Is Roger Bannister really the 1st sub-4 miler?

Bill Huntington wrote:

Interesting thread, but I'm surprised no one asked this: Who ran the first 4:00.0?????

Ibbotson.

old tymer wrote:

And of course it was "legitimate" by any rational measure: that is, the distance really was right, the time really was accurate, it was objectively documented, etc.

Why in the world would we attempt to negate this by holding up the stupidest technical rules of the day (which were being selectively ignored even then) to somehow "prove" that it was illegitimate? Does the winner's legitimacy really depend on whether every pace setter crosses the finish line in an "honest effort"? That's a really hard argument to make with a straight face--I certainly couldn't do it.

If you want to judge performances by your own rules, feel free to do so, but I don't see that your rules are any more rigorous or objective than anyone else's.

Anti-pacing rules aren't stupid. They are consistent with a view of competitive running events as individual rather than team events. They also recognize that, as a matter of physics and physiology, running in the aerodynamic shadow of someone else requires considerably less energy than running by oneself, just as running a straight mile with the wind at one's back or running downhill will require less energy than running the same distance with the additional requirement that the start and finish lines must be very near each other.

Moreover, anti-pacing rules haven't gone away. Rather, they have been modified, and various lines continue to get drawn. Thus, for example, Geb was denied a 10K road record because he was aided by a "pacing" vehicle that provided him with too much of an aerodynamic edge, but was given marathon records although he used a group of human pacers to do the same thing. Paula R. was prohibited from having male pacers who were within a few feet of her during a women's marathon, but was permitted to use male pacers who were a bit further in front of her.

The problem with strict pacing rules isn't that they're "stupid" and "technical." The main problem is that they're difficult to enforce. But that shouldn't have been an issue in Bannister's case, because everyone on the team acknowledged what they were doing. And if that violated the rules of the day, then Bannister was merely a running stuntman or a flat-out cheat.

Under your rules, would you have accepted a sub-4 with a running start, or pacing by a motor vehicle or bicycle, or the use of blood doping, or a straight line course with a tail wind, or pacing by a relay team, or pacing by a guy who intentionally fell back by a full lap?

Bannister broke the record on a windy day sitting behind two rabbits for 1200m. Before that he had tried to break the 4 minute mile in a race designed to be just before a race in the US where it was thought Wes Santee would break 4.

Until he actually did it, Bannister was simply chasing the record with all the help he could get (and in the case of the "race" to beat out Santee illegitimate help--it wasn't called a race and the world record never ratified)

Landy also chased the record, but ran every race alone wire to wire. Even in the race when he finally did break it, he led wire to wire and with 1200 to go looked back, saw somebody actually close to him (Chataway) and got well under 4.

I have much more respect for Landy than Banister. This carried through to their race in Vancouver. The night before Landy stepped on a Flash Bulb and cut his foot. However, instead of pulling out of the race he race. Not only did he run, but he led for about 1500m. Instead of focusing on beating Bannister and making it a kicking race, he made it a brilliant race.

Even if one cannot say that Landy was the first to break 4 he deserves much more respect for his accomplishments at the time than Bannister.

Anyone have obscure articles on how fast the Greeks were? They had measured distances, though probably no time keeping.

Your entire convoluted post is too trivial to copy here; everyone can see it above. You observe that "anti-pacing rules haven't gone away--they have been modified" but then cite a road-racing example rather than one from the track. Who cares in the slightest about road racing? I don't.

If you believe that the anti-pacing "rules" are being observed IN ANY WAY in today's track world, there's no appropriate response to you. Those "rules" were thrown out long ago. All fast races have paid pacers--who usually, horror of horrors, make NO EFFORT to actually finish the race!!! Oh, my God, what a shocking revelation!!! I had no idea!!!

If you're serious about this puritanical ambition to live "up to" the letter of the amateur code ca. 1950, good luck to you--you really will need it.

And, yes, I'm well aware that drafting confers a performative benefit--everyone knows that. To make this issue more interesting, one might argue that pacesetters "equalize" the playing field by allowing the top athletes (as well as the natural followers) to gain a roughly equal advantage that way.

As for your concluding sentence--nice try, but these are all red herrings. Would I equate a paced time with a race that began with a running start? Absolutely no--who would? And who needs bicycle or automobile pacers when humans do just fine? As for a pacer falling back a full lap, all historians know that this precise strategy was employed by Bannister in his 1953 4:02.0 performance, which was refused recognition as a British record. I'd agree with that verdict since that "race" was nothing but a private time trial, without official sanction or oversight, not to mention that lapped pacesetter.

By your own standards, the previous WRs that were set in handicap competitions (say, Wooderson's 1:49.2 800) also need to be retroactively thrown out. Again, good luck with that.

What exactly are you trying to prove here? That we should void Bannister's record 55 years after the fact? That we should all agree that Bannister was a "stuntman" or a "cheat"? How utterly ridiculous.

I doubt that others had the same problem that you did in following my post. If you found it to be convoluted, the problem was likely in your own reading comprehension.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm merely pointing out that your personal standard for what constitutes a "legitimate" sub-4 mile (which apparently includes some pacing schemes but not others, and apparently includes running on a quarter-mile dirt oval but not running on a one-mile dirt road) is far from the only standard for determining legitimacy, and was probably not even the standard that was in place among international track authorities at the time of Bannister's paced time trial. The original poster was obviously not asking who is recognized by some organization or by various sports historians as the first sub-4 miler, and other posters clearly understood that. If it's your view that Bannister was the first sub-4 miler, that's fine, but your personal view, based on your personal standards of "legitimacy," is hardly the "end of story," as you proclaimed.

who cares if it was "legitimate" because of pacing or whatever. as long as the distance was correct.

Fact is, he broke four minutes before anyone else.

If he was paced by a motorcycle or a vehicle and ran under 4 minutes, well guess what.....he still ran a mile under 4 minutes, thus making him the first to break four minutes for the mile.

I understand the idea of not counting records, like national or world records, but that doesn't mean he didn't run under 4 minutes.

If we take away his record, guess what.....he still covered a mile under 4 minutes, thus making him the first sub-4 miler (in recorded history anyway). If it was illegal because of pacesetters or whatever, that doesn't matter, just don't give him a world record or something. It still wouldn't change the fact that he broke 4 minutes before Landy. Its not like "Oh, well, he had pacesetters. So, although he covered the distance of a mile under 4 minutes, we are going to count it as 1500 meters." Regardless of rules, he still ran the mile under 4 minutes.

I’m not sure anyone was suggesting that Bannister's run wasn’t legitimate because it was paced.

I simply observed that because Bannister was part of the Ox/Bridge set up in England who virtually ran sport in England since Victorian times - his time was immediately accepted as the new world record and first sub- 4 minute mile - whereas a virtual ‘unknown’ ex-aircraftsman ran out of his skin one evening in 1957, beating both the Olympic champion and world record holder over 1500mts in a new world record time of 3.57.2 - and the time wasn’t accepted because of ‘perceived’ pacing.

Ox/Bridge is the equivalent of your ‘Ivy League’ set up.

The Victorians, when they weren’t busy enlarging the biggest empire ever encompassing a fourth of the world’s surface and peoples - also took time out to invent practically every sport played in the world these days.

Also due to the British class-system, they also incorporated their concepts of amateur, meaning gentlemen and professional - the working classes - which persisted up to quite recently when every sportsman became ’equal’ and able to earn from his sport.

For instance, it wasn’t that long ago that Wimbledon was open only to amateurs and the like of Rod Laver and Emerson couldn’t play there after they turned ’professional’.

In cricket they had an annual match called - the Gentlemen versus the Players (those who earned an income from the sport)

They couldn’t see how bloody insulting the very concept was.

If we use your logic, then no, he was obviously not the first man to cover a mile in under 4 minutes.

I don't know why people dismiss the Peter Radford article so quickly. After reading that I am convinced several people have run a sub 4 mile; yes an accurately measured mile. Do people really believe that they didn't have a method or technique to accurately measure distance? Also, don't you think if these runners were wagering serious money (many of them were) that they would make sure to precisely measure the course, several times?

I mean, the whole premise of the bet is on covering a DISTANCE in a set amount of TIME. I think these two highlighted variables would be the focus of the contest, not the individual competitors.

This brings me to a side thought. Wouldn't it be great if running was set up to gamble on, similar to these old time races? I know several threads have touched on this subject, and I'm all for it. After reading this article, I have concluded that the AAA singlehandedly destroyed the popularity of running.

No to 2012 wrote:I simply observed that because Bannister was part of the Ox/Bridge set up in England who virtually ran sport in England since Victorian times - his time was immediately accepted as the new world record and first sub- 4 minute mile - whereas a virtual ‘unknown’ ex-aircraftsman ran out of his skin one evening in 1957, beating both the Olympic champion and world record holder over 1500mts in a new world record time of 3.57.2 - and the time wasn’t accepted because of ‘perceived’ pacing.

But Ibbotson wasn't really all that unknown and his record WAS accepted. There may have been some grumbling and foot-dragging immediately thereafter (I'm honestly not sure; I'll have to do some research), but it WAS accepted, as it should have been!. You correctly point out the long and sad history of the "amateur" ideology. Few people today could even begin to defend that snobby, elitist, and really destructive notion.

Funny, I found absolutely nothing in the Peter Radford article convincing.

And we can discuss methods and pacing all we want, but the simple answer to the OP, "is Roger Bannister really the 1st sub-4-miler," is "yes."

These running stories about amazing things people did in training, or when no one was looking, or when there was no official clock, are all false.

Suisse wrote:

Funny, I found absolutely nothing in the Peter Radford article convincing.

And we can discuss methods and pacing all we want, but the simple answer to the OP, "is Roger Bannister really the 1st sub-4-miler," is "yes."

These running stories about amazing things people did in training, or when no one was looking, or when there was no official clock, are all false.

Absolutely and precisely correct.

Thanks for posting the article .

This definitely fills the gap and tells us that old days runners had very impressive speed . I am aware of frequent bets when runners were racing against horses etc.

As for claims regarding records , we have to take them with a grain of salt but accept possibility .

Another thing comes to mind - how much faster racing on straight street is, comparing to racing on oval ?

gear junkie wrote:

Another thing comes to mind - how much faster racing on straight street is, comparing to racing on oval ?

A lot faster potentially, especially if there is a following wind and it's slightly downhill. Not to mention course measurement accuracy.

wellnow wrote:

gear junkie wrote:

Another thing comes to mind - how much faster racing on straight street is, comparing to racing on oval ?

A lot faster potentially, especially if there is a following wind and it's slightly downhill. Not to mention course measurement accuracy.

Exactly. Any really fast 18th and 19th century pedestrian performances on roads pretty much have to be assumed to likely be both downhill and wind-aided performances. The key to running on an oval is that you negate the possibility of both these advantages.

Camoo wrote:

There's zero percent chance that Cunningham ran a sub-4:00 mile.

So running a 4:04 indoor on a 160yd track would give him "zero" chance of running under 4 outdoors? Not sure I agree with you. In addition, if he had a real foot and all the muscles of his right calf he no doubt would have been the first under 4 regardless of the myth.

old tymer wrote:

Any really fast 18th and 19th century pedestrian performances on roads pretty much have to be assumed to likely be both downhill and wind-aided performances. The key to running on an oval is that you negate the possibility of both these advantages.

Why would one have to assume that a fast performance in an earlier century must have been on a downhill and wind-aided course? It's not as though these guys were members of a slower species. And if they were professionals, they may very well have trained a lot more than Bannister claimed to train.

Although I agree that running on an oval lessens the likelihood of a wind-aided performance, running in the aerodynamic shadow of other runners or other windbreaks at 4-minute mile pace on an oval track can provide the equivalent of a tailwind of up to approximately fifteen miles per hour in energy savings (the precise calculations are not straightforward), so a decision to accept a performance aided by 15-mph windbreaks as legitimate and reject a performance aided by (for example) 10-mph tailwinds (or 0.5% downhill grades) as illegitimate is not based on the extent to which the runner has been aided. As I said before, the biggest problem with strict anti-pacing rules has been the very pragmatic problem of enforcement. If all runners were like John Landy, it probably wouldn't be a problem at all.

Drafting at a 4-minute pace (15mph running speed)provides the net effect of a 15mph tail wind?!? I don't buy that for a second. Have you never run in a 15mph wind?

As for the ins and outs of the pre-modern running scene, kindly take a few months to read 60 or 80 years worth of the sporting journals of the day (I have), then come back for a discussion.

Avocados Number wrote:

Why would one have to assume that a fast performance in an earlier century must have been on a downhill and wind-aided course? It's not as though these guys were members of a slower species.

This is the gist of the argument. Not only were they not a slower species, as a general rule, people whose lives depend on it, typically run faster than people who do it for sport. Old tymer and his ilk steadfastly hang onto the notion that Bannister was the one and only - and the best part - he's one of us!

By eliminating the real athletes in Europe with archaic rules, bending those same archaic rules to allow Bannister his shot and then proudly proclaiming his accomplishment is borderline hysterical.

Was Bannister the first to break 4 minutes in the mile? No way in hell. Was Bannister the first to run under 4 minutes in the mile under AAA rules? Absolutely yes.

So old tymer keep up the good work defending Roger's honor but surely you understand why your argument rings so hollow to many of us.

My very simple answer is: do the research. Do the serious research. And then make up your mind.