Peter Snell 800 WR on Grass

+1 for venty is a retard.

epopians wrote - among other very stupid things...:

When he set his 3:54.1 WR he went through laps of 56.6, 1:54.4 (57.8) & 2:54.6(60,2) and then dragged himself through a last lap of 59.6!! His last 800m was c. 2:00

"It was was mechanical desperation running, completely without inspiration", said Snell.

Cinder track or not, a guy with a 3:48 potential doesn't run almost a minute for the last quarter off a 2:54.6 three quarters.

And Ryun was never capable of 3:27. Your conversion from cinder to synthetic is completely unfounded. 1 sec per lap is ridiculous. Over 25 laps on a wet, poor dirt track, maybe, but certainly not over 4 laps on a well kept, hard track.

My gosh this fella is stupid.

Ryun's 1500 (with a 2:46 last 1200) was run on a piece of shite dirt track that was not well-kept and was in fact chewed up. (Never mind his solo 3:51.1 in which he says he was just cruising, never felt winded, and was busy hopping around looking for purchase on the sandy, poorly maintained track)

Snell's comments after his 2nd mile WR don't reflect his potential, of course you take them out of context. Snell said he was wiped out after his double at the OG's just a few days earlier. Kee-rist you're thick.

No one will ever know what Ryun was fully capable of, just as we will never know how fast Kipketer, Snell, Coe, Cruz and a few others would have run if all met in peak condition chasing a perfect rabbit.

Maybe epiopian gets a few points for points for being smart enough to realize that some of the elite E. Africans are juiced.

Bloody POM's, for the most they're useless.

It always amazes me how things get twisted through word of mouth and become part of athletic folklore! Were you there when he ran his 3:33.1 WR? I very much doubt it. One man who was there was Cordner Nelson (Editor of T&FN). He said, and I quote, "It was hot down on the floor of the Coliseum, but the track had been resurfaced and it seemed fast." (P.329, "The Milers")

How does that equate with "piece of shite dirt track"? Didn't the Americans send men onto the moon a couple of years later? Don't you think they were incapable of giving their top runner the best conditions possible for a WR run in the LA Olympic arena?

As for his last 1200m being run in 2:46, I've seen it listed as 2:46.6, 2:47.7 and 2:48.7, so there seems a little disagreement on that one.

I have the utmost respect for Ryun as an athlete and he was surely capable of much faster, but for anyone to say he was capable of 6 seconds faster is ludicrous.

Umm! No. How can they be taken out of context when those were the exact words he said?

Taken from the book I referred to above:-

'With a lap and a half to go his legs began "to cry out for relief". He forced himself through the last lap, but his rhythm was gone, along with his energy reserve, his concentration, and his leg speed.........No matter how the crowd screamed, he could not increase his pace. "It was mechanical desperation running, completely without inspiration"........."It was one of the hardest last laps of my life", Snell said. "I felt so good beforehand.......my legs shouldn't have gone so dead later. They just wouldn't respond." '

Again, I consider Snell to be an all-time great, and he too would have been capable of faster, but to suggest he should have run 3:48 the day he ran 3:54.1, even on synthetic, is far too far fetched given the fact he could barely break 60 secs on the last lap. Even if you believe the 1 sec conversion (which I do not) and give him 2:51 at 3/4 rather than the 2:54 he went through, a 3:48 miler today wouldn't have struggled so off that pace.

As for being "wiped out after his double at the OG's just a few days earlier".

I think you want to get your facts straight first m8 before calling me thick!

The last race he ran in Tokyo was October 21st. His Mile record in Auckland was November 17! That's more than a few days,....it's a month!

moron

screw cordner

that track might have been "resurfaced & it seemed fast" at start of meet, but 1/2 dozen races into meet, this is how beat up lane 1 was :

read dirt-displacement physics from previous...

& 2'46.6 is what is recorded in '67 t&f

moron

see above & read previous

Umm! No. How can they be taken out of context when those were the exact words he said?

idiot

can't you understand simple fact snell went out 2s too fast on 1st lap & was dead by last lap ???

stoopid

read previous & look at history

even ovett when he broke mile wr coud only run barely 59s on synthetic on last lap

for snell to run 60s ( 59 on synthetic ) on dirt when completely fatigued by a 2s too fast 1st lap is awesome

moron screw cordner moron ummmm no! moron can't you understand stoopid

100% class as always ventolin

cordner is a 93y ex pig-farmer or some-such

he started the mag, but you going to go with that background credentials as the most incisive ???

ventolin^2 wrote:

cordner is a 93y ex pig-farmer or some-such

he started the mag, but you going to go with that background credentials as the most incisive ???

I suppose if he farmed wabbits you'd have the utmost respect for him. This may actually be your dumbest post among an avalanche of them.

epopians wrote: Again, I consider Snell to be an all-time great, and he too would have been capable of faster, but to suggest he should have run 3:48 the day he ran 3:54.1, even on synthetic, is far too far fetched given the fact he could barely break 60 secs on the last lap. Even if you believe the 1 sec conversion (which I do not) and give him 2:51 at 3/4 rather than the 2:54 he went through, a 3:48 miler today wouldn't have struggled so off that pace.

As for being "wiped out after his double at the OG's just a few days earlier".

I think you want to get your facts straight first m8 before calling me thick!

The last race he ran in Tokyo was October 21st. His Mile record in Auckland was November 17! That's more than a few days,....it's a month!

Let's begin with an incontrovertible fact. Peter Snell was one of the greatest runners of all time.

Yes, he was maxed out during the Nov 64 WR mile, whether 3:54.1, or 3:54.03 FAT.

But ignoring hypotheticals about what if he hadn't retired so early, that wasn't the time for Snell's peak mile performance. It would have been Wanganui in 1962, a week prior to the all-time legendary 1:44.3. Given the way that race was run (60, 60, 60, 54), instead of 54,60,60,60, more even pacing would have yielded worthwhile dividends and certainly something better than 3:54.

Snell asserted to the interviewer Jack after the 880WR that it was a "better performance" than his mile, which he evidently considered relatively weak given the strength of the commentary.

It's not beyond the bounds of belief to think that Snell should have been the first sub 3:50 miler. But his short career, and the nature of the races, either major championships where the objective was to win, or small meets in NZ without meaningful competition, mitigated against the kind of performance achieved by Coe.

Remember Snell was already retired at the age at which Coe set his 800WR.

And remember to sign the petition...hurry, less than three years to go:

i will go and be bold and say this; jim ryan was prob a 3:30 guy in his prime with all the new tracks, pro money etc...and with the juice was just as good as el G, i dont doubt it for a second. he was pre-blood doping, pre EPO, pre juice, and pre-pro money running. its the money that changed everything

trackshark wrote:

Remember Snell was already retired at the age at which Coe set his 800WR.

And remember to sign the petition...hurry, less than three years to go:

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/petersnell/

What??

Snell retired in 1965 at the age of 26+ (he was dorn in Dec 1938).

Coe (born Sep 56) was 22 when he set his first 800m record in 1979!

You're only about 4 years out!!

Yes, I meant the 1:41.73, but that still makes it almost two years out.

No big deal. If we celebrate the legendary accomplishments of Peter Snell, it's a good day.

I never ran on a grass track, but have extensive experience with american tracks. The type that Ryun ran 3:51.1 are a terrible surface, no matter how many times the track is watered, dragged and rolled you cannot get rid of the layer of sand on the surface. This causes your foot to slide slightly before your spikes take hold and as you push off there is also a slight slip. People who have run on this surface understand what i am talking about, it is a very strange feeling. It actually takes some adjustment when you switch to an all weather surface.Running from the front with no competition I would run 3 to 4 seconds faster over 880 yds on the all weather track at UCLA every Saturday and then on the sandy/dirt track at LA Pierce on Wednesday nights i would be 3 seconds slower, week in week out all summer.

While it sounds like a stretch to say lack of an artificial track could cost a miler one second per lap,i believe it is a conservatitive estimate. at that speed efficiency is critical and the energy that is lost through poor footing would surprise anyone who has not experienced it.

there is a feeling of running on marbles, you slide, you get traction, then you slide again, then you repeat with the other leg :(

Ryun was defintely capable of a 3:48

i agree with spencer wrote:

i will go and be bold and say this; jim ryan was prob a 3:30 guy in his prime with all the new tracks

this is a severe under-estimate

his 3'33.1 wouda been ~ 3'30/3'31 if wabbited properly back in '67 on that track

with a '70s synthetic track with ~ 1s/lap adjustment for 3.75 laps, we are talking in the '70s of an

~ 3'26.25/3.27.25

he wasn't a 3'30 guy transported to a '70s track, he was more like a 3'27 one !!!

LOL, ventolin, you are killing me...you are calling Jim Ryun a 3:27 1500 meter runner.

You just keep 'em coming. I am laughing so hard. Thank you.

you are obviously too stoopid to follow simple logic

1) 46.5 / 2'46.6

initial 300m run at 3'52.5 pace

last 1200 run at 3'28.25 pace

12/15 or 4/5 of race run at 3'28.25 pace

that imples at worst he wouda run 1500 at 3'31 if he'd run it even pace from gun-to-tape & likely nearer 3'30

2) he ran it on dirt - see pic posted before

that offers ~ 1s/lap disadvantage or 3.75s for 1500m

do the math idiot...

One more fact to back up gaining over a second per lap on artificial track.

When Ryun was running few artifial tracks in the USA

In his prime he & Coach Timmons were diligent in preparation No surprises, everything on schedule blah blah

Terry Haute had a new artifial track and voila,

Ryun ripped a 1:44.9 WR(not official ustff so not recognized by AAU) down from a previous best of 1:47 something(over one second a lap)

Totally out of the blue, didnt expect it, wasnt training for a PR or WR. Was even sick blah blah.

He didnt pay any attention to his pacing or split because he didnt feel well so he just basically ran hard,

that would be the ultimate proof of superiority

he was not on schedule for that time, just ran as hard as he could and on an artificial track he dropped over a second a lap on his PR

As his others races on artificial surfaces were usually more tactical(mostly overseas)and the fact that you pace yourself more in a mile versus just running hard for two laps there is no reason to believe he could not achieve the same savings perlap that he did in the half mile

1 second per lap

ryun talking about that 880y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkTPCspfwCI

here he is talking about the 1500, run in 95F !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt8HIRvZNaM&feature=related

ventolin^2 wrote:

you are obviously too stoopid to follow simple logic

1) 46.5 / 2'46.6

initial 300m run at 3'52.5 pace

last 1200 run at 3'28.25 pace

12/15 or 4/5 of race run at 3'28.25 pace

that imples at worst he wouda run 1500 at 3'31 if he'd run it even pace from gun-to-tape & likely nearer 3'30

2) he ran it on dirt - see pic posted before

that offers ~ 1s/lap disadvantage or 3.75s for 1500m

do the math idiot...

I have no problem with the math, you moron...You utilize faulty premises, so the entire shenanigans is a house of cards, but you're too stupid to recognize your error. The math is simple, but when a simpleton furnishes erroneous premises, well, you'll end up as far off as you often are.

moron

show faulty premise