Jim Ryun: What could have been?

Nope, the writer contradicted himself in 14 words.

Professor Grif wrote:

Used Car Dealer wrote:

A couple small spelling and grammar errors, yes, but every word is spelled correctly.

Am I the only person confused by this sentence?

Living in the Past wrote:

most of them were pretty darn close to 25.

Bob Timmons got Ryun to reach his potential much earlier.

Ryun, due to being a psychological nut job, was not able to maintain it.

However, he certainly reached his potential.

sellout wrote:

Everytime I read or hear about Jim Ryun, I think what could have been. Obviously, he achieved a lot.

But he never achieved what he thought he could.

If you're thinking what could have been you're wasting a lot of time on nonsense. Chances are that no athlete of this high quality would ever think that he achieved as much as he wanted.

Look back on his career and marvel instead of wasting time wondering.

statistics wrote:

Bob Timmons got Ryun to reach his potential much earlier.

Ryun, due to being a psychological nut job, was not able to maintain it.

However, he certainly reached his potential.

So Timmons would have been an even greater coach had Ryun broken the world record at 16?

And if Ryun was a nut job, why was he ever able to reach the top of his event? Did he become a nut job at 22?

Living in the Past wrote:

[quote]statistics wrote:

And if Ryun was a nut job, why was he ever able to reach the top of his event? Did he become a nut job at 22?

he became a God-squad guy, got married and running was no longer #1 in his life.

You may have a point there.

Bob Timmons was a great coach long before Ryun came along.

When you hear people like Jim Ryun speak about running and they end up salting it with never ending mythological tales and preachings, it is frightening. It makes you appreciate American freedom and democracy, and your parents for raising you to be a rational person with values and common sense.

The other poster is right. In terms of time at least, milers tend to peak around 25...

Runner Approx Age at best 1500/mile performance

El G 24

Lagat 27

Morceli 25

Cacho 28

Baala 25

Ramzi 26

Niangabo24

Aouita 26

Cram 25

Coe 30 (23-25 too)

Webb 24

Ovett 28 (25-26 too)

Snell 26

Scott 26

(For Coe and Ovett, they ran their best 1500 times later in life but probably were in peak shape around '79-'81.)

Ngeny 22

Elliot 22

Ryun 20

For this reason I believe that Ngeny, Elliot and Ryun were the 3 most talented milers of all time. Ngeny was in a car accident after running 3:43 for the mile and winning Au. Elliot was so good he got bored with the sport and retired undefeated after winning the Olympics by ~3 seconds in a new world record. Ryun had mono/overtrained after running a poorly split 3:51 on a cinder track. Had they all been trained to a peak at 24-25, and put on a modern track with pacers, I think the mile world record could be sub 3:40. Maybe they peaked physically earlier then the rest, but I think it's far more likely that they could have ran faster had they been healthy+motivated and able to stay in the sport for a few more years.

I recall a number of guys that I ran against in high school - needed to shave by 11:00 AM - etc. Seems like many of these guys were also the ones who were balding as college freshmen and who were nearly hairless by graduation. It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility for some people on the pointing edge of the bell curve to reach physical maturation early, followed by the usual physical decline, but inline with their early rapid maturation.

Living in the Past wrote:

statistics wrote:

Bob Timmons got Ryun to reach his potential much earlier.

Ryun, due to being a psychological nut job, was not able to maintain it.

However, he certainly reached his potential.

So Timmons would have been an even greater coach had Ryun broken the world record at 16?

And if Ryun was a nut job, why was he ever able to reach the top of his event? Did he become a nut job at 22?

I don't know if I'd use the phrase "nut job." But having read his biography it's clear that his attitude toward running changed after Mexico City. His wife, earning a living, and his religion became his primary focus and that was not true prior to 1968.

I recall a quote from Cerutty to the effect that Elliott would have been even greater than he was but "his sex drive got the better of him."

HRE wrote:

His wife, earning a living, and his religion became his primary focus and that was not true prior to 1968.

He moved from Lawrence to Eugene, presumably because of the track scene. When he could no longer tolerate the allergens, he moved to Santa Barbara. Maybe track was not his ultimate priority after he married, but he was at least serious enough to move his young family around to places he thought would better suit his training.

Who should have been the outlier for peaking early? At what age should this person have peaked?

Living in the Past wrote:

HRE wrote:

His wife, earning a living, and his religion became his primary focus and that was not true prior to 1968.

He moved from Lawrence to Eugene, presumably because of the track scene. When he could no longer tolerate the allergens, he moved to Santa Barbara. Maybe track was not his ultimate priority after he married, but he was at least serious enough to move his young family around to places he thought would better suit his training.

everyone forgets that he ran a 3:52 mile in 1972, before the Olympics, in Toronto with no rabbits, a slow pace and fast finish. He was then 25 years old, NOT 19 or 20. At that time, no one had run faster except for himself.

He was definitely still serious about it. But from reading the bio it's clear that he was at least as focused, if not more so, on other things. It also seemed to me as I read it that the whole experience of Mexico City left such a bad taste that he wasn't completely sold on going through something like that again, though he wasn't completely sure that he didn't want to.

The thing is, when you're mentally past it you aren't going to run as well as when you were totally committed. Going back to Elliott, in one of Brian Lenton's books Lenton comments about "never seeing the best" of Elliott, referring to Elliott's early retirement. Elliott replies that people DID see the best of him; that once he'd won the gold and was married he just didn't have the desire to do what he'd have to do to do better than he'd done.

He talked about starting a comeback for the 1962 Commonwealth Games planning to race against Snell and then scrapping the idea because he recognized that he just didn't have the desire.

When people talk about Ryun fulfilling his potetnial the assumption is usually that he had more room for physicsl improvement. But if we use Elliott's criteria, we probably saw the best of Ryun.

Ok, so what would have happened if circumstances then are like they are now? He'd have had a fat shoe contract, probably done some commercials, given his level of celebrity, made loads of money in prize and appearance fees, and not had to worry about supporting his family. So maybe he stays in the sport for another decade and is the first under 3:50 with a gold at Munich. But who knows, maybe he overraces because he wants the money and is never as good as he was in 1967.

not washed up in 1969 wrote:

everyone forgets that he ran a 3:52 mile in 1972, before the Olympics, in Toronto with no rabbits, a slow pace and fast finish.

You forgot to mention that it was cold and wet and that the track was asphalt.

The question is whether the 3:52.8 in 1972 is better than the 3:51.1 on a cinder track in 1971, with the first two laps going by in around 2:00. Also, Ryun's 3:33.1 in 1967 was similarly a slow pace in the first two laps.

You fail to mention that Ryun's performances in 1971 and 1972 were surprisingly erratic. He would run 3:57 to win a race one week and then 4:09 the next to finish last. He even finished dead last behind Dave Bedford in the mile at the Crystal Palace in 1971. Ryun's time was 4:10 or something. But then he would run well the following week. We don't know which Ryun would have shown up at Munich in the final. One thing is certain. Vaasala's 800 time that year was 1:44.5 and Ryun's was 1:45.9.

Living in the Past wrote:

The question is whether the 3:52.8 in 1972 is better than the 3:51.1 on a cinder track in 1971

I meant 1967.

I didn't know Vasala ran so fast at 800. However, Ryun actually ran 1:45.2 at the OT in '72, after leading until the last 100m.

Can't say what would've happened at Munich had he not fallen in the heats, but the 3:52.8 indicated he was reaching peak fitness.

It would've been an exciting race with him, Vasala, and Keino.

I think if he had won at the '72 Games, history would remember him differently.

how many of the guys who peaked when they were ~25 ran a WR when they were 19?

Answer: None.

People who are exceptional when they are young, do not neccesarily become more exceptional when they are older.