Wait, did Roger "first sub-4 mile" Bannister really win ZERO Olympic medals?

He went to the Olympics before he was a sub-4 miler. He retired after just a few more races when he broke four. All he wanted to do was break four and then pursue his studies and profession

Bannister was a favorite in 1952. But his training was low volume and focused on speed not strength. He was not prepared for 3 qualifying rounds and was too tired in the final to perform at his best.

The British press was very critical of his 4th place finish and supposedly that provided motivation for him to pursue the sub-4.

mlml wrote:

Bannister was a favorite in 1952. But his training was low volume and focused on speed not strength. He was not prepared for 3 qualifying rounds and was too tired in the final to perform at his best.

The British press was very critical of his 4th place finish and supposedly that provided motivation for him to pursue the sub-4.

In his defense, a round was added pretty much at the last minute.

Also keep in mind in those days people could not make money from track and still run in the Olympics so careers were incredibly short (save the people whose countries figured out ways to give them jobs that required little work).

Also, I get the sense that Bannister had things he thought were a lot more important to do with his life.

Herb Elliot also went to Olympics only once, at a younger age than Bannister. He had already broken both 1500m and mile WR by then. And he retired soon after, never losing a race in either 1500m or mile at the senior level.

Elliot > Bannister wrote:

Herb Elliot also went to Olympics only once, at a younger age than Bannister. He had already broken both 1500m and mile WR by then. And he retired soon after, never losing a race in either 1500m or mile at the senior level.

This is relevant how, exactly?

Luv2Run wrote:

[quote]mlml wrote:

Also, I get the sense that Bannister had things he thought were a lot more important to do with his life.

It's been a long time since I read his book, but pretty sure he didn't interrupt his studies to train at all.

johnny5 wrote:

Elliot > Bannister wrote:

Herb Elliot also went to Olympics only once, at a younger age than Bannister. He had already broken both 1500m and mile WR by then. And he retired soon after, never losing a race in either 1500m or mile at the senior level.

This is relevant how, exactly?

If Bannister had been as good as Elliot, he could have won the Olympics in his one and only chance at a young age.

So the reason Bannister never won an Olympic medal was simple. He was not good enough as a championship racer.

johnny5 wrote:

Luv2Run wrote:

[quote]mlml wrote:

Also, I get the sense that Bannister had things he thought were a lot more important to do with his life.

It's been a long time since I read his book, but pretty sure he didn't interrupt his studies to train at all.

He gave up running aged 25 to concentrate on his medical career, the training workload for which was enormous.

hyc9yc wrote:

johnny5 wrote:

It's been a long time since I read his book, but pretty sure he didn't interrupt his studies to train at all.

He gave up running aged 25 to concentrate on his medical career, the training workload for which was enormous.

Running sub 4 as he was studying medicine at Oxford...

Elliot > Bannister wrote:

johnny5 wrote:

This is relevant how, exactly?

If Bannister had been as good as Elliot, he could have won the Olympics in his one and only chance at a young age.

So the reason Bannister never won an Olympic medal was simple. He was not good enough as a championship racer.

Well, Bannister was not as good as Elliot, but the reason he didn't win an Olympic medal is because his really great year was 1954.

In 1954 Bannister ran a glorified time trial to break 4 minutes in the mile. Then he broke 4 again in the Empire Games, winning the matchup of sub-4 milers between him and Landy. To finish it off, he won the European Championships 1500 in record time, and retired a short while later.

Whether or not he was a great tactical racer, he'd have won a medal in 1954.

johnny5 wrote:

Luv2Run wrote:

[quote]mlml wrote:

Also, I get the sense that Bannister had things he thought were a lot more important to do with his life.

It's been a long time since I read his book, but pretty sure he didn't interrupt his studies to train at all.

No he did not at the same time I think going from being a student to an intern/resident doctor was not going to be compatible with training. Plus it was sort of the British sentiment that athletics were a thing you did when you were young.

runthecountry wrote:

Elliot > Bannister wrote:

If Bannister had been as good as Elliot, he could have won the Olympics in his one and only chance at a young age.

So the reason Bannister never won an Olympic medal was simple. He was not good enough as a championship racer.

Well, Bannister was not as good as Elliot, but the reason he didn't win an Olympic medal is because his really great year was 1954.

In 1954 Bannister ran a glorified time trial to break 4 minutes in the mile. Then he broke 4 again in the Empire Games, winning the matchup of sub-4 milers between him and Landy. To finish it off, he won the European Championships 1500 in record time, and retired a short while later.

Whether or not he was a great tactical racer, he'd have won a medal in 1954.

In those days and really until the 80s, the Olympics were a 1 and done deal at least in Western countries unless you found a job that allowed for the flexibility You could not cash in in those days.

Of course the end of the "shamateurism" in the 90s has allowed athletes to be multiple times Olympians.

Herb Elliott, gang. Let's get the guy's name right.

And wtf is this about Ryun getting a bronze?

Hmm, how many mile/1500m WR holders through history failed to medal at all at the Olympics?

Also, Barthel (the winner) later admitted that he was doped for the race. Not against the rules at the time.

mlml wrote:

Bannister was a favorite in 1952. But his training was low volume and focused on speed not strength. He was not prepared for 3 qualifying rounds and was too tired in the final to perform at his best.

The British press was very critical of his 4th place finish and supposedly that provided motivation for him to pursue the sub-4.

Correct. Multiple rounds (3) was added at the last minute. 4th place drove him to accomplish something historical. I cannot speak highly enough of his book, especially if you’re a student of the sport.

Those American Thighs wrote:

Hmm, how many mile/1500m WR holders through history failed to medal at all at the Olympics?

Sydney Wooderson, Arne Andersson, and Gunder Hägg are the only other two that I can think of. Curiously, many of the mile wr holders did not end up winning medals at the Games in the1500m- jazy (steeple), Ibbotson (5000m), etc.

runthecountry wrote:

Elliot > Bannister wrote:

If Bannister had been as good as Elliot, he could have won the Olympics in his one and only chance at a young age.

So the reason Bannister never won an Olympic medal was simple. He was not good enough as a championship racer.

Well, Bannister was not as good as Elliot, but the reason he didn't win an Olympic medal is because his really great year was 1954.

In 1954 Bannister ran a glorified time trial to break 4 minutes in the mile. Then he broke 4 again in the Empire Games, winning the matchup of sub-4 milers between him and Landy. To finish it off, he won the European Championships 1500 in record time, and retired a short while later.

Whether or not he was a great tactical racer, he'd have won a medal in 1954.

Certainly, as Landy went on to win silver in 1956 behind Ronnie Delaney.

Would you rather be Roger Bannister or Josy Barthel?