HRE wrote:
Is there any possible level of accomplishment a runner can achieve that will make him or her immune to second guessing and criticism at Letsrun? "Only" ran 3:51 at a time when the previous WR was 3:53. Lost one race to Keino who grew up at Mexico City's altitude after having mono earlier in the year with Keino having the benefit of a pacemaker who set the race up for him.
Exactly. How ridiculous. And Herb Elliott "only" had a pathetic best of 3:54.5...
deanouk wrote:Ventolin is stuck in the 1960's because that's when he was running. Of course he's going to look back with rose tinted spectacles. I've just had a brief look at the last "cinders" track world records for each event up to 10k, and if one were to believe Ventolin's unproven 1 sec per lap conversion, then almost all world records set on cinders would have lasted an average of 20 years had they been run on synthetic tracks
you are too stoopid to understand
'70s with few exceptions was a lost decade
name the guys from the '70s who are considered GOAT material in their event ???
effectively take 10y of any record duration as those times in '70s were poor
It's rare for any record to last that long, but to presume that the class of 65 (or round about that year) were so much better than what followed in the 70's and most of the 80's (when there was supposed to be more drug use, more money in the sport, better training, longer careers, etc) is ridiculous
no moron
see above
poor talent decade, with still amateur status & a boycott game in middle
100m ~ Hayes (1964) ~ 10.06 - 0.25 = 9.81 , a time not bettered on a synthetic track until Maurice Greene ran 9.79 some 35 years later in “99!
why he was considered the GOAT for so long
200m ~ T. Smith (1966) ~ 20.0 - 0.50 = 19.5, a time not bettered until Johnson's WR of 19.32 in '96, some 30 years later
moron
add 0.24
that makes 19.74 - close enough to carl's easing down 19.75 in '83
15y
400m ~ T. Smith (1967) ~ 44.5 - 1.0 = 43.5, not bettered until B. Reynolds in '88 (21 years later)
moron
did you not see bert cameron in '84 ???
anyways, smith easily was a 20y wr holder calibre - he thumped soon-to-be 43.86 evans by 0.5s
work it out moron
800m ~ P. Snell (1962) ~ 1:44.3 - 2.0 = 1:42.3 ~ not bettered until Coe's 1:41.7 in '81 (19 years late)r
moron
NO ONE actually ran <1'44.3 until '73
11y as wr holder
1500m ~ J. Ryun (1967) ~ 3:33.1 - 3.75 = 3:29.4 ~ only bettered by Morceli in 92, (25 years later)
err...
of shit pacing & 95F
still be wr today
anyhows, aouita's '85 wr is also = 3'29.4, which makes it 18y
feel better idiot ?
1 Mile ~ J. Ryun (1967) ~ 3:51.1 - 4.0 = 3:47.1 ~ not improved on until Cram in 85, (18 years later)
no
still be wr today
2000m ~ M. Jazy (1966) ~ 4:56.2 - 5.0 = 4:51.2 ~ had to wait until Aouita in 87 to improve that one! (21 years)
nonsense wr until jazy
he was similar level talent to walker
remarkable how similar their times for 2k are...
3000m ~ K. Keino (1965) ~ 7:39.6 - 7.5 = 7:32.1 ~ equalled by Rono in '78 but not improved on until Aouita in 89. ( 24 years)
moron
he smashed 6s off the wr
t&fN called it "greatest wr of the decade" at the time
ron was phoned up with news & he thought it was a joke - he hadn't run within 7s & he had busted a gut trying
2 Miles ~ R. Clarke (1967) ~ 8:19.8 - 8.0 = 8:11.8 ~ not bettered until Kiptanui ran 8:09.01 in 1994, 27 years later
moron
nonsense distance
try 1.08 for perspective
5000m ~ R. Clarke (1966) ~ 13:16.6 - 12.5 = 13:04.1 ~ not bettered for 16 years until Moorcroft ran 13:00
10,000m ~ R. Clarke (1965) ~ 27:39.4 - 25.0 = 27:14.4 ~ not bettered until F. Mamede ran 27:13.81 in 84, some 19 years later
yup
that's how good he was
1 gold medal & he wouda been called GOAT of longer track
he woudn't have lost title thru viren era or even rono - not until geb
however, i can tell you keion reckoned he wouda taken him at any pace for 5k, even if it had been <13'10
That's an average of just over 23 years per record! And we're not talking about 1 or 2 "freak of nature" runners. In the above list there are 7 different names. Yet all, Ventolin would have us believe, were 20 + years ahead of their time and all happened to run in the 60's when conditions, training, blah, blah, etc, were meant to be so inferior! In fact the average of Ryun's 2 WR performances have him at only 21.5 years ahead of his time, so he was no better than his peers competing in the other events at the time
moron
read above
- '70s was shitty talent pool decade
- ryun woudn't be 21y wr holder
he'd still be wr holder going on 43y
People talk about the athletes of the 70's taking drugs, well perhaps those in the '60's (was there any kind of testing in those days? I doubt it) were dosed to the gills (I can't imagine there were any drugs taken on the US collegiate scene in the mid '60's though!....) in order to set performances way above anything that anyone else would achieve for 2 decades
moron
it was the main global sport in the '60s after kickball
huge, huge numbers of participants from school on
certainly, no greater talent pool than that decade was available in the west in latter decades when kickball & other ball sports took hold
I also took a brief look at Kip Keino's career and yearly best times for 1500m & Mile, being as he was one of the few athletes at the top of the pack both before (on cinders) and after the introduction of synthetic tracks in c. 1968. Here's his yearly progression: -
1965 (age 25) ~ 3:37.6 / 3:54.2; - cinders
1966 ( " 26) ~ 3:36.8 / 3:53.4; - cinders
1967 ( " 27) ~ 3:36.7 / 3:53.1; - cinders
1968 ( " 28) ~ 3:34.91 / 3:55.5; - synthetic for 1500 time.
1969 ( " 29) ~ 3:37.3 - synthetic?
1970 ( " 30) ~ 3:36.6 (Commonwealth gold) - synthetic;
1971 ( " 31) ~ 3:36.8 (Nairobi, so probably cinders?)/ 3:54.4 - synthetic;
1972 ( " 32) ~ 3:36.8 (Mombasa) & 3:36.81 for Olympic silver - synthetic
So, strangely, Keino's best times over a 7 year period were very similar, with a range of only about 2.5 secs. In fact, if we take the average of his 3 best time on cinders (3:36.7, 3:36.7 & 3:36.8) we get an average of 3:36.77
Do the same for his 3 best synthetic track times (3:34.91, 3:36.6 & 3:36.81) we get an average of 3:36.1, only 0.67 faster. Quite a difference to the 3.75 secs some would expect if the 1 sec per lap differential applied
moron
do you have any idea how good keino was in mexico 1500 ???
for 1st time in his life, he was allowed a full 3/12 ( paid as normal wage ) to train exclusively for the games as kenya wanted a gold - he was working as a policeman 1/2 time thru all his previous career & won '66 & set 3k/5k wr of 1/2 time training
after his gold he never had inclination/interest to train that hard & took to the easy life
Of course Vento **** will just argue that Keino was great when he ran on cinders but suddenly deteriorated ( how convenient!) by many seconds once the synthetic tracks came along in 68/69. He will use any excuses and manipulation of facts and opinions, in order to bludgeon his exaggerated beliefs on others
moron
he got a big, pay bonus for winning the gold - long term
he did virtually no training in '69 or '70 apart from some long jogs occasionally
he whipped himself into shape by '70 but shockingly lost the 5k
he got more serious after that but legs were gone by '72 or he woud never have let a blown-up 800 guy like vesala beat him in '68, but he coudn't drive like before from 800 out to crush the guy
he lamented he didn't go for the 5k there, as he had no hesitation in believing he wouda outkicked viren/pre/dixon et al for that gold - he never rated those guys - he'd whupped ron-the-GOAT in '66 in the 3 miles - these guys coudn't carry ron's jock
however, unhesitatingly, he called ryun GOAT of all distance runs & why he ran 5k/10k in '68 as well as he figured he had no chance of the 1500 & wanted to bring any gold back to kenya - he figured it woud be the 5k, but he got outkicked in a lethargic race ( suffering from biliary colic ) - he won the 1500, but it was desparate & he had recovered from the colic
still he picked up 3ksc gold as a virtual debutant in 3rd or 4th fastest time ever...
When the clock shows A to be faster than B and it fits with his opinions, he will use it as FACTS. But when the clock shows A to be slower than B and it is contrary to who he feels is the better athlete, then he'll manipulate the circumstances, come out with a load of old spin and state categorically that in actual OPINION athlete A is faster than athlete B (despite having a slower time) and thus it must also be a FACT in the eyes of Ventolin
moron
i offer discerning, unbiased analysis
you offer drivel
The man is rude, self -indulgent and rants all over the place, killing most intellectual discussions on here stone dead. His 1second a lap conversion is clearly an exaggeration and his persistent droning on about it shows he is delusional
utter moron
read & try to comprehend "fastest 1500s of the '60s" previously
it's no surprise your day job has evolved to it's limit teaching kindergardners arithmetic
you offer nothing
Avoid at all costs.
then f*** off & then don't post under :
deano
ukathletics
middle distance
grand slam
credit shit
ventolin^3 wrote:
i offer discerning, unbiased analysis
HaHaHaHaHa! You really are delusional! ROFL. Funniest thing you've ever posted.
You offer nothing of any sense of reality. You should get out more.
moron
your peabrain can offer nothing but drivel
your laughable analysis of '60s guy was a complete joke
it was embarassing to read that rubbish
still, thanks for posting & is your destiny, holding up the imbecile corner singlehandedly...
webb lives in a time when a few/handfull have run under 3;45.
40 years between their best times; 1967 & 2007, forty years !!
R3;33.1/W3;30.54; less than 2.6 seconds... R3;51.1/W3;46.91; a little more than 4 seconds..
webb is no jim ryun. put webb back in 67 on the Bakersfield track that nite, what time would you guess alan would have turned..?
ryun would have run 3;49.7 on today's tracks; no question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTUEDD6lOdo&feature=relatedventolin^3 wrote:
moron
your peabrain can offer nothing but drivel
your laughable analysis of '60s guy was a complete joke
it was embarassing to read that rubbish
still, thanks for posting & is your destiny, holding up the imbecile corner singlehandedly...
my criteria wrote:
Wait, there's also this - if a synthetic track accounts for 1 sec/lap then we should see some pretty big jumps in all the world records in the 60's 70's. There should be an immediate 1 second jump in the 400, 2 seconds in the 800, 4 seconds in 1500 & mile, 12.5 seconds in the 5k, 25 seconds in the 10k. So did those jumps actually happen due to the new faster surfaces?
Obviously this is challenging exercise when you don't know what types of surfaces these were run on. But let's try:
400 meters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_400_metres_world_record_progressionThis one is tough because Lee Evans 43.86 was at altitude...still, let's ignore Evan's mark and go back one. Larry James 44.19 - shoot, also at altitude. How about Tommy Smith's 44.5 in San Jose. This link suggests that mark was run on a non-synthetic track:
http://speedendurance.com/2007/07/20/440-yard-and-400-meter-racing-facts-and-figures/OK, so if Smith ran 44.5 on a dirt track in 1967, as soon as synthetic tracks become prominent we should see someone pop a 43.5. Except no one even runs faster than 43.86 until 1988 - 21 years later. Where is the immediate 1 second difference?
800 meters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/800_metres_world_record_progressionLet's see - we know that Wottle's 1:44.3 in Eugene in 1972 was on synthetic (from the Hayward Field wiki page). Doubell's WR was at altitude. Ah - Peter Snell's 1:44.3 on grass in 1962. So people should be running 1:42.3 pretty soon thereafter, right? I mean, the 1972 and 1976 games were on synthetic surfaces. You have the great Alberto Juantorena in his prime. But nope, Juantorena never goes more than a second faster than Snell despite the difference in surfaces, we have to wait until Coe in 1979 to see that 1:42.33. Where was the immediate 2 second drop in the WR?
1500 meters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500_metres_world_record_progressionBayi's record was at the 1974 Commonwealth Games, which was on a synthetic track. So we'll assume Ryun's 3:33.1 was the last run on non-synthetic. We should see an immediate 3.75 second reduction in the WR - someone should run 3:29.4, right? But that doesn't happen for 18 more years when Aouita does it. No Walker, Coe, Ovett, Cram, Maree, or Bayi can do it. Where was the immediate 3.75 second drop in the WR?
Mile - same thing. Ryun ran 3:51 on dirt in 1967, but we don't see a 3:47 for another 14 years. There should have been an immediate drop to that level.
5k & 10k - I imagine we'd see the same trend but this has already been time consuming enough.
You get the picture? Your 1 sec/lap rule of thumb is bogus.
Excuse me for not reading through every single post here, but I totally agree with this. The "one second per lap" "conversion" just isn't scientific in any way. There were really good cinder tracks (or, more correctly, natural surface tracks) and there were lousy ones. Artificial surfaces were certainly faster than "average" natural surface tracks, but I really doubt they were vastly better than the best cinder or clay/cinder surfaces.
For someone like Ryun, I'm comfortable guessing that his 3:33.1 and 3:51.1 times would have been AT LEAST 1.5 to 2.0 seconds faster on good artificial surface tracks. But the big difference for him compared to what we take for granted today, was the utter lack of "serious" pace-setting. The 3:33.1 was a flat-out competitive battle with Keino and Ryun's 3:51.1 was a solo time-trial (as we know, he led every step of the way).
Given today's running surfaces and some sort of "ideal" pace-setting, the Ryun of 1967 was almost certainly capable of 3:28 and 3:45.
trhs wrote:
Also, Keino beat Ryun at least twice: the final in Mexico City, and the heat in Munich.
Hahahaaaa. At altitude and when Ryun was tripped. Funny in a way. But also telling.
Four pages deep and we're all just guessing, extrapolating "facts" and deficiencies. Let's just put this to bed and say that Ryun, with a better surface, more even pacing, and better competition was worth a second per lap faster. He was probably a 3:47 guy plus/minus, which still puts him on the podium with the best Americans ever. Whether he overtrained or not is irrelevant. He was way ahead of his time, and while he may not have Olympic Gold, at least he was a contender, unlike anyone who came after him and pre-Lagat's citizenship.
ventolin^3 mentions Keino suffering from biliary colic, but that's not true. That's a story Keino cooked up after losing to Gamoudi of Tunisia (who had spent 2 years training in the Pyrenees). Keino had all kinds of excuses when he would lose, ranging from death threats to gall bladder trouble. You can look up Ben Jipcho and other Kenyans remarking on this. Old venty posts here under multiple names too, apparently. I agree with those who think he's Squires, who wants to suck African dick as much as Vipam.
As for Ryun, he was trained 'incorrectly'. That's a better way to put it. As Lydiard said back in 2000 or so, if he had trained Ryun, Ryun would still hold the records from the 800 through the mile. Ryun may very well have been capable of that.
BoardReplynumberone wrote:
ventolin^3 mentions Keino suffering from biliary colic, but that's not true. That's a story Keino cooked up after losing to Gamoudi of Tunisia (who had spent 2 years training in the Pyrenees). Keino had all kinds of excuses when he would lose, ranging from death threats to gall bladder trouble. You can look up Ben Jipcho and other Kenyans remarking on this. Old venty posts here under multiple names too, apparently. I agree with those who think he's Squires, who wants to suck African dick as much as Vipam.
As for Ryun, he was trained 'incorrectly'. That's a better way to put it. As Lydiard said back in 2000 or so, if he had trained Ryun, Ryun would still hold the records from the 800 through the mile. Ryun may very well have been capable of that.
Keino really did have some intestinal ailment in Mexico City--I don't think there's any real debate about that.
I just don't buy the whole thesis that Ryun was trained badly or incorrectly or whatever. He was trained very, very hard--and was 'special' in part in that he could tolerate the very heavy training. The intensity of the work load, and the lack of any real professionalism, meant--not surprisingly--that he got burned out or mentally fatigued after a few years. He was at his peak in 1966-67, slightly less good in 1965 and 1968, and very talented but inconsistent from 1969 onward. That's it, pure and simple.
Did he peak "early"? Perhaps yes, but what an astonishing peak it was! Any other interpretation of his career--such as Lydiard's--is just talk over beers, no more, no less.
What bothers me about threads that start with the premise this one did is that it assumes someone like Ryun did something wrong because there was ONE race in his life, run under very difficult circumstances to that point. that didn't go as he'd have liked. So we're going to figure that he did something wrong and perhaps use this "overtrained" argument as a rationale for not pushing ourselves as much as we could.
Why isn't the title and theme of this thread "Kip Keino Was Undertrained?" and then go on to point out that as great as he was could only beat Ryun in a race that was natural to him and foreign to Ryun and after Ryun's fitness had been damaged enough that there was some real doubt as to whether he'd even make the Olympic Team?
"...could only beat Ryun in a race held at an altitude that was natural to him..."
Ahh, this thread is the best!
Ventolin^3's masturbatory frenzy is astonishing to behold. Watch out in case the demon spooge oversprays your keyboards! His own long-ago beatings at the hands of Coach Timmons have clearly resulted in long-term mental maladjustment. And he's still sore that JR whipped him in the 1965 KS all-state senior mile, hence his need to elevate Ryun to invincible deity status.
Meanwhile deanouk has admirably refrained from explaining how Seb Coe's lane 2 positioning in the Coe/Ryun all-honors-all-time race cost him 0.25s and thus the race.
Let's face it. If Jim Ryun had Eddy Lee's mental fortitude, and he really believed "A sub-3:43 mile is my goal. I WILL NOT STOP UNTIL I REACH MY GOAL" then, yes, things would have been different.
As it was he sucked, he trained like El Guerrouj and he could only win an Olympic silver medal and set several WRs at 880/1500/mile. That's nothing compared to the accomplishments of most LR critics especially deano and ventolin.
I was at the Rim Rock Farm Classic today, and Jim Ryun was there all day, alternating between signing autographs and handing out every medal and trophy awarded. The announcer must have told every Jim Ryun and Coach Timmons story in the book in the awards area. He had the crowd riveted. The details for these high school, college, and Olympic races (that all occurred before I was born) were extraordinary, given all the time that has passed. One story I did not hear was the one about overtraining. Maybe he'll tell that one next year.
BoardReplynumberone wrote:
ventolin^3 mentions Keino suffering from biliary colic, but that's not true. That's a story Keino cooked up after losing to Gamoudi of Tunisia (who had spent 2 years training in the Pyrenees). Keino had all kinds of excuses when he would lose, ranging from death threats to gall bladder trouble. You can look up Ben Jipcho and other Kenyans remarking on this
nonsense
the 5k was won in outside 14'00 which is piss-poor even when you take into account the altitude
you seem to forget keino was the former 5kwr holder at 13'24 & that was off 1500 training & still was 2nd fastest 5k runner of all time by mexico
he then ran 3'34 to win the 1500 after the 5k, which at sea-level musta been close to 3'30 calibre
for a ~3'30 guy who is also former 5kwr holder, still 2nd all-time at the time, to be outkicked in a slow race by a guy who was a better 10k runner indicates there was something significantly wrong with keino still in that race ( likely he hadn't fully recovered from the colic )
woud you expect someone of the calibre of aouita in the '80s get outkicked in a slow 5k by a 10k runner if aouita was 100% fit ???
ventolin^3 wrote:
he then ran 3'34 to win the 1500 after the 5k, which at sea-level musta been close to 3'30 calibre
for a ~3'30 guy who is also former 5kwr holder, still 2nd all-time at the time, to be outkicked in a slow race by a guy who was a better 10k runner indicates there was something significantly wrong with keino still in that race ( likely he hadn't fully recovered from the colic )
So on the basis of just one performance under 3:35 (3:34.91) in a long and lengthy career, you have determined Keino to be a 3:30 1500 man!? Even though he never broke 3:36 again (or before to that matter) on cinders or synthetic.
Perhaps we can say the same for every other athlete who has a 3:35 pb!
HRE wrote:
No one was going to run a mile in 3:46 in 1968 or for years afterward.
Exactly. Just like no one in 2011 is going to run the mile in 3.38 or the 1500 in 3.22
wellnow wrote:
HRE wrote:No one was going to run a mile in 3:46 in 1968 or for years afterward.
Exactly. Just like no one in 2011 is going to run the mile in 3.38 or the 1500 in 3.22
And if someone ever does, in say 2025, people will get on message boards and explain what it was that El Gueroujj or Cram did wrong that kept them from going under 3:40.
HRE wrote:
What bothers me about threads that start with the premise this one did is that it assumes someone like Ryun did something wrong because there was ONE race in his life, run under very difficult circumstances to that point. that didn't go as he'd have liked. So we're going to figure that he did something wrong and perhaps use this "overtrained" argument as a rationale for not pushing ourselves as much as we could.
Why isn't the title and theme of this thread "Kip Keino Was Undertrained?" and then go on to point out that as great as he was could only beat Ryun in a race that was natural to him and foreign to Ryun and after Ryun's fitness had been damaged enough that there was some real doubt as to whether he'd even make the Olympic Team?
Brilliant. Agree completely.