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

Er... wrote:

Seriously, what is your basis for this ludicrous statement? Highly unlikely why?

Many, many mediocre runners have run sub-4 miles on downhill roads and courses over the years, and it is highly likely that some of them did so before Roger Bannister ran the first assisted sub-4 on a quarter-mile track and before John Landy ran the first unassisted sub-4 on a quarter-mile track. Perhaps others ran sub-4 miles on level but wind-aided courses, which would more closely approximate Bannister's feat.

I'm not suggesting that any earlier downhill, wind-aided, or other sub-4 miles on something other than a quarter-mile track were equal to Bannister's or Landy's performance. I don't know, and neither does anyone else here. The point is simply that it's silly to state that Bannister was the first sub-4 miler simply because "old tymer" or even the McWhirters' "Guinness Book of World Records" says so. By some reasonable standards, John Landy was the first. By other standards, Roger Bannister was the first. By the standards of 19th-century professional pedestrians or Kenyan villagers, perhaps someone else was the first. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to ask, as the original poster did, whether Bannister was really the first sub-miler.

For those who are not familiar with it, here's another view of the whole Bannister-Landy matter:

http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2004/may/02/its-all-about-teamwork/

Actually my great grandfather was said to have run under 4 minutes for the mile. In WWI, while approaching the enemy, they became surrounded, and there was only one way out. Former soldiers later stated that he "ran back to base so fast...and was there in less than 5 minutes." Base was 1 1/4 miles away.

Wy is it that you have so much hate for Cunningham? Did he dosomething to a relative? Tere are two stories that circulate in ref. to Glen and the 4:04 at dartmouth. The official story is that the record was disallowed due to pacing. I think it was an overzealous Masters guru who said years later that it was due to an oversized track. Regardless, it is fair to say it was not a 440 yd oval and was therefor slower than an outdoor mile. Some stat people give a 2.5 sec allowance for indoor to outdoor conversion, if that is the case, you have a guy that ran = to 4:01.5 indoors in 1938 and yet you claim "zero chance he could run 4". Any explanation for why you are so strong in your convictions??? I'm not saying that Cunningham did in fact run a 4:00 despite the fact that some say he did, I'm just saying there is a possibility.

Actually some 100 fleeing Spartans, having been soundly defeated by the the Thebans at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC, were known to have covered the 8 stadia (1 mile) from the battlefield to the protection of their camp in 3:58. They were so timed by Nemothelementes (One of the famous Thelementes brothers), an impartial Athenian observer of the battle. He used his ultra accurate water clock to time the fleeing soldiers.

Why is it that when someone suggests that it would be nice if there were actual EVIDENCE to back up claims about Person X, he is then accused of "hating" Person X?

I have no feelings about Cunningham one way or the other. But the solid evidence is not there, and there is no "race" in which he truly came close to 4:00. But these supposed conversions just don't wash. They're theoretical at best.

I honestly don't understand why this discussion is even going any further. One could dispute the conditions under which Bannister ran 3:59.4 all you want. But the answer to the question of who ran the first sub-4:00 mile is "Bannister."

Sorry Camoo I thought it was you who said there was "0 percent chance Cunningham ever ran 4:00 for the mile" And despite his "conversion time" of 4:01.5 for the mile, and in his own words a claim that he did indeed run 4:00 once, you point out that there is ZERO evidence. Now you don't have to believe him and you don't have to accept the indoor mile world record, but please don't say you didn't say what you said and that there is ZERO evidence.

Gosh Ray, you're confused and you're wasting our time and everyone else's.

People can claim all kinds of things. We've all known runners who did that.

In any case, I've never heard of ANY performance set in "practice" that qualifies as a record...not even for field events.

It's Bannister all the way on this 4:00 thing. It's time for this thread to stop now.

OK I'll back off now, there's no way to make sense of any of your posts. I believe the question was who ran the first four minute mile. I would assume everyone knows that it was Bannister, but obviously the question was asked to solicit a response. I responded that Cunningham may have. His performance at Dartmouth was not a practice....

The criteria or question also did not state whether it was on an official track or had pace makers, or whether it was even in an official race. If Bannister is the answer to the question, then why pose it? The second post should be BANNISTER and then end it. So in one sense you are right...... why debate anything? Just ask the great Camoo and wait for his response.

I too have nothing against Cunningham and, if you look at what he did after his running career was over, there's an awful lot of reason to have the utmost respect for him. On that note, a question: did Cunningham himself claim to have run a sub-four minute mile, or did someone make the claim on his behalf? I always thought it was the latter.

pvs wrote: Actually my great grandfather was said to have run under 4 minutes for the mile.

Good story! Sure Bannister was the first but there are more good efforts and stories out there.

My favorite was printed in SI many years ago and took place in Honolulu in the early '50's.

Per my recolection of the article:

A guy who had graduated from HS needed money to fix his car. He was a sprinter and surfer so was in great shape. He bet his friends he'd run naked down the main street of Honolulu on a Sat. night for one mile, which they had measured.

He stashed clothes at the finish. At the appointed time he striped and donned a gorilla mask then jumped out into the busy sidewalk. Just mask and shoes. The guy writing the story said he looked at his watch at the start as he tried to follow as best he could. People were jumping out of his way and the police sirens were howling but the police couldn't get him because of the traffic.

At the finish he ducked into the alley and the writer, who was following from a distance, said his second hand was sweeping past the 3:55 mark.

The runner put on his hidden clothes and was never caught. He got his money to fix his car but it took him several months to recover from his effort.

Did he go under 4? Quite possibly, but still a good story.

There's no way to make any sense of MY posts? Ray, you didn't tell me you're a professional comedian. You're hilarious.

Now go away. Please. we both have better things to do,

Er... wrote:

I too have nothing against Cunningham and, if you look at what he did after his running career was over, there's an awful lot of reason to have the utmost respect for him. On that note, a question: did Cunningham himself claim to have run a sub-four minute mile, or did someone make the claim on his behalf? I always thought it was the latter.

As I recall (this memory is about thirty years old), Cunningham's coach had him run a time trial before a big race, and the coach told him that he had run under four minutes. Cunningham believed it, and later stated on a number of occasions that he had, in fact, run a sub-4. Many years later, a teammate revealed that Cunningham had been nervous about the upcoming race, so his coach had him run a time-trial, and gave Cunningham splits and a finishing time that were faster than what he had actually run in order to bolster his confidence; the actual time was at least a few seconds over 4:00. The coach told him not to tell anyone about his sub-4 time trial. I remember an interview in which Cunningham, as an old man, said that he had actually run a sub-4 mile; the interviewer, as I recall, didn't take the bait and delicately sidestepped that old story.

Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

He did sponsor legislation creating a number of key elements of it.

Camoo wrote:

There's no way to make any sense of MY posts? Ray, you didn't tell me you're a professional comedian. You're hilarious.

Now go away. Please. we both have better things to do,

For a guy who wanted this ended back on page one and has better things to do, you're certainly pretty good at dragging this out. You're still at it and the thread is now on page 5. For what it's worth I don't understand your point either.

There was a story in Track and Field News, I can't remember when, which says almost exactly what you've written here. I believe the story added that Cunningham believed to his dying day that he had run under four minutes for the mile.

If you think about masters racing, we have a sort of reverse situation. Everyone knows that it is possible for a guy who's over forty to run a mile in under four minutes because Eamon Coughlin did it. But because the race in which he ran the time didn't meet the standards for a masters record Coughlin is not the over forty world record holder.

I'm partial to the idea that Landy was the first to run under four in a legitimate race. But it would have been very difficult not to have Bannister's time recognized given the high level of interest in the sub four mile. And I'd bet that if the time had never been recognized and Landy became the first mile record holder in the book with a sub four time, Bannister's place in history would be no different than it is now.

It's "Coghlan."

Camoo wrote:

Why is it that when someone suggests that it would be nice if there were actual EVIDENCE to back up claims about Person X, he is then accused of "hating" Person X?

I have no feelings about Cunningham one way or the other. But the solid evidence is not there, and there is no "race" in which he truly came close to 4:00. But these supposed conversions just don't wash. They're theoretical at best.

I honestly don't understand why this discussion is even going any further. One could dispute the conditions under which Bannister ran 3:59.4 all you want. But the answer to the question of who ran the first sub-4:00 mile is "Bannister."

Nicely put. One can "prefer" Landy's style and personality to Bannisters--and, as I stated above, that's not hard to do, as I myself do!--but it has nothing to do with historical fact and chronology.

And, in terms of all the "might have beens," we're in very dangerous territory when we make no genuine effort to separate what "might have happened" or what is historically "possible" from what is factually provable. It's all to easy to make assertions out of nothing--"A woman in Peru made the first heavier-than-air flight in an airplane in 1763"--and then to dare everyone else to disprove it. That's an utterly pointless exercise: the burden of proof must remain on the one making the assertion in the first place.

It also is necessary to define one's terms with some rigor, so that "running a four-minute mile" actually does correlate with how we now understand that term. And there are more assumptions built into that phrase than we might think. By any sensible definition of that idea, once again, the first historical instance must be dated to Iffley Road, Oxford, May 1954. But it seems so foolish to even have to say this, since we all know this already.

I didn't say that drafting at a 4-minute pace provides the net effect of a 15-mph tailwind. I said that running in the aerodynamic shadow of other runners or other windbreaks at 4-minute pace can provide the equivalent of a tailwind of up to approximately 15 mph in energy savings. It's that reading comprehension thing again.

Drafting, by definition, is "running in the aerodynamic shadow." Saying that someone gets the equivalent of a 15mph tailwind by drafting is exactly the same as saying that running in the "aerodynamic shadow" gives "energy savings" of up to 15mph. Running in a 15mph tailwind when you're running 15mph means there is no wind pushing on you in either direction. a "15mph savings" when you're running 15mph in calm weather would average out to the exact same thing mathematically. It's a physics thing: 15mph push to the left+15mph push to the right=no net push in either direction.

That said, have you drafted off (excuse me, "run in the aerodynamic shadow of") anyone before? It doesn't provide anything resembling a complete wind block. I have no scientific data to back up this number, but as a guesstimate I would say that, in calm conditions, drafting at 4:00 pace is only going to cut about 5mph off the wind you have to fight. It's a definite advantage (whether it's a fair advantage I'll leave everyone else to debate), but drafting certainly does not eliminate all wind.