You are wrong. He had never raced the 1500 before Tokyo. The races over that distance you say he lost were in the last two months of his career in his farewell tour mid-'65. The races he lost to those you listed above was in that final tour, when he also fell ill and completely lost form. They had never beaten him otherwise. In early '64 he lost a couple of local races to his compatriot John Davies, after recovering from injury. He wasn't fully fit. His training was impaired and he didn't think he was going to be able to successfully compete at Tokyo. His form was poor right up to when he arrived there. It was only a time-trial that persuaded him he was ready. Roger Moens was watching trackside and said to Peter he had to go for the double. This is the same Roger Moens who said for years after Tokyo that Snell was the greatest middle distance runner of the 20th century. No one has achieved the 800/1500 double since Snell.
In the years between '60-'64 Snell was completely dominant and regarded as virtually unbeatable. The last two months of his career is when he lost to a whole bunch of runners, including those he had owned. You could include the entire field in a mile race at Dublin, where he came last. But those two months were not representative of his talents or he wouldn't have been regarded as the great champion he was. As far as I can recall from his autobiography he didn't lose an international race in that period from '60-'64, and he always won the races that were regarded as a test of his standing, including championship finals. That makes him different from certain runners today.
U are not as knowledgeable as you think Mark.
I don't know who Mark is. But I do know quite a bit about Snell's career. I followed it as a youngster.
There was another guy in the Lydiard group, Michael Mackey, who Lydiard said had better speed and endurance than Snell. Mackey had other interests and left the sport. Lydiard said, over and over, that there were potential champions in every neighborhood.
I don't know where Arthur supposedly said that, but he could be contradictory. When he first saw Snell he said that with his speed and the right endurance training Peter could be a top middle distance runner. Did he say that about Mackey, who came to the sport before Peter, who was 19 before he began focussing on athletics?
Snell's raw talent was formidable. In early speed work sessions with Halberg and the others in the Lydiard camp Peter asked Arthur if it was ok to run the 220's faster. Halberg's eyes popped - he was flat out. He thought, who is this young big-head! Arthur said to Peter, go ahead and Peter then regularly finished a good 10 yards ahead. Snell later went on to win the national cross country, which were tough courses with plenty of hills.
Snell has lost many 1500m/Mile races. He lost races in any year from 1960 to 1965 apart from 1962. He lost at least once to any runner I have mentioned.
You are wrong. He had never raced the 1500 before Tokyo. The races over that distance you say he lost were in the last two months of his career in his farewell tour mid-'65. The races he lost to those you listed above was in that final tour, when he also fell ill and completely lost form. They had never beaten him otherwise. In early '64 he lost a couple of local races to his compatriot John Davies, after recovering from injury. He wasn't fully fit. His training was impaired and he didn't think he was going to be able to successfully compete at Tokyo. His form was poor right up to when he arrived there. It was only a time-trial that persuaded him he was ready. Roger Moens was watching trackside and said to Peter he had to go for the double. This is the same Roger Moens who said for years after Tokyo that Snell was the greatest middle distance runner of the 20th century. No one has achieved the 800/1500 double since Snell.
In the years between '60-'64 Snell was completely dominant and regarded as virtually unbeatable. The last two months of his career is when he lost to a whole bunch of runners, including those he had owned. You could include the entire field in a mile race at Dublin, where he came last. But those two months were not representative of his talents or he wouldn't have been regarded as the great champion he was. As far as I can recall from his autobiography he didn't lose an international race in that period from '60-'64, and he always won the races that were regarded as a test of his standing, including championship finals. That makes him different from certain runners today.
I am not wrong.
Everything you have said so far to the subject was wrong.
Several times you claimed Snell has never races the 1500m ouside of Tokyo '64 - wrong, he has raced over the distance three times in 1965 (here you use one of your favorite tactics when proved to be wrong once more: changing to something no one has ever questioned - Snell has not raced over 1500m before Tokyo...
You claimed he has lost over 1500m/Mile only to John Davies, once - wrong, he has lost several times to Davies and he has also lost to many other runners.
Before 1965 he has lost to Herb Elliott, Terrence Sullivan, Gordon Pirie, Laszlo Tabori, Dyrol Burleson, Mike Wiggs, Colin Shillington, "Jin" Grelle, Cary Weisiger as well as some more New Zealanders.
In '65 he lost to many more runners, for example: Jim(n?) Ryun, Billy Mills, Neville Scott, Witold Baran, Alan Simpson, Jürgen May, Jozef Odlozil.
Some more info for you: he also lost several times over 800m/880y.
Great that you have followed Snell throughout his career - for whatever reason it seems you missed his losses.
Great that Moens said Snell is the greatest md runner of the 20th century for him - with 35 seasons to come.
Also great that he was regarded "virtually unbeatable" - he just lost around 15 races between 800m and the Mile during 1960 and 1964 while "virtually unbeatable".
I know, Snell's losses don't "count" - since he was always out of form than.
Peter Snell undoubtedly is one of the greatest md runners in history. For me, Sebastian Coe is clearly ahead because of his wonderful records and his (until today) still unique 1981 season. Snell's time at the top was too short for me to be regarded number 1.
Great if Coe was an "professional" and Snell an "amateur" - seems to be good to be "professional".
You are wrong. He had never raced the 1500 before Tokyo. The races over that distance you say he lost were in the last two months of his career in his farewell tour mid-'65. The races he lost to those you listed above was in that final tour, when he also fell ill and completely lost form. They had never beaten him otherwise. In early '64 he lost a couple of local races to his compatriot John Davies, after recovering from injury. He wasn't fully fit. His training was impaired and he didn't think he was going to be able to successfully compete at Tokyo. His form was poor right up to when he arrived there. It was only a time-trial that persuaded him he was ready. Roger Moens was watching trackside and said to Peter he had to go for the double. This is the same Roger Moens who said for years after Tokyo that Snell was the greatest middle distance runner of the 20th century. No one has achieved the 800/1500 double since Snell.
In the years between '60-'64 Snell was completely dominant and regarded as virtually unbeatable. The last two months of his career is when he lost to a whole bunch of runners, including those he had owned. You could include the entire field in a mile race at Dublin, where he came last. But those two months were not representative of his talents or he wouldn't have been regarded as the great champion he was. As far as I can recall from his autobiography he didn't lose an international race in that period from '60-'64, and he always won the races that were regarded as a test of his standing, including championship finals. That makes him different from certain runners today.
I am not wrong.
Everything you have said so far to the subject was wrong.
Several times you claimed Snell has never races the 1500m ouside of Tokyo '64 - wrong, he has raced over the distance three times in 1965 (here you use one of your favorite tactics when proved to be wrong once more: changing to something no one has ever questioned - Snell has not raced over 1500m before Tokyo...
You claimed he has lost over 1500m/Mile only to John Davies, once - wrong, he has lost several times to Davies and he has also lost to many other runners.
Before 1965 he has lost to Herb Elliott, Terrence Sullivan, Gordon Pirie, Laszlo Tabori, Dyrol Burleson, Mike Wiggs, Colin Shillington, "Jin" Grelle, Cary Weisiger as well as some more New Zealanders.
In '65 he lost to many more runners, for example: Jim(n?) Ryun, Billy Mills, Neville Scott, Witold Baran, Alan Simpson, Jürgen May, Jozef Odlozil.
Some more info for you: he also lost several times over 800m/880y.
Great that you have followed Snell throughout his career - for whatever reason it seems you missed his losses.
Great that Moens said Snell is the greatest md runner of the 20th century for him - with 35 seasons to come.
Also great that he was regarded "virtually unbeatable" - he just lost around 15 races between 800m and the Mile during 1960 and 1964 while "virtually unbeatable".
I know, Snell's losses don't "count" - since he was always out of form than.
Peter Snell undoubtedly is one of the greatest md runners in history. For me, Sebastian Coe is clearly ahead because of his wonderful records and his (until today) still unique 1981 season. Snell's time at the top was too short for me to be regarded number 1.
Great if Coe was an "professional" and Snell an "amateur" - seems to be good to be "professional".
no slight to Jakob or Hoey but they simply could not equal this feat given similar equipment and conditions.
so how is it that Lydiard could have his 800m runners run 100 miles a week and still be this quick?!
I cannot wrap my mind around running like this given his training.
This is am example of a great thread on running. We used to have lots of these. The biggest problem is that one can spend lots of time putting together a wonderful story but it will not last on LRC. I have written things on politics, running, and other subjects and none of them are still on this site. It's just not worth it to put in the effort any more!
Please make it Athletics only and do not allow swearing. That is the first thing you must stop in the classroom, swearing. The same is true here. And if the moderators allow it and even use it themselves...we have no chance.
Look at your attempt at gaslighting, Mr. NPD. Cute.
You have nothing on the thread subject - ever. You cannot comment on anything except me, with your fatuous jibes. You are completely fixated. I bet you even dream about me.
You are wrong. He had never raced the 1500 before Tokyo. The races over that distance you say he lost were in the last two months of his career in his farewell tour mid-'65. The races he lost to those you listed above was in that final tour, when he also fell ill and completely lost form. They had never beaten him otherwise. In early '64 he lost a couple of local races to his compatriot John Davies, after recovering from injury. He wasn't fully fit. His training was impaired and he didn't think he was going to be able to successfully compete at Tokyo. His form was poor right up to when he arrived there. It was only a time-trial that persuaded him he was ready. Roger Moens was watching trackside and said to Peter he had to go for the double. This is the same Roger Moens who said for years after Tokyo that Snell was the greatest middle distance runner of the 20th century. No one has achieved the 800/1500 double since Snell.
In the years between '60-'64 Snell was completely dominant and regarded as virtually unbeatable. The last two months of his career is when he lost to a whole bunch of runners, including those he had owned. You could include the entire field in a mile race at Dublin, where he came last. But those two months were not representative of his talents or he wouldn't have been regarded as the great champion he was. As far as I can recall from his autobiography he didn't lose an international race in that period from '60-'64, and he always won the races that were regarded as a test of his standing, including championship finals. That makes him different from certain runners today.
I am not wrong.
Everything you have said so far to the subject was wrong.
Several times you claimed Snell has never races the 1500m ouside of Tokyo '64 - wrong, he has raced over the distance three times in 1965 (here you use one of your favorite tactics when proved to be wrong once more: changing to something no one has ever questioned - Snell has not raced over 1500m before Tokyo...
You claimed he has lost over 1500m/Mile only to John Davies, once - wrong, he has lost several times to Davies and he has also lost to many other runners.
Before 1965 he has lost to Herb Elliott, Terrence Sullivan, Gordon Pirie, Laszlo Tabori, Dyrol Burleson, Mike Wiggs, Colin Shillington, "Jin" Grelle, Cary Weisiger as well as some more New Zealanders.
In '65 he lost to many more runners, for example: Jim(n?) Ryun, Billy Mills, Neville Scott, Witold Baran, Alan Simpson, Jürgen May, Jozef Odlozil.
Some more info for you: he also lost several times over 800m/880y.
Great that you have followed Snell throughout his career - for whatever reason it seems you missed his losses.
Great that Moens said Snell is the greatest md runner of the 20th century for him - with 35 seasons to come.
Also great that he was regarded "virtually unbeatable" - he just lost around 15 races between 800m and the Mile during 1960 and 1964 while "virtually unbeatable".
I know, Snell's losses don't "count" - since he was always out of form than.
Peter Snell undoubtedly is one of the greatest md runners in history. For me, Sebastian Coe is clearly ahead because of his wonderful records and his (until today) still unique 1981 season. Snell's time at the top was too short for me to be regarded number 1.
Great if Coe was an "professional" and Snell an "amateur" - seems to be good to be "professional".
You're not that clown from Europe by any chance who used to write all sorts of profuse nonsense about training and Lydiard on these boards a while back?
Everything you have said so far to the subject was wrong.
Several times you claimed Snell has never races the 1500m ouside of Tokyo '64 - wrong, he has raced over the distance three times in 1965 (here you use one of your favorite tactics when proved to be wrong once more: changing to something no one has ever questioned - Snell has not raced over 1500m before Tokyo...
You claimed he has lost over 1500m/Mile only to John Davies, once - wrong, he has lost several times to Davies and he has also lost to many other runners.
Before 1965 he has lost to Herb Elliott, Terrence Sullivan, Gordon Pirie, Laszlo Tabori, Dyrol Burleson, Mike Wiggs, Colin Shillington, "Jin" Grelle, Cary Weisiger as well as some more New Zealanders.
In '65 he lost to many more runners, for example: Jim(n?) Ryun, Billy Mills, Neville Scott, Witold Baran, Alan Simpson, Jürgen May, Jozef Odlozil.
Some more info for you: he also lost several times over 800m/880y.
Great that you have followed Snell throughout his career - for whatever reason it seems you missed his losses.
Great that Moens said Snell is the greatest md runner of the 20th century for him - with 35 seasons to come.
Also great that he was regarded "virtually unbeatable" - he just lost around 15 races between 800m and the Mile during 1960 and 1964 while "virtually unbeatable".
I know, Snell's losses don't "count" - since he was always out of form than.
Peter Snell undoubtedly is one of the greatest md runners in history. For me, Sebastian Coe is clearly ahead because of his wonderful records and his (until today) still unique 1981 season. Snell's time at the top was too short for me to be regarded number 1.
Great if Coe was an "professional" and Snell an "amateur" - seems to be good to be "professional".
You're not that clown from Europe by any chance who used to write all sorts of profuse nonsense about training and Lydiard on these boards a while back?
I don't write nonsense at all, so, no, I'm not that person.
You have called me several times a liar - and now you ask me for listing the races which he lost? But for calling me a liar you have to KNOW that those races don't exist (and for sure that I mention those not existing races by bad intention).
You have called me several times a liar - and now you ask me for listing the races which he lost? But for calling me a liar you have to KNOW that those races don't exist (and for sure that I mention those not existing races by bad intention).
You can freely ask me for help if you can't handle this file, OK?
What a farce! So he came 5th in a mile race at the end of 1960, after he had just become the Olympic champion over 800m and had yet to focus on the longer distance - which he didn't do until January 1962, when he broke Herb Elliott's world record.
I asked you to list all those defeats you claim from 1960-64 and this is the best you can come up with. But you don't know his career - you have based everything you claim on his disastrous last tour, because you are determined to diminish his reputation for pusillanimous reasons of your own.
There were very few losses in his career after he became Olympic 800m champion in '60 to the end of '64, when he claimed the 800/1500 double in Tokyo and then reduced the 1000m and mile records. The losses in that period came mostly in local races, when he was coming off injury and not fully fit. John Davies, who was one of those few who scored wins over him, effectively acknowledged this. If you were honest (which you aren't) you would admit that he likely suffered fewer defeats in those years than most of the other greats did in their careers, including Coe and Ingebrigtsen - and, unlike them, never at championship level. You pose as an expert but you are a cheap propagandist for a tawdry and misleading view of a great athlete.
You have called me several times a liar - and now you ask me for listing the races which he lost? But for calling me a liar you have to KNOW that those races don't exist (and for sure that I mention those not existing races by bad intention).
You can freely ask me for help if you can't handle this file, OK?
What a farce! So he came 5th in a mile race at the end of 1960, after he had just become the Olympic champion over 800m and had yet to focus on the longer distance - which he didn't do until January 1962, when he broke Herb Elliott's world record.
I asked you to list all those defeats you claim from 1960-64 and this is the best you can come up with. But you don't know his career - you have based everything you claim on his disastrous last tour, because you are determined to diminish his reputation for pusillanimous reasons of your own.
There were very few losses in his career after he became Olympic 800m champion in '60 to the end of '64, when he claimed the 800/1500 double in Tokyo and then reduced the 1000m and mile records. The losses in that period came mostly in local races, when he was coming off injury and not fully fit. John Davies, who was one of those few who scored wins over him, effectively acknowledged this. If you were honest (which you aren't) you would admit that he likely suffered fewer defeats in those years than most of the other greats did in their careers, including Coe and Ingebrigtsen - and, unlike them, never at championship level. You pose as an expert but you are a cheap propagandist for a tawdry and misleading view of a great athlete.
You managed it to take the info out of the file? I wasn't certain of that, so kudos to you!
That's from you earlier in the thread - Armstronglivs: "He didn't race the 1500 outside Tokyo. Between 1960-64 he only lost a mile race at a local level, to his rival John Davies"
Step by step - I don't want overwhelm you too much - we are working on the truth, OK?
Isn't it funny that you are corrected again and again with all of your statements, but you continue with your behavior of calling the teller of the truth liar and other insults?
You also want to get his 800m/880y defeats? OK, but not too fast, I know you want to think about any one seperately.
Btw, there were recently so many of your posts deleted. Do you have any idea why? Since you are always polite and totally fact based, and that you always agree when you are proved to be wrong. So, why?
Before you cry: Peter Snell undoubtedly is one of the md all-time greats. As great as he was, for me, Sebastian Coe is still way ahead of him. Snell's career was too short, he has had several losses during his relatively short period at the top, his Mile WR still was little bit weaker than Elliott's 1500m mark. And Coe is by far the greatest record setter in md history. And was much longer at or close to the top than Snell. Others might differ.
