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

How does a personal best and world record two mile and a 10,000 that was his fastest ever run in conditions that many, Clarke included, regard as a better performance than his world record, prove your point that what Clarke was doing in 1968 didn't work too well? It seems to have worked very well until he encountered altitude.

By the way, what did Clarke eat in those years and how do you know?

Please don't respond to J.R. on health related topics. He's been posting the same nonsense for close to a decade now and nobody on this site agrees with him, so just let him be.

Keino never ran in the 3:35's ANYWHERE, let alone sea-level. His fastest, other than Mexico City, was high 3:36 (3:36.8) so cut the crap that Keino coulda, woulda, shoulda run 3:27.

Keino NEVER ran 3:26!

Ralph Doubell never ran faster at sea-level. So what could he have run in Melbourne that day 1:41?

HRE wrote:

How does a personal best and world record two mile and a 10,000 that was his fastest ever run in conditions that many, Clarke included, regard as a better performance than his world record, prove your point that what Clarke was doing in 1968 didn't work too well? It seems to have worked very well until he encountered altitude.

By the way, what did Clarke eat in those years and how do you know?

This was already answered.

1968 ~ 27:49.4 + 13:27.8 in 3 days

raced well because 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

NOT FIT FOR RACING DUE TO LACK OF RACE PREPARATION

Then

4 weeks later ~ 3 miles 13:24.4 (~13:55 5k)

4 weeks later ~ 10000m 29:25.6

slow times again due to lack of race preparation

1969

28:03.6

good time because raced 12 times in the previous month.

If his heart was so damaged from Mexico, then how did he run this time ONE YEAR LATER.

No, his heart became damaged due to his chronic poor diet.

HRE wrote:

How does a personal best and world record two mile and a 10,000 that was his fastest ever run in conditions that many, Clarke included, regard as a better performance than his world record, prove your point that what Clarke was doing in 1968 didn't work too well? It seems to have worked very well until he encountered altitude.

By the way, what did Clarke eat in those years and how do you know?

This was already answered.

1968 ~ 27:49.4 + 13:27.8 in 3 days

raced well because 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

NOT FIT FOR RACING DUE TO LACK OF RACE PREPARATION

Then

4 weeks later ~ 3 miles 13:24.4 (~13:55 5k)

4 weeks later ~ 10000m 29:25.6

slow times again due to lack of race preparation

~

1969

28:03.6

good time after racing 12 times in the previous month.

If his heart was so damaged from Mexico, then how did he run this time ONE YEAR LATER.

His heart became damaged, not due to Mexico, but due to his chronic poor diet.

utterly clueless

because he was in best shape of his life in mexico as i have stated & because this was 1st race of his on synthetic

all his previous races on dirt

find a neurone

see above

best ever shape + synthetic track

no

but he was in 3'26/3'27 shape in a "perfect" paced to bell 1500 at sea-level

impress me :

estimate what a 3'34.9 at ~ 7'400', off 56+ 1st lap, accelerating from last to near lead in a few 100m, then running last 2 laps solo is worth at mexico for a smooth even-paced run with pacing to bell ?

then input that time into ncaa app for a sea-level 1500 modifying this with wind/altitude calculator

then show where ncaa app has a disclaimer stating

"not applicable to kenyans"

then read bannister's opinion soon after that it was a ~ 3'30 sea-level effort

then tell us what high altitude keino smashed the 3kwr down from 7'45 to 7'39 & also broke 5k wr to ~ 13'24 ???

clueless

doesn't the concept of

"best shape of life for games"

traverse your neurone ???

no ability to think whatsoever

using ncaa app & modifying with wind/altitude calculator offers a paced to bell sea-level clocking of

~ 1'43-low

Studies that show diet causes mitral valve damage. Please.

Still pushing all this utter bs?

Everyone, wherever they are born, will respond differently when running at altitude. That is why all these calculators and models you use are nonsense. No 2 people are the same. Studies have shown that most altitude born athletes are much less affected when running at altitude. There will be some that still perform poorly, like that 3000SC that always bombs at Kenyan trials, and there will be those that aren't affected at all, certainly in races up to 1500. In fact they e have been several arguments put forward that racing at altitude is an advantage up to 800m. See Doubell and Rudisha.

Keino ran 3:34.9 on a synthetic track in the peak form of his life and at an altitude that didn't affect him over 1500m.

On an even paced circuit run on synthetic he was probably capable of 3:32/3.33. Any suggestion of 3:30 is stupid and 3:26 ( as fast as Limey EPO aided EL G, who had benefit of faster tracks, better training and a better natural talent) is too ludicrous to even take as anything other than a joke.

We don't know that El g had more talent

What we know is that he was doped to the eyeballs with a massive ped cocktail of undetectable epo insulin and growth hormone

Balderdash regarding rules prohibiting training at altitude prior to the 68 Olympics. Oregon runners, especially Kenny Moore and the women's Olympic team (official training camp) spent a lot of time in Los Alamos, NM preparing for those games.

Could you maybe show some of those studies then because I couldn't find them. Or is this another "believe me because I'm right" deal? Please.

Whoops I used the wrong nickname. Could you maybe show some of those studies then because I couldn't find them. Or is this another "believe me because I'm right" deal? Please.

Deep Impact wrote:

Keino ran 3:34.9 on a synthetic track in the peak form of his life and at an altitude that didn't affect him over 1500m.

On an even paced circuit run on synthetic he was probably capable of 3:32/3.33. Any suggestion of 3:30 is stupid

Wow. And you think Ventolin is stupid...

Coach.. wrote:

We don't know that El g had more talent

What we know is that he was doped to the eyeballs with a massive ped cocktail of undetectable epo insulin and growth hormone

The first sentence uses the word "know" correctly. The second one suggests that same word doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.

Gary Oldman wrote:

Whoops I used the wrong nickname. Could you maybe show some of those studies then because I couldn't find them. Or is this another "believe me because I'm right" deal? Please.

That was kind of dumb, fake Gary.

So now 28:03 is a GOOD time for him. Yes, he ran some fast races after Mexico. I asked him about that and he acknowledged that he had some good races but that he never felt "right" again, either in training or in races after Mexico and didn't really know why until his doctor diagnosed the leaking mitral valve which he attributed to Clarke's Olympic 10,000. Given that Clarke was unconscious for several minutes after the race and was taken away on a stretcher it's logical to believe that something in that race affected him more than it affected anyone else who ran it.

I'm still waiting to read what that chronic poor diet consisted of and how you learned about it. Should I not hold my breath?

HRE wrote:

it's logical to believe that something in that race affected him more than it affected anyone else who ran it.

It is logical that Clarke's lack of fitness and poor mental attitude at Mexico City affected him personally, more than it affected anyone else, and of course that's exactly what happened.

Clarke's poor diet was well known and easy to find public information.

If you're really interested, then go look it up for yourself.

J.R. wrote:

HRE wrote:

it's logical to believe that something in that race affected him more than it affected anyone else who ran it.

It is logical that Clarke's lack of fitness and poor mental attitude at Mexico City affected him personally, more than it affected anyone else, and of course that's exactly what happened.

Clarke's poor diet was well known and easy to find public information.

If you're really interested, then go look it up for yourself.

Throw us a bone.

pv runner wrote:

In 64 Clarke also ran the 5000 (9th) marathon(9th). He was a strong and courageous runner. But as a relentless frontrunner, in the high-pressure atmosphere of big championship races like the Olympics and Commonwealth Games he was always going to be chased down in the stretch by guys like Keino and Gammoudi. Much like Bedford and Pre who followed, fearless frontrunners. Not chokers at all, quite the contrary, just products of their style of running.

I disagree!

Clarke lost to most of those same athletes at sea level. Clarke was kind of like Allen Webb in that he didn't have his best races when it counted and his lack of speed cost him in tactical races. Runnersworld named Arthur Lydiard as the greatest coach ever; however, beside Snell, a lot of his athletes ran great times, but lost in championships. Snell was unique in that he had tremendous natural speed and could handle Lydiard's marathon training. A lot of successful athletes like Verin and Walker, etc., Lydiard tends to get credit for, but he did not directly coach them and they did not fully adopt his training. Lydiard felt that speed came from strength in that whoever is that strongest will have the most speed at the end. This only works in an fast race; Clarke lacked the finishing speed needed in a 150m foot race to the finish line.

Before everyone jumps all over me, Lydiard was a great coach and deserves his place in history as 'a great coach', but by no means the greatest coach. Lydiard did not incorporate the benefits of altitude training which was known about since the 1940s, so was a sprint finish and athletes like Bob Schul, Billy Mills and the Africans won medal with a lot less training.