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

The whole point I was making is that you accused someone of not being able to read, when they were actually right about what you were saying. If you don't think that it EVER provides a complete wind block then why would you bother saying "up to 15mph"? Now that you've given several posts explaining it I think you're mostly correct, but the original post was so vague/poorly worded that it's pretty stupid to accuse someone of having poor reading comprehension, simply because they couldn't immediately fathom its extremely well-hidden meaning.

First, I apologize for extending this inane thread at all.

Second, Mr. Avocado has twisted himself into knots over what is, in reality, a complete non-issue.

The big issue for him is the following: He likes Landy more than Bannister. Or, to be more precise, he likes Landy's do-it-alone running style more than Bannister's calculated, team-paced effort.

On this, who's going to argue? I happen to agree.

The problem is that Avocado can't just let an honest opinion stand on its own. He feels the need to elevate Landy, and to reduce Bannister, by repeatedly and dishonestly implying (or flat-out stating) that Bannister's run was (or should be) illegitimate. This is a foolish ploy, doomed to failure. It also makes Mr. A look like a nit-picking, argumentative fool.

In the course of attempting to make the argument that Bannister's performance was, or should be considered, illigimate, he has brought up the whole drafting thing. Mr. A. is claiming, in part at least, two basic things:

1. drafting can confer a large performative advantage (he is entirely unclear how how large, but we all agree that it does confer some actual advantage)

2. Since drafting confers an advantage, it is essentially "like" all sorts of other things that could give some performative advantage, such as a downhill course, or (in the case of a straight-line course) a significant tail wind.

Argument #1 is intended to discredit Bannister's performance, since we all know (and have always known) that it was a paced effort for the first 3 laps. Argument #2 is intended to discredit Bannister's performance by making it somehow more likely that "a four minute mile" was run by someone, somewhere, at some prior time.

Argument #1 turns out not to be an argument at all, since it is common knowledge.

Argument #2 is yet another useless red herring designed to make us lose track of the real issues at hand. In fact, drafting is a fundamental part of EVERY race not run in lanes. In every such race, every runner except the leader is, for at least a portion of the distance, benefitting from drafting to some degree. We have all seen distance races in which the winner leads for only the last 50 yards or even only the last 10 yards--in such cases, that winner has "drafted" just about the entire distance. Is their victory illegitimate? Of course not. So the historical question about drafting was always one of intentionality--for a while, it was against the rules to use blatant pace-setters. But--and this is key--that rule was never rigorously enforced, and it played no role in Bannister's race. Was Bannister's 3:59.4 a paced run? Of course: we all know it was. Was this ever an issue with the authorities of the day: NO, not then and not now.

Mr. A.'s further arguments that the advantage of pacesetter is somehow "like" a downhill or wind-aided course are bogus. From the standpoint of pure competition, downhill or wind-aiding are not issues: all runners benefit equally. From the standpoint of TIME, they matter a great deal. However, it is wonderfully easy to control for these variables: you pick a circular course, which negates the benefit of wind direction and the downhill thing in one fell swoop. That is why times run on a track are intrinsically more meaningful than times run on a straight-line road course.

One could go on and on, but it's really just a foolish exercise.

Let's all agree that Landy was a great athlete and a courageous competitor. And let's all agree that he and Bannister were different personalities with different approaches. Most importantly, however, let's quit pretending that Bannister's mark is somehow illigimate.

It isn't.

No, he was not right about what I said, and neither were you. My original post was not vague or poorly worded; it was very precisely worded. If a reader cannot "immediately fathom" the meaning of a very precisely worded statement, he should refrain from criticizing it until he understands it and considers whether he actually disagrees with it. I doubt that either of you disagree with what I actually said. It may be that we have a disagreement about something else, like whether Bannister's time trial or Landy's race should have been recognized as a world record or accorded a certain historical prominence, but we can have that discussion without having our statements misrepresented.

I would have to believe that with the scrutiny involved with this effort, he would have to be credited with the first sub 4:00 no matter whether it was a time trial, a 'real race' or an Olympic final. I have read his work and heard him speak and he is as ethical a gentleman as you are likely to come across.

I don't doubt there were others capable at or before the 1954 first sub 4:00, but the debate is moot and he deserves the glory and the credit.

old tymer wrote:

First, I apologize for extending this inane thread at all.

. . .

Was Bannister's 3:59.4 a paced run? Of course: we all know it was. Was this ever an issue with the authorities of the day: NO, not then and not now.

. . .

let's quit pretending that Bannister's mark is somehow illigimate.

It isn't.

You don't need to apologize for extending this thread. You can simply choose to stop extending it. It's not as though anyone other than you and me cares about whether you call me foolish, argumentative, nit-picking, and dishonest one or two more times.

As I've pointed out, there has been considerable debate about whether Bannister's assisted sub-4 should have been ratified as a world record, and whether a similar performance by another runner from another country or culture would have been treated the same way:

You obviously have your own opinion about that. Others have different opinions. It's not particularly fruitful for you to repeatedly assert that your opinion is the only right one, and other opinions are foolish. It's also not particularly fruitful for you to assert that no one ever ran a sub-4 before Bannister's assisted sub-4 because there's no unimpeachable documentation of an earlier sub-4 that met whatever standards were applied to Bannister's run. The original poster was obviously looking beyond those constraints, as others realized in providing information about claims of earlier sub-4 miles.

Why is this thread still going on?

because it's interesting - and because history can be re-written...

Someone touched on this before: I can buy everything the original article claims in terms of the days of yore being equipped in terms of measurement and desire to run an accurate sub-four mile (and I am talking "FULL" mile here).

However, the troubling part for me is that in the "modern" progression of the mile (say the 1900's on), we see well trained, dedicated, runners who time after time could not do it.

We had level tracks, better shoes, good competition yet for some reason no one could officially do it until Bannister?

How did the professionals in the 1700's do it? The argument seems to be that they were running for money, and the talent pool was broader - therefore they could do what no other "amateur" could do from 1900 until Bannister.

That seems very unlikely. In the 1700s the talent pool would only have been expanded to other western Europeans. Well that was no different than most of the 1900s. As for the racing for money argument - do we really think that this made all the difference? It overcame a lack of knowledge on things like training and nutrition?

It just doesn't add up.

I suppose there is a parallel to art and literature in the dark ages, but still, I just can't overcome the idea that they knew something we didn't, and we all forgot about it until Bannister/Landy showed up.