Timing was relatively casual then, and most of the races of this period were run on roads--often downhill, with a tailwind, etc.
Is sub-4 in the 1770s remotely believable? NO.
If it was run downhill? Yes sir!
First of all folks, WALKING a lot does not a good miler make. Secondly, guys like Nurmi were living a similar lifestyle in the early 1900's as any of these "old time" guys and he trained like a maniac and didn't break 4. Stories like this make it obvious that a lot of people still don't realize how hard it is too run at a world-class level. True they had good measurement systems a logn time ago, but they also were subjective many times. In Edinburgh, the "Royal Mile" is not quite that. Although, I believe Rexing ran about 3:52 in 1694. That makes his 13:55 in trainers recently even more impressive!!!
Recent proof that downhill miles can be sub 4 by a long way.
It comes as no surprise that as the 50th anniversary of Roger Bannister's historic four-minute mile approaches, an assortment of carneys, hucksters and fringe "historians" are coming out of sworn secrecy to announce they actually surpassed the barrier decades, and in some case, centuries ago. Among them: Jim Jones, L Ron Hubbard, Squeaky Fromme, Ann Heche, Ira Einhorn and Marshall Applewhite -- all coming out of a secret encampment in Roswell, New Mexico.
In England, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley showed how they first measured perfect 400 meter track "circles" in a wheat field, using only a stick, a piece of rope, and a flashlight; then completed four full "circles" on the course at night under the moonlight. The time: three minutes and fifty eights seconds - set back in 1947!
Of the hundreds who've come forward so far this year, it still remains a mystery how or why these people have kept their secrets over the years. Some say this psychological phenomenon is a cousin to the "Helsinki Syndrome."
"I know of no reason why hard working farmers and cultists could not run under four minutes centuries ago," said world renown researcher Jim Beam.
Many other scientists support Beam's conclusion. Peter Smails, himself an Olympic Champion, a judge and an avid golfer said recently, "Farmers and laborers in the 1700s worked very hard and were very fit. Even today, this work ethic still prevails, and the small farms in Western Kansas produce dozens of four minute milers every year. The world still needs ditch diggers, don't they?" The pig races at many midwestern State Fairs, often showcase 12 year olds in dungarees dipping under the magic barrier.
I know one thing for sure. After reading this thread tonight, if we allow you kids to vote, I'm going to start hoarding ammo, canned goods and potable water.
could have happened,...BUT...5-6-54 is the date we know now & forever, 3:59.4!
what? huh wrote:
That is terrible logic. Because a high school kid can run 4:20 on little training, someone would have been able to run sub-4 with the correct motivation?
Look at this:
Progression of the mile record throughout the years:
4:14.4 John Paul Jones, U.S. 1913
4:12.6 Norman Taber, U.S. 1915
4:10.4 Paavo Nurmi, Finland 1923
4:09.2 Jules Ladoumegue, France 1931
4:07.6 Jack Lovelock, New Zealand 1933
4:06.8 Glenn Cunningham, U.S. 1934
4:06.4 Sydney Wooderson, Britain 1937
4:06.2 Gunder Haegg, Sweden 1942
4:04.6 Gunder Haegg, Sweden 1942
4:02.6 Arne Andersson, Sweden 1943
4:01.6 Arne Andersson, Sweden 1944
4:01.4 Gunder Haegg, Sweden 1945
3:59.4 Roger Bannister, Britain 1954
The first official record is in 1913. From there it took 41 years for anyone to break 4. Did they just not have any motivation for 41 years? Were there never any wagers placed on foot races? Were there no Olympics?
Idiots.
But weren't all those guys white?
Why did it take so long for colored folks to run distance?
what? huh wrote:
4:14.4 John Paul Jones, U.S. 1913
Wow, first a world record, then playing bass in one of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time. Is there anything this guy can't do?
Classic, Malmo!
My thoughts:
1. It is unlikely that a sub-4 was run in the 1700s, but not impossible. Outliers can occur in any generation.
2. A lot of people are confusing fitness with health. English people, in general, are les fit than they have EVER been. They may be healthier (debtable) but they sure ain't fitter.
3. It makes me laugh when people say Bannister could have run 3.50 with today's training methods, shoes, tracks etc. In fact he I bet he wouldn't have even broken 4:10. He probably wouldn't have believed he could have train for a sub-4 unless he was a full-time sponsored athlete - or he would have caught up with wearing a heart rate monitor all the time or some other such nonsense.
Malmo (Dear Mr. Condescending), If an unknown kid can run a sub 3:40 mile on a gradual downhill then it's no stretch to postulate it being done in 1770.
DEAL WITH IT.
By the way, to the young ones out there, there's no fool like an old fool!
.ytevian ruoy yb ylno dedeecxe si ecnarngi ruoy, bannister yob drawkcab, ah-ah-aH
retsinnab wrote:
Malmo (Dear Mr. Condescending), If an unknown kid can run a sub 3:40 mile on a gradual downhill then it's no stretch to postulate it being done in 1770.
DEAL WITH IT.
By the way, to the young ones out there, there's no fool like an old fool!
retsinnab, I think you'll one day have a fine career as a Raelian Starship commander. Until then, sit on the beach and chant "OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM"
Scotth, you beat me to it.
Anyone who calles the big boy (or ogden mile now) a gradual downhill has never run the race.
But technically, due to that race, I've broken 4 minutes for the mile. Find a hill steep enough, and a moderatly fit runner (4:30 type), and watch as they break 4.
Does it mean anything breaking 4 plummeting down a hill? Hell no. I don't go around calling myself a sub-4 min miler.
In my estimation, big boy is about 25-30 seconds faster than you'd run for a flat track mile.
malmo wrote:
retsinnab, I think you'll one day have a fine career as a Raelian Starship commander. Until then, sit on the beach and chant "OMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM"
Scotth, you beat me to it.
I'm impressed with your knack for the invective. Very original of you. As for chanting on the beach, how about this one: "malmoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm". Then maybe I can be as enlightened ( and gracious) as you.
quote]garland wrote:
until the 1940s or so, distance runners thought walking was a good method of increasing endurance.[/quote]
You don't have to believe it happened, but it was possible.
I see the arguments that the timepieces were not accurate, the measuring devices were not accurate or the courses were downhill as valid reasons why the 4 minute mile wasn't broken during the 18th century. What can definitely be said is that there were no mile races run during the 18th century that the IAAF would ratify.
What I don't buy is when someone says that runners didn't know how to train properly before the 1940s. History is often forgotten and successful training methods may not have always been passed on to the next generation. If distance running went out of favor for just 50 years all of the successful training methods would have most likely been lost, leaving the newer athletes to come up with there own methods. We know how they trained for about 100 years prior to when Bannister broke 4, but we know very little prior to that time. Just because distance runners believed long walks would help there running 100 years ago doesn't mean a runner from 200 years ago believed the same. Lets say your a runner from the 18th century and you know nothing about running and you want to train. What is the most obvious way to improve your running. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but someone may have come up with the idea that to be a better runner you should practice running.
Friend, you offer it's not a stretch to postulate a sub-4 mile was run in 1770. You use the correct word there, postulate, because there IS no proof and the author of the original article didn't offer any viable evidence for his claim.
Tell me this, do you believe a sub-4 mile was run in 1770? Yes or no, let your answer go w/one of the 2 options, please. Thank you.
My father was a farmer and his best friend a cattle rancher. They typically walked 5-10 miles a day carrying things working their ranches. Their idea of a pleasant weekend outing was a hunting or fishing trip wherein they walked/jogged 20 miles or more (the longest hunting trip according to the map was 25 miles and they carried a deer back with them). Most of these trips were at 3000 - 6000 ft elevations. They maintained this lifestyle into their late 60's.
I worked with my father after school and went on their trips all the time but, I didn't keep up with them and stopped short and waited for them on their longest hikes. At age 17 I joined the track team in the last month of the season. Without any training except for the aforementioned lifestyle, I ran 2:02 for the half mile and 4:24 for the mile that month. My 50 year old dad and his 55 year old friend were physically stronger and in better endurance fitness than me at that time.
Could someone lead this type of lifestyle, start running training in addition to their work and become a 4:00 miler? YES! Do it 200 years ago, even easier to believe because, of the lack of mechanized equipment that meant even more manual labor.