You say Snell was a unique talent. Not in the sense that you may think. There are likely at least several thousand people born each year who have the talent to run that Snell had. They may not have Arthur Lydiard to coach them and most of them may never do much running at all, or they may be in another sport.
You're joking. Snell was a multiple wr holder and a 3 time Olympic champion, achieving what many - including Coe - couldn't, which was to win the 800, defend it and take the 800/1500 double which only one athlete had done before him (in 1920) and none have done since. In this sport, he has to be seen as one of the greats. So pardon my scepticism at seeing a 17 year-old come from nowhere, with a fraction of his training, to match his winning time at the 1960 Olympics. It is a different sport today - and not because of greater talent or better tracks and shoes.
How many Africans was Snell racing against? The best of them would have defeated Snell, who was talented but NOT the extraordinary talent you think he was. Snell ran 3:37. He was not the the freak you think he was. You are biased and of course you will want to debate this until you are blue in the face. We will agree to disagree. Snell was probably doping also.
What is an explosion in talent? So watching Ovett races on YouTube causes talent to explode? You have often boasted of a high IQ. My head is exploding at the thought of your high IQ causing you to post so many stupid notions such as the above.
Is English not your first language? Or are you autistic and can't decipher metaphorical language?
Yes, youngsters growing up in an athletics climate in which they have it drilled into them that East Africans are naturally better runners, will have their confidence and belief raised by watching evidence to the contrary.
You just posted the claim that Peter Snell would have been beaten by any African runners in the 1960's, who appear to be mysteriously absent in your timeline. This despite the fact that his 1:44 on grass easily equates to a time today that only a handful of Africans have ever matched (and at least one - Amos - was busted).
What is an explosion in talent? So watching Ovett races on YouTube causes talent to explode? You have often boasted of a high IQ. My head is exploding at the thought of your high IQ causing you to post so many stupid notions such as the above.
Is English not your first language? Or are you autistic and can't decipher metaphorical language?
Yes, youngsters growing up in an athletics climate in which they have it drilled into them that East Africans are naturally better runners, will have their confidence and belief raised by watching evidence to the contrary.
You just posted the claim that Peter Snell would have been beaten by any African runners in the 1960's, who appear to be mysteriously absent in your timeline. This despite the fact that his 1:44 on grass easily equates to a time today that only a handful of Africans have ever matched (and at least one - Amos - was busted).
Why do you lie so much? Can you not tell the truth? Where did I write that “Peter Snell would have been beaten by any African runners in the 1960s?” You just make stuff up but of course any mention of African runners gets you riled up due to, well your know…
How many Coes, Ovetts, Snells, Juantorenos, Cruzs, Max Burgins, were Rudisha and Kipketer running against? That means all their victories were worthless! They competed in a time when middle-distance running in Europe and elsewhere was almost dead due to rampant African EPO doping. Even if they were clean themselves (unlikely), their gold medals are rather hollow.
How many Africans was Snell racing against? The best of them would have defeated Snell,
What on Earth does this mean?
You seriously can't tell the difference between "the best of them" like he wrote and "any African runners"? i'm sorry to tell you but those IQ tests on the cereal box were not a true measure of your intelligence.
- Snell was 21 and just shy of his 22nd birthday when he won in Rome.
- Tracks and shoes may make a difference but what is your authority for claiming it is effectively a full second per lap over cinder tracks?
- Where is it stated the youngster may have been training 60k per week since he was 5? (I would think that extremely unlikely without causing him irreparable damage at an early age).
- What is the evidence that early training translates to Olympic-level performance by the mid to late teens, if not maturity? Some of your favorite examples of those you consider clean athletes had trained for only a couple of years before they became world beaters - Elliott began training with Cerutty after the '56 Olympics and became the world mile record holder in '58. Snell began training with Lydiard in '58 and was Olympic champion in '60. Years of training are not necessary to produce the best athletes and certainly not training that began before puberty.
- Where is it shown that height is an advantage in md or distance running? Elliott and Snell were 5'11", Coe about 5'8", Morceli about the same, El G 5'9" and Bekele 5'8". Few top md runners are over 6'0". Big doesn't necessarily equate with better in md and distance running.
- A healthy diet is still generally considered to be proteins, carbs, and fats - meat, vegetables, nuts and fruit. That is for athletes as well as the person in the street. So what has modern "nutrition" added to that (apart from drugs) to transform athletes?
- It has been known for several decades that drugs have infiltrated every sport. They are being used even at high school and college level. Doping has become more sophisticated and hard than ever to detect. No athlete could hope to be the best now without it. Sure - there will have been impovements in sports over the last few decades - particularly those that are skill-based and involve significant technology (like golf and tennis). But that isn't running. The improvements in tracks and shoes won't account for everything.
According to the much favoured Occam's Razor around here, doping offers the best and simplest explanation for how even very talented youngsters, like a 17 year old, can chase the best performances of some of the past greats in the sport. One thing we know for certain - it can't be ruled out and with the nature of elite sport now it is more likely than not.
You are accusing a minor of doping. I know what I would do if that was my son.
Armstronglivs might be the biggest misanthrope on these boards. The tone of most of Armstronglivs' posts is usually very negative, and his or her extreme bitterness towards the USA and facile charges of racism are almost endless.
You're joking. Snell was a multiple wr holder and a 3 time Olympic champion, achieving what many - including Coe - couldn't, which was to win the 800, defend it and take the 800/1500 double which only one athlete had done before him (in 1920) and none have done since. In this sport, he has to be seen as one of the greats. So pardon my scepticism at seeing a 17 year-old come from nowhere, with a fraction of his training, to match his winning time at the 1960 Olympics. It is a different sport today - and not because of greater talent or better tracks and shoes.
How many Africans was Snell racing against? The best of them would have defeated Snell, who was talented but NOT the extraordinary talent you think he was. Snell ran 3:37. He was not the the freak you think he was. You are biased and of course you will want to debate this until you are blue in the face. We will agree to disagree. Snell was probably doping also.
You are quite ignorant. Snell raced the 1500 only on one occasion in his career, which was the Tokyo Olympics. He won. (Keino, who was entered, incidentally didn't make the final). The imperial distance was favoured in that era. He was the world record holder over the mile, as well as the 800m and 880y, the 1000y indoors and the 1000m. He was a double Olympic champion over the shorter distance. You need to take your head out of your comics.
- Snell was 21 and just shy of his 22nd birthday when he won in Rome.
- Tracks and shoes may make a difference but what is your authority for claiming it is effectively a full second per lap over cinder tracks?
- Where is it stated the youngster may have been training 60k per week since he was 5? (I would think that extremely unlikely without causing him irreparable damage at an early age).
- What is the evidence that early training translates to Olympic-level performance by the mid to late teens, if not maturity? Some of your favorite examples of those you consider clean athletes had trained for only a couple of years before they became world beaters - Elliott began training with Cerutty after the '56 Olympics and became the world mile record holder in '58. Snell began training with Lydiard in '58 and was Olympic champion in '60. Years of training are not necessary to produce the best athletes and certainly not training that began before puberty.
- Where is it shown that height is an advantage in md or distance running? Elliott and Snell were 5'11", Coe about 5'8", Morceli about the same, El G 5'9" and Bekele 5'8". Few top md runners are over 6'0". Big doesn't necessarily equate with better in md and distance running.
- A healthy diet is still generally considered to be proteins, carbs, and fats - meat, vegetables, nuts and fruit. That is for athletes as well as the person in the street. So what has modern "nutrition" added to that (apart from drugs) to transform athletes?
- It has been known for several decades that drugs have infiltrated every sport. They are being used even at high school and college level. Doping has become more sophisticated and hard than ever to detect. No athlete could hope to be the best now without it. Sure - there will have been impovements in sports over the last few decades - particularly those that are skill-based and involve significant technology (like golf and tennis). But that isn't running. The improvements in tracks and shoes won't account for everything.
According to the much favoured Occam's Razor around here, doping offers the best and simplest explanation for how even very talented youngsters, like a 17 year old, can chase the best performances of some of the past greats in the sport. One thing we know for certain - it can't be ruled out and with the nature of elite sport now it is more likely than not.
You are accusing a minor of doping. I know what I would do if that was my son.
I am saying that I suspect his performance to be doped. That he is a minor is irrelevant as doping can occur at any age and is known to be present in high schools and colleges. Amos was a minor when he ran in London in 2012 - he was said to be 18. He is a confirmed doper and was likely doping then.
How many Africans was Snell racing against? The best of them would have defeated Snell, who was talented but NOT the extraordinary talent you think he was. Snell ran 3:37. He was not the the freak you think he was. You are biased and of course you will want to debate this until you are blue in the face. We will agree to disagree. Snell was probably doping also.
You are quite ignorant. Snell raced the 1500 only on one occasion in his career, which was the Tokyo Olympics. He won. (Keino, who was entered, incidentally didn't make the final). The imperial distance was favoured in that era. He was the world record holder over the mile, as well as the 800m and 880y, the 1000y indoors and the 1000m. He was a double Olympic champion over the shorter distance. You need to take your head out of your comics.
Peter Snell was likely doping. The cognoscenti surely could enlighten you about this. Peter trained very hard and had access to the best pharmaceuticals around. I am shocked you weren’t privy to this. You have already signaled your loss in this debate with your weak ad hominem attack. Try harder.
You seriously can't tell the difference between "the best of them" like he wrote and "any African runners"? i'm sorry to tell you but those IQ tests on the cereal box were not a true measure of your intelligence.
So he asks rhetorically if any African runners raced against Snell, and says the best of them would have beaten him (if any had). Imbecile. And stop posting under different names to support yourself, you've been doing it for years now.
Well, four American high schoolers have run within .3s of Laros's time at 18 and 19 years old, and three of those didn't have high level runners as parents to get them an early start, so why would this be suspicious to you? Snell ran 1:44 anyway. A 1:46 in an Olympic final doesn't mean too much. Some Olympic finals are tactical. Centro ran 3:50 in his victory. By your logic, shouldn't it then be much more suspicious that Laros ran 7 seconds faster in his pr 1500m race (and he surely can run much faster than that now) than the 2016 Olympic champion?
Laros is certainly not the only runner I would be suspicious of. I have made it clear in other threads my view that doping is endemic in sports and especially running. Indeed it is the fact that a performance like his is now relatively "normal" for athletes of even his age is evidence of how far doping has gone in the sport. In the mid-nineties it was claimed by those who investigated the issue, including some of those involved in doping, that the majority of Olympians at Atlanta were doped. That was over a quarter of a century ago. The rewards for doping are if anything higher today. It won't have lessened.
On the issue of 1.46.3 in an Olympic final - in Rome it was the Olympic record and only 0.7 from the then world record. (Since it was run on cinders and without modern shoes it would probably be worth a second or so at least today). Snell beat the world record-holder in that race. It was nothing like the 2016 1500 final (which was slower than Lovelock's time in Berlin in '36). It is interesting that at the European Games just held that the winning time for the 800 - on a modern track - was slower than Snell's best time run in '62 (on grass).
However my main point is not that 1.46 is a particularly fast time - it isn't today - but that it is a very fast time for a runner just past his mid teens. That is what arouses my scepticism.
"4.51 in '76"? Don't you mean 3.51? No - it isn't worth several seconds faster today.
No, 4:51.4, as I have written. So, shoes, tracks, training havn't improved the last 46 years?
4.51? What distance are you talking about? And run by whom?
Shoes and tracks have improved in the last half century but will not have made the kind of difference that you suggest. The improvements achieved in training since the 70's are largely the result of doping, which enables athletes to train harder.
You are quite ignorant. Snell raced the 1500 only on one occasion in his career, which was the Tokyo Olympics. He won. (Keino, who was entered, incidentally didn't make the final). The imperial distance was favoured in that era. He was the world record holder over the mile, as well as the 800m and 880y, the 1000y indoors and the 1000m. He was a double Olympic champion over the shorter distance. You need to take your head out of your comics.
Peter Snell was likely doping. The cognoscenti surely could enlighten you about this. Peter trained very hard and had access to the best pharmaceuticals around. I am shocked you weren’t privy to this. You have already signaled your loss in this debate with your weak ad hominem attack. Try harder.
You are accusing a minor of doping. I know what I would do if that was my son.
Armstronglivs might be the biggest misanthrope on these boards. The tone of most of Armstronglivs' posts is usually very negative, and his or her extreme bitterness towards the USA and facile charges of racism are almost endless.
No, 4:51.4, as I have written. So, shoes, tracks, training havn't improved the last 46 years?
4.51? What distance are you talking about? And run by whom?
Shoes and tracks have improved in the last half century but will not have made the kind of difference that you suggest. The improvements achieved in training since the 70's are largely the result of doping, which enables athletes to train harder.
You are calling others ignorant? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You don’t know anything. The rest of us know what the 4:51 refers to…hahahahahahahha.
