Why do people think Jim Ryun was so great?

[quote]ventolin^3 wrote:

utter nonsense

as a 19y ole kid, not anywhere close to his 20y ole prime, he ran the 800 wr when ill, forcing a slow start & fortunate pick-up in 2nd lap & he'd run a 800 prelim just a coupla hours before !

this tells us he had mental ability to run wr when physically below-par & even more fatigued from a prelim

that is an iron-will

/quote]

Oh please! What nonsense.

He ran that 880 in 1:44.9 on a synthetic track not cinders for a start. No official time was taken for 800m and it was never ratified as the 800m world record.

"Ryan was never timed at 800m,. otherwise he MIGHT WELL HAVE EARNED THE METRIC RECORD, OR A SHARE OF IT' Roberto Quercetani ( founder and president of the ATFS at the time of the record)

The prelim was a 1:51 jog. That is nothing for a 1:44 runner.

If we was that "ill" why did he run both races. A ny sane person would have pulled out of the final. There is a difference between not feeling great due to a headache and being ill. And if he was so ill, then why did he say post race, "I had the feeling of all this tremendous strength" (P.317, "The Milers")

This is not the quote of someone showing any signs of illness.

someone had to do it wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

A sports journalist from a German paper isn't going to have a clue compared to an athletics statistician.

The author of the article was a former olympian.

Also worth mentioning that Ryun himself recalls the split being under 50 seconds. I have linked a video to you in previous threads and I am too lazy to do it again but it is in the archives if you want to search.

I'm sure Ryun did mention it, and at the time someone probably told him that was the case. I highly doubt he had the opportunity, let alone the desire, to play back a video of the race and check it for himself.

Spectators who were there timing from the track side are likely to be more accurate if they are athletic statisticians.

I myself won't be 100% certain of any one time until I've seen the race myself, as I know that many races over the years have had inaccurate splits associated with them. I have given examples.

In the meantime I'm not going to accept one person's claim that the split quoted by one source that he wants to believe is true, is true. I'd rather go with the majority verdict that it was 50.6.

And no amount of foul and abusive language from said person (not you) is going to persuade me otherwise.

ventolin^3 wrote:

I do think Ryun had freakish talent, and was the equal or likely better of anyone before or since at the 1500/mile. I don't think he had whatever "it" is though to run the 800 like Coe. Maybe I'm wrong

you are

see circumstances of his 800wr above

only a fool woud believe ryun's mental capacity was less bulletproof than nijel of 1'41.73 acclaim

Ryun was at least 2.6 secs slower than Coe over 800m, both running on synthetic tracks. Ryun wasn't in the same league. That is factual, not based on fantasy.

Ryun's fastest ever 440 relay split was 46.9 on cinders. Or 46.6 for 400m.

Coe ran a 46.3 relay leg on cinders after running a 400 and 800 in competition on the same day. He also ran a 46.4 split on cinders after a 1:45. He also ran a 45.6 leg from a standing start on synthetic 90 mins after running a front running 1:44.0.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Ryun was faster over 400 on Coe. In fact all the evidence suggests Coe was faster.

Coe held the WR for 18 years and won major gold medals. Ryun ran fast once, never broke the 800 WR and won no medals at the distance.

And what has mental capacity got to do with running 1:41? If you haven't got the physical ability to do so, then all the mental capacity in the world is useless.

[quote]ventolin^3 wrote:

& i met keino a lot, decades ago

he was quite clear that ryun was by a long way the greatest runner he had ever seen - & he'd run against ron, jipcho/vassala, knew kiprugut/kipkurgat & seen ralph

/quote]

Yes, that is the view of one person. Ron Clarke, of whom you revere as the gospel according to cinder to synthetic conversion, as stated that Coe and Elliott were the greatest runners he ever saw. Does that mean he knows what he's talking about on one athletic subject but not another?

ventolin^3 wrote:

This is where El G, Coe and others are remarkable in their grit, being able to plow along without anyone near them

nonsense

you run against what you got

i'd taken cruz in '84 v coe '81, but coe had no one able to challenge him between '79 - '84

( albeit ovett couda gone quick - at least low-1'43 - into 1'42s is a situation i'd previously dismissed, but nijel's run makes me re-consider this )

coe never won a global gold over 800 & never buried the 1500/mile mark

Coe did win a global gold over 800. He won the World Cup in 81 against the best in the world at the time. The winners at this event were seen as the World Champions at the time, as there were no world championships.

He may not have buried the 1500 or Mile, largely due to dreadful pace making, but he did break them 4 times and his 800 & 1000 records lasted a darn sight longer than most.

Coe's 1:41.7 was a superior run than Cruz;s 1:41.7.

Coe's was run in early season compared to Cruz's run in peak season.

Coe ran 2m wide on the bend to pass rabbit. Cruz didn't.

Coe had no company within 5 secs of him by the last 200 and was in front by 450m. Cruz had someone in front of him up to 500m and had Koskei pushing him all the way over the 2nd lap and closing stages.

that is the opinion of the greatest wr breaker post-war

his last opinion was 1s/lap in that '84 vid, having had years to consider it

that's the most authoritative opinion of any guy

a guy who also has the analytical, mathematical mind of an qualified accountant

go fetch anyone who has those credentials

& i've seen others go to 1.5s/lap

go fetch your sources

or as you do

weight of anecdote says it 1s/lap

learn to read

i said 1s/lap for pristine dirt in good weather

you haven't a clue

i don't believe t&f news had any guy there & took it from whatever source they coud contact at the meet & nelson & quercetani took their number from t&f news

it's NOT 3 independent sources

the t&f source woud not have had a good a position as the german timers & they give 49.4/36.4 within days

that is the most contemporary source & published in a german broadsheet - accuracy/precision is their byword

it's no consensus

usatf, the governing body of american track give it as 36+

they don't agree with t&f news which is just a self-appointed source

the german publication is best source as they had actual paid correspondents/german coaches/etc at trackside

t&f news had no one "official" there

they didn't fly anyone out there to time it

anyone who didn't look at the tape replay before posting splits is a fool

iaaf didn't have anybody there - it was an american meet

again any splits were likely innacurate t&f news who obviously didn't check the tape or had access to it

it's just as likely t&f had same innacurate splits for his german run

you can better your bottom $ a leading german broadsheet at the time wouda checked their figures against tape

t&f news are NOT any authoritative source

only the "official" timers are

failing that, contemporary newspaper reports from respected newspapers are next best

get a clue

t&f news is not an official source

it's just a self-appointed magazine

the german paper of the time is helluva lot more authoritative than t&f news & anyone with a clue goes with that

they said 36.4/49.4

that's the most reliable source

no

it's correct

nonsense

statisticians ???

where on earth is their formal ivy-league university phd in statistics as requirement for any meaningful post ???

these are just guys who scour & compile statistics

a trained monkey coud do it

mel watman - a guy who left school at 14y

sure, that is the qualification required to be a "world authority" !!!???

can't you read ???

the source was hary's coach

the man who trained him to be the 100m champ & wr holder

a man of huge respect & if you think he coudn't time a race or woud give anything to americans, who's career he had spent trying to beat with his runners, you clearly haven't a clue

fool

not everyone run is on tape

where are ron's 13'16 ??? 27'39 ??? ryuns 3'51.3 ???

you go with best sources available

best source is a contemporary respected report NOT something cudgelled 2nd hand from unknown sources

go fetch who t&f news/nelson & quercetani quote as their source for that german run

Deanouk wrote:ROFL. Really? How convenient! ;0)

Well you certainly kept that quiet all these years. I was told 2 years ago by someone who had seen the video in the UNi archives that his last 400 was just under 51 and the last 300 was over 37. And I have stated that on here and elsewhere several times. You just so happen to have got in touch with someone at this exact moment? LOL

my source was 5y ago & didn't see it any uni archives, but on the american tv archives

he said it was 36+ & 49+

learn to read

it was a semi-synthetic mulch of dirt & tyre shavings, only used because it drained water fast not for speed gain

it was NOT a proper synthetic & disappeared immediately when full synthetic came round

i can't believe anyone coud post this utter nonsense

he ran 1'44.9 for 880y ->

1'44.3 for 800m

american tracks were 440y & they had no interest in 800m

quercetani, another self-appointed nobody

iaaf have no problem recognising ryun's time as of today

12 1:44.3 Jim Ryun 29 APR 1947 USA 1 Terre Haute, IN 10 JUN 1966

if it's in iaaf lists, that's official as of today

nonsense

it was just 3 hours before his wr

no one in their right mind runs a prelim 800 on same day as wr

no one has in history apart from ryun !!!

you rest fully for 4 or 5 days minimum prior to a serious wr attempt

get a clue

he wasn't chasing a wr

he was running it because his coach wanted a speed test

the wr just happened

sane people don't break wrs & some by huge margins

you are a fool

listen to his vid

he says he felt "terrible"

this was not a trivial headache

he said he got worse in the later mile & went 4'02

no

that's wrong

ryun does seminars for track

he says 2'05 into here that he ran 49 for that german race

nonsense

hary's coach was no "mere spectator"

& to think statisticians can use a stopwatch better than anyone else is utter nonsense

show me what uni phd they have in "track timing" ???

no one gives a damn whether you saw or race

you are a nobody & your opinion doesn't make anything "official"

asbel finished his 3'31.1 in doha in 12.4s

that is fastest finish ever in a fast 100, but it's nothing "official"

learn to read

your 3 sources are just one & neither of them official

hary's coach was there taking splits, were the other 3 ???

Deanouk wrote:Yes, that is the view of one person. Ron Clarke, of whom you revere as the gospel according to cinder to synthetic conversion, as stated that Coe and Elliott were the greatest runners he ever saw. Does that mean he knows what he's talking about on one athletic subject but not another?

keino was olympic 1500 champ, 2nd fastest 1500 guy in history

his opinion on 1500 runners trumps ron's, who was neither

keino didn't run against elliott but seeing as ryun smashed elliott's 1500wr by 2.5s on same dirt tracks within 7y, i'd doubt anyone believes elliott was a better 1500 talent than ryun

you clearly can't think

ryun was 2.6s slower on a semi-synthetic track, after a prelim 3 hours before & ill & this wasn't his peak year

give him a '70s oslo in '67 with fast pace to bell, no prelim & 100% healthy & he wouda obliterated any mark on the list today

can't you read ???

it was 46.9 for a 440y track on a soggy track with a 3'55 mile in his legs & this was his break-out meet in '66 NOT his absolute '67 peak of his 1500 wr/dusseldorf/mile wr

that is low-45 ability in '66 on a synthetic

that is low-46 on synthetic with also fatigue in his legs

those prelim races don't compare to a 3'55 on a soggy track - a time within 2s of the wr

it wasn't a standing start

he slowed but didn't stop

probably worth about a 46-flat open not giving 0.7/0.8s to an open 400 but 1/2 that

in region of high-45 speed for a rested 400

no

his 46.9 shows low-45 ability

coe was not that fast

an 800 on a questionable timing on an unknown track

cruz's 1'41.77 had more validity as an instant timing

& coe won no global golds over 800

he was not interested in 800 except for mexico & he tied the wr & seeing as snell ran his fresh & 100% fit, i'd have no hesitation in acclaiming ryun's 800 as better

clueless

the mental capacity to run not just a fast time but a wr when ill & shoudn't even have been running

same mental capacity which coe lacked when chickening out of '83 wc

he couda still got silver or bronze at worst in the 800 but no guts, no glory

no

they were not world championships as there were no heats

they were glorified circuit races more designed to get the east europeans to run some races on the global stage instead of just behind the iron curtain & see their "talent", especially the women sprinters/throwers/jumpers

nonsense

coe's run was on an unknown track with questionable timing & early season means nothing

he was at his peak & ran 8 more 800s after & nothing close

cruz's 1'41.7 was tail-end of season running on fumes of his olympic peak

i thought he'd packed up for the year after withdrawing from the 1500

i was shocked he even stepped on the track again in '84

he'd run a incredible series of 1'42s/2'14 within days of his 1'41.7

he musta been 1/2 dead when he lined up for koln

i watched that race live & shocked he was even running

i thought at the time it woud be a miracle if he broke 1'44

to run 1'41.7 with legs which musta been little more than jelly is best 800 run, arguably ever

he coud have been no worse than low-1'41 if he'd run that race fully rested

coe good for mid-1'41 that day

anyone with a clue who had seen/followed cruz's races leading upto koln knew that was many tenths of what he couda run if ideally prepared for it

low-1'41 at worst

i'd have taken a cruz '84 anytime over a coe '81

You look and sound like the complete and utter fool that you are

Trialswatcher wrote:

You look and sound like the complete and utter fool that you are

notice though the lack of swearing now. Seems like the Brojos finally warned him about this.

ventolin^3 wrote:

Deanouk wrote:No it isn't in keeping with other reports.

Almost all other reports from statisticians that were there gave 50.6 as his last lap.

- T&FN at the time reported 50.6

- Cordner Nelson ("The Milers") quoted 50.6 (P.332)

- Roberto Quercetani ( founder of the ATFS, compiler of World Rankings) in his book, "A History of Modern Track & Field Athletics, 1860-1990" also quoted 50.6. (P.159)

you haven't a clue

i don't believe t&f news had any guy there & took it from whatever source they coud contact at the meet & nelson & quercetani took their number from t&f news

it's NOT 3 independent sources

usatf, the governing body of american track give it as 36+

Quercetani was the President of the Association of Track and Field Statisticians at the time and was the leading expert used by the IAAF. It is highly likely he was there in person, and certainly would have had access to the race video at the time.

Just because you "don't believe" t&fn and Quercetani weren't there doesn't mean it wasn't so.

Your repetition that the Germans said it was 49.4 does not make it proof. I have also seen times of 49.7 and 50.2 given for that last lap. You blindly chose to believe a lone split not taken by an official time keeper, just because it is the fastest and serves your purposes.

ventolin^3 wrote:

As an example of how inaccurate splits for Ryun have been in print by various sources before, one need look no further than his 2nd Mile WR, where the IAAF and several other reference books claim his last lap was 52.5.

This is not only wrong, it is markedly so. He goes through the bell in 2:57.3, which gives a last lap of 53.8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NyRbNZ4vOE

anyone who didn't look at the tape replay before posting splits is a fool

iaaf didn't have anybody there - it was an american meet

again any splits were likely innacurate t&f news who obviously didn't check the tape or had access to it

it's just as likely t&f had same innacurate splits for his german run

Typical of you to take one piece of information and then put it in a different context.

I never said the IAAF were there, so learn to read. I said that they and other reference books quoted 52.5, which is wrong. T&FN actually quoted the CORRECT time of 53.7.

So you are happy to criticise t&fn as wrong when they quote stats for one race in Germany, and then make the mistake of criticising them for a stat that is accurate in the US? Check your sources.

You either trust a source or you don't. You just take the source that best fits what your fantasies entail, regardless of whether that contradicts what you are stating.

ventolin^3 wrote:

Deanouk wrote:Have named them above, They are specialised athletic periodicals, accounts from the foremost statisticians from the past 50 years

nonsense

statisticians ???

where on earth is their formal ivy-league university phd in statistics as requirement for any meaningful post ???

these are just guys who scour & compile statistics

a trained monkey coud do it

ROFL. So it takes a phd in statistics from an Ivy League Uni to be capable of taking accurate split times in a race?

Then you say that a trained monkey could do it?

Can you not see the contradiction? And more importantly, in which group do you see yourself in?