Claytons 2:08

I believe it was a leaky valve and in his more recent autobiography Clarke wrote that he thinks he damaged it in the 10,000 at Mexico City.

Ruptured Mitral valve which left him tired most of the time. He had trouble doing much of anything without exhaustion. Heartrate would beat well over 220 x per minute walking up the stairs at work. I remember thinking at the time, "so much for max heart rate figures." Surgery must have been in the fall of '81, if I remember correctly. Again, it's been a long time.

just a short clip but a great one, Ron's 3 mile WR in London 1963

http://www.youtube.com/user/ARRISIPPY#p/u/17/ySjloM_ntic

and the 1966 CG 3 miles where Ron almost ran the legs off Kip Keino

http://www.youtube.com/user/ARRISIPPY#p/u/20/-90elrvZrg0

HRE wrote:

ray,

You see this sort of thinking here at LR all the time when people argue that Ryan Hall is a better marathoner than Shorter or Rogers were or Webb is a better miler than Ryun because he has a faster PR. I think it's a result of the over emphasis on times rather than placings in the sport today. .

This is a good interesting thread, but I've got to call you out on this one.

This thread is about the idolatry of two runners who did EXACTLY what you are claiming the letsun crowd did: they overemphasized times rather than placings, and reaped what they sowed: several great times/records, but no major championships between them. And let's be clear, this wasn't just bad luck or bad days. No, they are quoted as saying that records mattered more to them, or running the race purely, or how hard they trained.

You don't see the irony in your criticizing the "letsrun crowd" for exactly the attitude (and whose performances reflected that attitude) that two of your heroes had??

And let's also be honest about another thing: it is unfair to compare one athlete from one era against his peers, and another athlete from another against his peers when one era has a greater depth of great runners. The last 15 years, the era of the east and north african full assault on the sport, has had a much higher depth of top competitors than any other era. So let's factor that into any discussion of Hall or Ritz or whoever against runners of past eras (which works both ways: they get pulled to great times by those runners, but that depth also makes it a lot harder for them finish in the medals)

I have great respect for Clayton and Clarke, but I do think they blew it in championship races, and this shouldn't be an afterthought when assessing their greatness. Comparing their overall times AND championship records, they are so far behind the careers of Geb and Bekele, that it is not even funny. I know no one is arguing that point, but it seems people are reaching far into the past to find running idols who weren't 1/2 as good as the running idols you can look up and learn about right now. (again, I am not saying: forget those guys, because they ARE an inspiration. But do we need to pore through the archives to find role models or superstuds to learn about it? No, not at all).

HRE wrote:

I believe it was a leaky valve and in his more recent autobiography Clarke wrote that he thinks he damaged it in the 10,000 at Mexico City.

From what I recall, Clarke had a terrible diet, ate anything and everything.

I doubt the attitude caused any chronic condition, compared to his history of clogging his own arteries.

Sir Lancy walks into the room with his huge pecker and blows out the birthday candles before anyone can make a wish

Very nice!

I don't have a problem with anyone stating that the best runners in history are running today. Clarke himself recently mentioned that Mottram, for one, has to be considerably better than he, Clarke, was to compete today.

The admiration some of us have for Clarke and Clayton might be because they were "big names" when we were young, they have both written books, Clarke at least six and they worked full time jobs while they were competing.

Herb Elliott wrote the foreward to the John Gilmour book when he, Herb, was around sixty. In that foreward herb stated that he had a bit of difficulty following "current" runners exploits like a fan, but he could eagerly follow the exploits of the great age group runner, John Gilmour.

I never criticized anyone. I was responding to a specific comment that ray made and said generally that when people look at a guy like Kenny Moore and say what he did is irrelevant because people now are faster than he was they're overly fixated on times and have lost the idea that the idea is to win or place well. I have noticed that many people who make those sorts of claims haven't come close to running as fast as the people they're dismissing but that's sort of marginal to the point. There were no comments about Clarke or Clayton in that post at all.

For what it's worth I consider Shorter, Rodgers, and Ron Hill much better marathoners than I do Clayton because even though he was faster they won and placed well at many more major races than he did though I admire Clayton tremendously as well.

It's very difficult to compare athletes across eras but if you're doing it in athletics using times and distances is probably the worst way. An athlete can only compete against his contemporaries. Shorter, Snell, Ryun, etc. ran the times they needed to run to win the races they won. If Elliot had a 3:34 guy to beat in Rome there is no way to say he would or wouldn't have run 3:33. If Henry Rono had been born twenty years later he may well have run the times today's East Africans are running because that's what he'd need to do to be among the best. If Gebreselassie or Radcliffe had been born twenty years earlier they would not have run the times they've done now. There were certainly athletes then with their physical attributes but they would not have had the pacers or competitiors to push them to their current performances.

It's hard for me to believe that, given the benefits the pros receive nowadays, not the least of which are synthetic tracks, lots of aid stations and pacers, that Clarke and Clayton wouldn't be at or under 13:00, 27:00, and 2:06. But that's just me.

(Note to SLAL- yeah, they'd still be struggling for medals against the current Africans)

Clayton's marathon: 10000 m ratio is amazing and suggests the marathon-specific component of his training was as good as we've seen. I imagine he would've run an even faster marathon if he had replaced just a few of those tempos with some long reps, ala Geb. I know he wrote that he did the occasional 4 x 1 mile, but as his training log showed, he didn't do those often.

When you're hammering 12-17 mile runs at 5:00 pace, you've pretty much got the marathon specific angle covered. I doubt he'd have run much faster with long reps, if anything a little more recovery in his schedule might have been the key ingredient.

I'm not going to chime in on the current guys/past guys debate; I just want to say that the type of training Clarke did is really fascinating to me. Lots of good, solid training runs at the "right pace" for the day- maybe 4:50/mile on afternoon, maybe only 5:30/mile another- but no sweat either way.

Mark Nenow was similar, I believe, and of course, there have been lots of other runners who did comparable training. As a guy who enjoys doing interval workouts, though, I find it tough to imagine dropping them completely!

Clarke ran 27.39 on a very rough track. The 27.39 was virtually a time trial as he was laps in front. He had to run much of it in lanes 2 and 3 because lane one was too cut up.

So way back in the 60s this guy ran what probably would have been a 27.10-15 time on modern tracks and did it solo. He was a self coached, self managed runner with a family and a full time job.

The best Kenyans and Ethiopians of the late 80s and early 90s weren't really any faster despite being full time runners with coaches and managers.

His Olympic record included a bronze medal but his best chance for gold would have been in 68.

Unlike Gamoudi he had very limited opportunity to experience altitude training and racing.

His Commonwealth Games performance in 1966 was 2 silvers, the 2 men to beat him were Olympic gold medallists, no shame there.

He raced everyone,anywhere,anytime at any distance.His win/loss ratio was amazing.

More importantly than his amazing athletic feats is the fact he is a great man who spends his time doing as much for people as he can.

His heart issue had nothing to do with diet. It was most likely a hereditary weakness. The problem was probably triggerd by his Mexico City 10000m when he collapsed. He says he was never the same runner after that day.

His brother Jack, a great footballer, had a pacemaker by his 60s. Jack bacame an age group triathlon champion with his pacemaker. Unfortunately Jack died some years back.

This confirms my suspicion on the talent level of these guys. It makes sense to me, since in the 50's and 60's, although there weren't pros, track was I think a much bigger deal to the general populace, especially in Oceania and Europe. So the talent pool would be at least as great then as today, probably greater in those countries. The main difference of course is the rise of the Africans, who have pushed things to a new level, which only the U.S. runners currently seem to be rising to meet.

I must admit to be unpleasantly shocked at the criticism leveled at athletes such as Clayton/Clarke, because they didn't "win the big one". With all due respect to anyone making that statement, I think you are totally missing the point.

Clarke and Clayton (and some others of that remarkable era), were all about straight-ahead, full-on, pushing themselves to the max. in training and racing...

Of course, Olympic medals are nice, but they weren't doing 4 year training plans, based on the Olympiad. Actually, quite the opposite... They were getting bloody fit, by training bloody hard, and racing even harder, and pushing not only their own limits, but the limits of human endurance running at their time. I think they did a pretty good job of that, to say the least...

Clarke got right where he needed to be going into the last lap in Tokyo in 1964, and got outkicked by those with a bit more finishing speed. So, he's a failure??? Unbelievable!

And, of course, Mexico City was a different beast, and may we never again be stupid enough to host Olympic distance races at 7000 feet of altitude, which automatically elimininates about 90 % of the planet from having any chance of success... Clarke was up at Echo Summit doing some training - I saw him there when I was there for the 1968 USA Olympic Trials, and he was doing his best to get some acclimatization to the altitude...

Then in the Stadium in Mexico, he ran with amazing courage and fortitude, trying to stay with the Africans, only to lead to him being carried off on a stretcher. Knowing Ron and his incredible mental toughness, it would not surprise me at all if his mind was trying to carry him past that the point that his heart, and other vital organs, could tolerate without damage...

After my last post I started thinking that Clarke probably won more international races than most modern runners enter in their entire career and that his "failure," an Olympic bronze medal would be an ultimate achievement for most internationalists.

Yes, and he was an intrepid front runner, without rabbits... Take the lead, push the pace, and damn the torpedoes...:) ---- not many like that anymore...Lindgren was like that, as was Prefontaine... Where are those type of guys now?

You must remember that Ron does have an Olympic gold medal - the one that Emile Zatopek gave him. Perhaps the most unselfish gesture in sport, but then again it was between 2 of the greatest sportsmen and men of the era. I wonder if something similar would ever happen today.

silent runner wrote:

You must remember that Ron does have an Olympic gold medal - the one that Emile Zatopek gave him. Perhaps the most unselfish gesture in sport, but then again it was between 2 of the greatest sportsmen and men of the era. I wonder if something similar would ever happen today.

I was going to bring this up. One of the most touching memories in all of track and field. Emil gave it to Ron on an episode of "This is your life.......

Another thing to keep in mind. The 60's was still an era of extreme sportsmanship and things really being "cricket". To win any other way wasn't in Ron's playbook. It stayed that way right through Pre's run in Munich. The same attitude that many of you admired in Pre was ridiculed in Ron?