Peter Snell is one of my favorite athletes, an all-time great. Has he won any race he entered? No, he lost many (mostly minor) races.
The Lydiard system does not lend itself to long undefeated streaks. One of the major periods (referred to as “sharpening”) has the athlete racing or time trialing as much as twice a week, often at off distances. The system is designed to prepare the runner for championships, and Snell’s championship record was excellent. I am not surprised that he sometimes lost other races.
You are correct that the system focused on peaking for championships. In that it was very successful. However, long undefeated streaks have been a consequence of professionalism plus doping - the two have largely become synonymous.
I'm sure you are able to find them - also after 6+ decades of "following" athletics it might be the first time you hear about TRACK & FIELD NEWS - right?
Yes, I select the stats carefully: when you wrongly claim Snell has lost just to John Davies, and just once. I show you are completely wrong (as almost always) by pointing on his losses. Do you understand? His losses show that he hasn't just won - comprehenda? By pointing on his wins it would be still open if he has lost several times. I'm sure you got it NOW.
I havn't compared Snell's and Coe's times at all.
1:44.3 (WR) - 1:41.73 (WR)
2:16.6 (WR) - 2:12.18 (WR)
3:37.6 - 3:29.77 (former WR 3:32.03)
3:54.03 (WR) - 3:47.33 (WR)
I said Coe as a record setter (for me) is by far the greatest in md history. This includes the pure number of records as well as the quality (for sure relative to the era when run).
For me, Coe is clearly ahead of Snell. Especially those three marks (1:42.33, 1:41.73 and 2:12.18) are amongst the best in the history of md running (all probably in the top 5, definitely all in the top 10). Snell's 1:44.3 also ranks very high, but below 1:41.73 and 2:12.18).
You have now realised that you were completely wrong with almost anything. You now have any chance to say sorry for calling me a liar - anything which I said on this thread was correct.
Peter Snell is one of my favorite athletes, an all-time great. Has he won any race he entered? No, he lost many (mostly minor) races.
You have produced a couple of the losses that Snell had in his peak years. It doesn't prove what you are trying to show.
Actually it does. It all started when you said Snell was undefeated in the 1500m and that he only ran that distance in Tokyo.
I'm sure you are able to find them - also after 6+ decades of "following" athletics it might be the first time you hear about TRACK & FIELD NEWS - right?
Yes, I select the stats carefully: when you wrongly claim Snell has lost just to John Davies, and just once. I show you are completely wrong (as almost always) by pointing on his losses. Do you understand? His losses show that he hasn't just won - comprehenda? By pointing on his wins it would be still open if he has lost several times. I'm sure you got it NOW.
I havn't compared Snell's and Coe's times at all.
1:44.3 (WR) - 1:41.73 (WR)
2:16.6 (WR) - 2:12.18 (WR)
3:37.6 - 3:29.77 (former WR 3:32.03)
3:54.03 (WR) - 3:47.33 (WR)
I said Coe as a record setter (for me) is by far the greatest in md history. This includes the pure number of records as well as the quality (for sure relative to the era when run).
For me, Coe is clearly ahead of Snell. Especially those three marks (1:42.33, 1:41.73 and 2:12.18) are amongst the best in the history of md running (all probably in the top 5, definitely all in the top 10). Snell's 1:44.3 also ranks very high, but below 1:41.73 and 2:12.18).
You have now realised that you were completely wrong with almost anything. You now have any chance to say sorry for calling me a liar - anything which I said on this thread was correct.
Peter Snell is one of my favorite athletes, an all-time great. Has he won any race he entered? No, he lost many (mostly minor) races.
You have produced a couple of the losses that Snell had in his peak years. It doesn't prove what you are trying to show. You have tried to depict his career as having had a litany of defeats. This is false. The very few losses he had in his peak years between 1960-64 were minor races (or before he had begun to focus in the mile), as you have had to concede, but this kind of misrepresentation of the facts is simply another form of lying. You do it to try to claim Coe was the greater runner. He may have been but not from anything you argue. Also when it comes to losses, Coe had far more and at the championship level, which Snell did not.
Your claims also about the amateur era and your failure to understand why runners such as Elliott and Snell had short careers show you are quite ignorant of what it was like in that era. You have simply projected your views on to the past. As I pointed out, the professional era that Coe competed in was nothing like that of the earlier amateur era that athletes like Elliott and Snell competed in.
I have not "produced" any loss - stop lying again and again. It proves exactly what it should: that Snell hasn't lost - as you claimed - just once to John Davies. A complete lie. He has lost around 15 races from 800m to the Mile in the period 1960 to 1964 as well as many more in 1965. Just pure facts. I have already shown you 6 losses in 1960 and 1961 (without the ones against the New Zealanders). Do you want to see also the ones from 1962 to 1964? Or 1965?
For me Coe IS GREATER, OK? You can differ, is this so difficult to understand? Main reasons for me: better and more records (he would be a medal contender today - especially in the 800m) as well as much longer career. Snell's better record at the championships makes it closer, but FOR ME Coe still is clearly ahead. OK?
I have not said anything why Snell or Elliott have quit their careers early - I don't care. Both could have competed for many more years - they didn't. Their choice and their full right.
You have produced a couple of the losses that Snell had in his peak years. It doesn't prove what you are trying to show.
Actually it does. It all started when you said Snell was undefeated in the 1500m and that he only ran that distance in Tokyo.
That isn't what he was trying to show. He was seeking to show Snell had experienced many defeats. He hadn't. They remain few at his peak. But you don't care about any of this - the only thing that draws you here is your personal animosity. Thread after thread. You can never let it go.
The Lydiard system does not lend itself to long undefeated streaks. One of the major periods (referred to as “sharpening”) has the athlete racing or time trialing as much as twice a week, often at off distances. The system is designed to prepare the runner for championships, and Snell’s championship record was excellent. I am not surprised that he sometimes lost other races.
long undefeated streaks have been a consequence of professionalism plus doping - the two have largely become synonymous.
Why?
Biggest winning streak in athletics history: Iolanda Balas
Paavo Nurmi hardly ever lost.
Edwin Moses' streak started in 1977.
Lewis' in 1981.
Which winning streaks have we seen in the last decades? Just name a few.
You have produced a couple of the losses that Snell had in his peak years. It doesn't prove what you are trying to show. You have tried to depict his career as having had a litany of defeats. This is false. The very few losses he had in his peak years between 1960-64 were minor races (or before he had begun to focus in the mile), as you have had to concede, but this kind of misrepresentation of the facts is simply another form of lying. You do it to try to claim Coe was the greater runner. He may have been but not from anything you argue. Also when it comes to losses, Coe had far more and at the championship level, which Snell did not.
Your claims also about the amateur era and your failure to understand why runners such as Elliott and Snell had short careers show you are quite ignorant of what it was like in that era. You have simply projected your views on to the past. As I pointed out, the professional era that Coe competed in was nothing like that of the earlier amateur era that athletes like Elliott and Snell competed in.
I have not "produced" any loss - stop lying again and again. It proves exactly what it should: that Snell hasn't lost - as you claimed - just once to John Davies. A complete lie. He has lost around 15 races from 800m to the Mile in the period 1960 to 1964 as well as many more in 1965. Just pure facts. I have already shown you 6 losses in 1960 and 1961 (without the ones against the New Zealanders). Do you want to see also the ones from 1962 to 1964? Or 1965?
For me Coe IS GREATER, OK? You can differ, is this so difficult to understand? Main reasons for me: better and more records (he would be a medal contender today - especially in the 800m) as well as much longer career. Snell's better record at the championships makes it closer, but FOR ME Coe still is clearly ahead. OK?
I have not said anything why Snell or Elliott have quit their careers early - I don't care. Both could have competed for many more years - they didn't. Their choice and their full right.
I am not interested in who was greater, whether it was Snell or Coe. Both were great runners. But you have argued a view about Snell's career which misrepresents it, like a lawyer trying to produce a "case" that suits from the facts. It is a bad case.
Actually it does. It all started when you said Snell was undefeated in the 1500m and that he only ran that distance in Tokyo.
That isn't what he was trying to show. He was seeking to show Snell had experienced many defeats. He hadn't. They remain few at his peak. But you don't care about any of this - the only thing that draws you here is your personal animosity. Thread after thread. You can never let it go.
I'm not "trying to show" anything. I saw a wrong statement of yours (one of hundreds) and I corrected it. Since you never accept when proved to be wrong this goes on and on.
Not many? Well, that's relative. Around 15 in 5 seasons is a lot for me. Than 10 or so more in 1965.
Edwin Moses hasn't lost a single race in 9 years, 9 months and 9 days.
Snell is famous for his Gold medals and his WRs - not for never losing.
long undefeated streaks have been a consequence of professionalism plus doping - the two have largely become synonymous.
Why?
Biggest winning streak in athletics history: Iolanda Balas
Paavo Nurmi hardly ever lost.
Edwin Moses' streak started in 1977.
Lewis' in 1981.
Which winning streaks have we seen in the last decades? Just name a few.
With the exception of Nurmi, who competed when the sport was in its virtual infancy, in an era when competition was nothing like it later became, all the other athletes you identify could well have doped.
That isn't what he was trying to show. He was seeking to show Snell had experienced many defeats. He hadn't. They remain few at his peak. But you don't care about any of this - the only thing that draws you here is your personal animosity. Thread after thread. You can never let it go.
I'm not "trying to show" anything. I saw a wrong statement of yours (one of hundreds) and I corrected it. Since you never accept when proved to be wrong this goes on and on.
Not many? Well, that's relative. Around 15 in 5 seasons is a lot for me. Than 10 or so more in 1965.
Edwin Moses hasn't lost a single race in 9 years, 9 months and 9 days.
Snell is famous for his Gold medals and his WRs - not for never losing.
I didn't say Snell never lost but that his losses were few at his peak and not in important races. You began by falsely claiming he had many losses - as though that was typical of his career. It wasn't.
Biggest winning streak in athletics history: Iolanda Balas
Paavo Nurmi hardly ever lost.
Edwin Moses' streak started in 1977.
Lewis' in 1981.
Which winning streaks have we seen in the last decades? Just name a few.
With the exception of Nurmi, who competed when the sport was in its virtual infancy, in an era when competition was nothing like it later became, all the other athletes you identify could well have doped.
So could have Elliott, Snell, Halberg, Quax, Dixon, Walker.
I'm not "trying to show" anything. I saw a wrong statement of yours (one of hundreds) and I corrected it. Since you never accept when proved to be wrong this goes on and on.
Not many? Well, that's relative. Around 15 in 5 seasons is a lot for me. Than 10 or so more in 1965.
Edwin Moses hasn't lost a single race in 9 years, 9 months and 9 days.
Snell is famous for his Gold medals and his WRs - not for never losing.
I didn't say Snell never lost but that his losses were few at his peak and not in important races. You began by falsely claiming he had many losses - as though that was typical of his career. It wasn't.
Few at his peak? Around 15 in five seasons isn't few for me. He has won all the big races, that's why is an all-time great.