Jim Ryun: What could have been?

coach simmons is that you?i recall being a younger lad, and remember seeing mrs. ryun on some god-squad show, like the 700 club or similar and mrs. ryun said "satan tripped jimmy". her comment was very enlightening.

satan here.... wrote:

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.

Tardis Runner wrote:

I ran with Bob Schul in 1967 and 1968. Many of our workouts were on the UC track.It was a pitted crumbling mess. Bob believes that the differance between that track and a MONDO surface is 2 seconds per lap. Cordner Nelson says the same thing. So do the math and see what his 3:51.3 would be today.

Consider the source. Bob Schul wants his times, slow by today's standards, to seem faster, perhaps to you, perhaps to himself. Please, let's be realistic.

No doubt a mondo surface is faster than cinder but no, not by 2 seconds per lap. And certainly not in a mile-long race. Ryun's 3:51 is nowhere near the equivalent of a 3:43 mile. El Gerrouj's record run would have COMPLETELY blown him off the track.

Just wonder if anyone would include Daniel Komen in this list...

Peace.

Definitionally we can only know someone's potential retrospectively (cf. Heidegger, II of Being and Time), meaning that "potential" can only be talked about as a hard quantity once the person has ceased competing (or maybe cf. Sartre, on autobiography in 'existentialism is a humanism). Therefore, Ryun inherently reached his potential. 3:51 was his potential. One can argue that without the Olympic fall he could have won a gold, but one cannot argue that his potential, time-wise, was greater than what he actually achieved.

Fargo wrote:

Just wonder if anyone would include Daniel Komen in this list...

Peace.

I thought about it but it didn't seem completely relevant because he was more of a 3k/5k guy. But he ran his best 3000m time at 20 and best 1500/mile/5000 times (3:29/3:46/12:39) at the age of 21. This was followed by years of miserable performances (for him) like finishing 10-15th in golden leagues in 13:10-13:30. He kept at it until he was almost 30. I've heard overtraining played a part in it.

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

I thought about it but it didn't seem completely relevant because he was more of a 3k/5k guy. But he ran his best 3000m time at 20 and best 1500/mile/5000 times (3:29/3:46/12:39) at the age of 21. This was followed by years of miserable performances (for him) like finishing 10-15th in golden leagues in 13:10-13:30. He kept at it until he was almost 30. I've heard overtraining played a part in it.

So you eliminated him because his data didn't match your preferred conclusion? Good statistical procedure there Geoffrey.

I have seen these "two seconds per lap" numbers cited to calculate the difference between old and modern tracks, and ....come on, already. The guy would still have to be physiology capable of running that much faster. It comes down to a half-second improvement for every 100 meters. I'm not buying it.

I don't think 8:26 for two miles 45 years ago was slow. Even by today's standards.Considering it was set on a dirt track with a distinct rut in lane one.

Gordon Pirie was the first runner to break 13:40 for the 5k in 1955. That barrier at the time was considered almost unbreakable. So yes 13:36 is now considered slow. It is all relative.

The point is that track surface makes a significant difference in time.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

I thought about it but it didn't seem completely relevant because he was more of a 3k/5k guy. But he ran his best 3000m time at 20 and best 1500/mile/5000 times (3:29/3:46/12:39) at the age of 21. This was followed by years of miserable performances (for him) like finishing 10-15th in golden leagues in 13:10-13:30. He kept at it until he was almost 30. I've heard overtraining played a part in it.

So you eliminated him because his data didn't match your preferred conclusion? Good statistical procedure there Geoffrey.

Nope, I eliminated him because unlike every single other man on that list, he was not predominantly a miler. Jim Ryun was a miler. This thread is mostly about his potential over 1500 and the mile. Try and keep up.

On the Grid wrote:

Definitionally we can only know someone's potential retrospectively (cf. Heidegger, II of Being and Time), meaning that "potential" can only be talked about as a hard quantity once the person has ceased competing (or maybe cf. Sartre, on autobiography in 'existentialism is a humanism). Therefore, Ryun inherently reached his potential. 3:51 was his potential. One can argue that without the Olympic fall he could have won a gold, but one cannot argue that his potential, time-wise, was greater than what he actually achieved.

Haha alright this is getting philosophical: what is potential? I think the definition your books are giving is something arrived at in a very philosophical way and is different from common usage of the term. They say potential is only what winds up happening later on.

I think the way people sometimes use the term is "what could have been (had a few variables changed)?". This may be harder to make precise philosophically, but it definitely is aptly applied to people like Ngeny. It's easy to ask (we are COMPELLED to ask) how good would he have been had he not been in a CAR ACCIDENT? (You open up a hole philosophers could dive into with that Olympic fall statement.) It's definitely harder to apply to Ryun's career because the questions of overtraining etc are harder variables to switch mentally than a thing like a car accident. But that's why this thread is so interesting.

On the Grid wrote:

Definitionally we can only know someone's potential retrospectively (cf. Heidegger, II of Being and Time), meaning that "potential" can only be talked about as a hard quantity once the person has ceased competing (or maybe cf. Sartre, on autobiography in 'existentialism is a humanism). Therefore, Ryun inherently reached his potential. 3:51 was his potential. One can argue that without the Olympic fall he could have won a gold, but one cannot argue that his potential, time-wise, was greater than what he actually achieved.

What if I run a 4:01 mile in pouring rain off of 20 miles a week with no competition with a 53 second last lap at age 16, on cinders. Is my potential 4:01? I am a 4:01 miler but CLEARLY that isn't my potential.

That's an extreme example, but Jim Ryun running 3:51 with a 54 second last lap on cinders with no competition at age 19 or 20ish shows his potential was at least sub 3:50.

The point is, Jim Ryun was the best in the world, and ran to win. He could have run much faster if her (1) ran on a cinder track, (2) had a rabbit to pace him, and (3) had more time to mature as a runner.

On the World Junior list, note that both Webb and Ngeny eventually ran about 7 seconds faster (3:46/3:43). If you could give Ryun those 7 seconds and get him on a Mondo surface, that would be something. However, it's likely that he was simply closer to his peak at 19 and that the way that he was trained was not going to allow him to run that much faster. Perhaps he could have been as fast as El G had he begun to train more like El G from that point on (and had the rabbits and the surface). He had the raw speed and the 800 speed. But he didn't do the long runs or long tempos or get the rest he needed to max out (correct me if I'm wrong about the first two).

There must be some data about relative times for different surfaces as many people in the past would run on a variety of tracks. In high school, I ran on a cinder home track as well as asphalt, all-weather at leagues and so forth. I ran my fastest times on the cinder track. So, I doubt that there is a huge difference, considering that you're running in spikes and therefore not sliding backwards much with every step. Data?

This should give some indication:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/2139/full

Bob Schul was not as far off as some people want to think... nor was Jim Ryun. It's not just track hardness, but also compliance (particularly with the track at Harvard, but also with Mondo Super-X), and spike technology (how much faster would Ryun have been in the same 3.2 ounce Victory's that Lagat wore in Osaka07).

nice job, Coach D. I set my (college) mile pr on that Harvard indoor track. No question that's a fast facility. 2.9% is a big difference though and none of the fast pre-Mondo runners went there and ran 7 second mile pr's, right?

The Chairman Of The Boards. That's Coghlan, not Lagat. The only Masters sub-4 was run on that track, and the time has never been seriously threatened (by Eamonn or anybody else, including outdoors) on any other track in the world.

I'm not sure how many professionals have run on that track in PB shape (no money/professional meets), but the University athlete results are likely statistically significant.

time machine wrote:

Ryun's 3:51 is nowhere near the equivalent of a 3:43 mile. El Gerrouj's record run would have COMPLETELY blown him off the track.

I completely reject that statement. So many strange happenings surrounding the 3:51 that it was worth well under 3:50 by 1967 standards. Probably sub 3:45 with today's tracks, equipment, pacing, etc.

Ryun vs. ElG a matchup to excite the mind.

For God's sake, can't we just appreciate Jim Ryun for what he DID accomplish instead of always trying to turn it into a negative?

looked up a summary of Ryun's training, some of the interval times don't seem right:

Track season

All runs are finished with kicking the legs in

the pool to loosen the muscles and enhance flexibility.

Averaging about 110 miles per week with most of it at a fast pace.

Standard Warmup

1320m, with 800m rec. 2 x 600m with 4:00 for run and recovery. 4 x 300m with 3:00 for run and recovery, then 800m recovery jog. 6 x 100m sprints, then 8 x 60 m sprints.

4 x 200m steep hill sprinting to practice sprinting when tired.

Warmdown

20 x 400m in 62.5 seconds

Cross Country training of Jim Ryun:

Averaging about 88 miles per week with most of it at a fast pace.

Saturday 16.5 miles at 6:07 pace

Sunday 5 miles easy jogging after church

Monday 20 minute standard warmup (1 mile jog, stretching, 4 x 120 yards, 4 x 60 yards) Mile in 4:23, 3 x 800m in 2:45, 4 x 400m in 69 sec, with 3 minutes for each run and recovery)

Tuesday Standard Warmup 6 x 1500m in 5:02 with 3 minutes rec. 6 x 800m in 2:49

2.5 mile warmdown

Wednesday A.M. 4 miles easy PM. Standard Warmup

4 x (8 x 400m) Averaging 71, 70, 70, 68 for each set of 8. In between each set he jogged a mile for his rest period.

Standard Warmdown

Thursday AM 3 miles easy P.M. Standard Warmup

3 x (10 x 200m) 30, 30, 33. Rec. 2.5 minutes rest

for run an recovery.

2.5 mile warmdown