3.42 mile.
3.42 mile.
Interesting how the start finish is in the middle of the home stretch and not at the beginning of the first turn.
It's more than just the track, as practicing on cinders in the spring wasn't always the best (soft, ruts, large puddles from rain, etc).
A bad dirt/cinder track (think mud) might be worth more than a second. But when the tracks were in good shape, you were talking less than .5s a lap.
Haile N. Onamis wrote:
With the "Jim Ryun Dream Miles" being in the news today, saw a great pic of Ryun running a 3:58.3 what is clearly a very rough dirt or cinder track. (See:
http://realsportsheroes.com/wp-content/uploads//2010/03/jim.jpg.) Fastest HS mile with HS only competition; he ran a 3:55.3 while still a high schooler.
How much of a factor was the track surface? Would seem like more than 1 sec per lap, especially for that 3:58.3 race?
Stating the obvious wrote:
He meant loss, as in you must have suffered some kind of loss to make such an unfortunate and stupid comment about such a great American and his accomplishments.
This is only slightly different than referring to you as being lost because you feel the need to put someone down that has done so much and you, well, are a wanker.
I replied snidely because the question of the thread is idiotic.
What would he have run if there was no wind the day he ran? What if he ran in a circular wind tunnel with the wind at his back?
What if someone controlled the temperature and humidity so that it was perfect?
What if he had a lighter jersey? What if he carbo-loaded the day before? What if he used the POSE method? What if he jerked off once and hour before the race? Twice? Thrice? What if he prayed to Allah, like Morceli and El G do, instead of God? Lots of "what ifs."
It's irrelevant. He showed up and ran what he ran. His times stand for what they are. He needed no assistance from mondo tracks or special spikes - and neither do any other athlete. His talent was in his legs and his lungs and his mental make up and his desire. Not the surface he on which he ran.
That's ignorant. A cinder track is simply slower than a mondo track; it's physics. Less energy returned. If you're not interested in the topic, don't reply, but it's not an awful thing to talk about.
For the record, Ryun mentions that it was a cinder track during an interview last month about his sub-4 HS racers only mile:
Thanks for the input. Sounds like 4 sec total might be a bit of a stretch for the HS only race (cinders but not mud) so perhaps something in the 3:56 range. His 3:55.3 race presumably was on a better surfaced cinder track (anyone know what that Compton track was like then?) so perhaps around 3:54.
Amazing times regardless. Also amazing that he beat the Olympic 1500 m champ (Peter Snell) when he ran the 3:55.3, and was only 1.7 sec off the then world record.
Bob Schul, in his book In the Long Run, claims the difference is 2 seconds/lap.
Haile N. Onamis wrote:
For the record, Ryun mentions that it was a cinder track during an interview last month about his sub-4 HS racers only mile:
http://www.flotrack.org/videos/coverage/view_video/237062-the-2010-jim-ryun-high-school-dream-mile/333040-jim-ryun-walks-thru-his-sub-4-minute-high-school-only-dream-mileThanks for the input. Sounds like 4 sec total might be a bit of a stretch for the HS only race (cinders but not mud) so perhaps something in the 3:56 range. His 3:55.3 race presumably was on a better surfaced cinder track (anyone know what that Compton track was like then?) so perhaps around 3:54.
Amazing times regardless. Also amazing that he beat the Olympic 1500 m champ (Peter Snell) when he ran the 3:55.3, and was only 1.7 sec off the then world record.
When Ryun set the AR in 1965 against Snell, the track was an "asphalt" surface and Ryun complained afterwards that his feet were on fire at the end....I'm sure he would have preferred a cinder or clay track as opposed to that surface.
Let's face it, there is simply no comparing what Jim Ryun did in 1965 - a gangly high school boy upset the reigning Oly Champ and set the AR in the mile. What HS boy today could come close to the current AR in the mile? What pro man today could come close to the AR in the mile?
Please stop the Ryun comparisons.
San Diego 1965 wrote:
Let's face it, there is simply no comparing what Jim Ryun did in 1965 - a gangly high school boy upset the reigning Oly Champ and set the AR in the mile. What HS boy today could come close to the current AR in the mile? What pro man today could come close to the AR in the mile?
.
What was amazing about that run was that he just took it to the field with about 250 meters to go.
I still think that 3:58.0 at the Kansas State Meet was the most impressive high mile ever run. That track wasn't in good shape -- it was chewed up. The race was run under the blazing sun. It looks like it is Wichita State's stadium (anyone know?). Just an amazing run.
Haile N. Onamis wrote:
....anyone know what that Compton track was like then?I grew up near Compton CC and ran a lot of laps on that track from the early 60s through the early 70s. It was a quality cinder track with good drainage and well-maintained. I don't ever remember it having puddles or muddy spots (unlike my college track). Nevertheless, I would guess that a good Mondo track would be worth around :01/lap compared to it. A good Mondo track definitely is noticeably faster and returns more energy.
Sorry, I misunderstood your irony. But I agree with ur second post.
Malmo that was amazing, thanks for adding the color.
I heard Ryun talk when I was in highschool and he used that as an example of being careful what you said. Apparently Snell ripped into the press after being asked repeatidly about the kid from Kansas and it motivated him. In fact I recall a picture at the start where Ryun was starring at him before the gun went off.
He also had a meet in college where he ran a great mile and then like an hour later hammered a really fast 440 in a relay. I don't recall the times but I think it was at the Drake Relays or Kansas Relays.
malmo wrote:
[quote]I still think that 3:58.0 at the Kansas State Meet was the most impressive high mile ever run. That track wasn't in good shape -- it was chewed up. The race was run under the blazing sun. It looks like it is Wichita State's stadium (anyone know?). Just an amazing run.
Yup - that race was run at Wichita State U.
Of course Bob Schul wants to make his times appear better. No one really knows the answer to this question. I suppose you could try to get the PRs of a bunch of people that ran on both between 64 and 72 but it will be hard to figure out which ones were in what type of shape. But the record books don't show huge drops (2secs per lap would be 25 for a 5k or 50 for a 10k) when the transition happened.
Moron dat later wrote:
Bob Schul, in his book In the Long Run, claims the difference is 2 seconds/lap.
I believe if the cinder track is in perfect condition it would be about half a second a lap but look how chewed up the track is, the first lane usually was, and it is probably more.
Here's a link to a recent audio interview with Ryun. It's been a couple weeks since I listened to the whole thing, but if I recall correctly, they asked him this question and he basically answered "too hard to tell".
Do you guys think there is any notable difference between rubber and mondo tracks today in terms of times (seconds) at substantial distances, say the mile or two mile or beyond?
I can only relate my high school experiences from 30 years ago. On a cinder track in 45 degree and really windy weather I ran 4:22 for the mile to qualify for state. It was May in a Northern state. I ran reasonably hard, too. I was disappointed as could be, but since it was an easy state qualifier and I won, I just moved on to the state meet. Next Friday the weather was over 80 degrees on a new "Tartan" rubberized track. In qualifying for the final, I ran 4:12 with lesser effort than the "lousy" 4:22 (not the fastest qualifier, either). And then on to a 4:09 performance in the finals (didn't win, either). Now, in no way I am stating that the cinder track cost me 13 seconds. But the conditions involved with many low key cinder track races were not conducive to fast times. I did run 4:16 on my own school's lousy cinder track, and thought it a better effort than the 4:08's (won one of the bigger races with that) I ran later in the year. Suffice to say that while I can't put a numerical premium on Ryun's performance, intuitively (just as I feel about Herb Elliot's Rome 1500 performance) I think they are "better" performances than they appear when viewed in a modern context.
cinder tracks wrote:
I can only relate my high school experiences from 30 years ago. On a cinder track in 45 degree and really windy weather I ran 4:22 for the mile to qualify for state. It was May in a Northern state. I ran reasonably hard, too. I was disappointed as could be, but since it was an easy state qualifier and I won, I just moved on to the state meet. Next Friday the weather was over 80 degrees on a new "Tartan" rubberized track. In qualifying for the final, I ran 4:12 with lesser effort than the "lousy" 4:22 (not the fastest qualifier, either). And then on to a 4:09 performance in the finals (didn't win, either). Now, in no way I am stating that the cinder track cost me 13 seconds. But the conditions involved with many low key cinder track races were not conducive to fast times. I did run 4:16 on my own school's lousy cinder track, and thought it a better effort than the 4:08's (won one of the bigger races with that) I ran later in the year. Suffice to say that while I can't put a numerical premium on Ryun's performance, intuitively (just as I feel about Herb Elliot's Rome 1500 performance) I think they are "better" performances than they appear when viewed in a modern context.
Speed comparison is a quantitative aspect, but there are other qualitative aspects also. These are probably not relavent in a blowout win like Ryuns high school performance. Being am old guy who ran on cinders in the 60s I also competed on rubber when it first became prevalent. The first time I ran on rubber was at the Dogwood Relays in 1967 and it was a weird sensation to not hear the footfalls of the other runners and to not have to endure spitting flying cinders and the occasional uneven spot on the track that had been chewed up by previous events. The point is that there are more things than just the physics of the surface to consider when comparing performances on cinders vs. rubber. Even though rubber is faster, running on a well maintained cinder track was more pleasing to me, but what the hell - I am an old guy with foggy memories I guess.
