qucassidy wrote:
Sure Scott belongs there ... if only because he ran more
sub 4 minute miles then any other living man ... or woman.
Circumstances and he would have run one of them in 3:42 no
doubt ... why he didn't ... maybe the little bad luck of not being at the perfect place at the perfect time.
Qucassidy, you are right. I am wrong. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways. Steve Scott is, in fact, a 3:42 miler, and I will remember him as such from this point forward.
You must admit, however, that Scott trails well behind Walter George, who ran a 4:12 mile in 1886. George trained no more than 2 miles per day. His speed work consisted of occasionally running in place with high knees for a minute or so. Had Walter George trained with modern training methods and contemporary competition, he would run a 3:35 mile, which is 7 seconds better than Steve Scott's best hypothetical mile.
We also must consider Svetlana Masterkova, who holds the woman's world mile record at 4:12.56. If Masterkova was a man, then her time would surely be 3:38. So Masterkova's best hypothetical mile is 4 seconds better than Scott's.
Let's not forget George Young, the great U.S. steeplechaser who ran a 3:59 mile. George Young had very short legs for a miler. If Young had long legs, then he would have run 3:37, which puts him 5 seconds ahead of Steve Scott.
So, as good as Scott was, he is not even as fast as Walter George, Svetlana Masterkova, and George Young. And don't even get me started on the Special Olympics, which includes a bunch of hypothetical sub-3:40 milers. You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that Steve Scott's hypothetical 3:42 mile just isn't very good.