Peter Snell vs.Herb Elliot

Elliott won the 1958 Commonwealth games 880 yards in 1:49 with a last 400 in under 50 seconds so don't assume that Snell had the faster kick.

Elliott and Snell did compete against each other but it was not over 1500/mile and it was after the Rome 1500 final when Elliott readily admits his motivation had gone and he simply wanted to return home to his wife and young child.

I can't bring myself to accept that anyone could have beaten Elliott over 1500/mile ; so many very good athletes tried but even when he was less than fully fit Elliott simply refused to be beaten.

The British great Gordon Pirie says Elliott was the only guy he knew he could not beat and, writing in 1960/61 in his autobiography "Running Wild", Pirie says that Elliott, if motivated to do so, could have made a clean sweep of every record from 800 to 10,000. Certainly, there is general agreement that Elliott retired having only scratched the surface of his potential.

nice post

Ryun kicked 51+ as kid for 1'44.9y when ill with a 1'50 in his legs coupla hours earlier

he was a quantum leap above those bums in his ’67 shape, which i reckon was

~ 1’39.9 / 3’24.2

off 1500 training

anyhows, you need to look at some

“mathematical tables”

just mathematical = of times based only on maths

rather than

iaaf/mercier/daniels/hungarian/etc

rubbish

which have to make an “extinct” event like 10k = 800 or 1500

go here for

“absolute”

https://2008olympictrialsakatommyleonard.shutterfly.com/filecabinet

find

“Ventolin worksheet”

…

Running is mathematical AFTER the times have been accomplished, not before.

Ryun would be a bum today. 3:33-1:44.

That is all.

ventolin^3 wrote:

3'29/3'30

guys on '70's track

lucky for them they didn't race ryun/keino of '67/'68 who were vastly superior...

ryun sent snell into retirement.

ryan takes out snell. snell was set up perfectly drafting all the way.... snell was looking at an uphill battle, he'd have to raise his game significantly to keep up with the highscooler in the future. so ryan's talent won over snells ideas in his head.

the brave elliot was afraid of his own shadow, his undefeated record and retired as a result. except he defeated himself in being afraid to go onto greater heights, such as run a sub 350 mile. that is the coward hero right there.

i chalk up both snell and elliot as losing all the races they wimped out of. as in elliot lost the 1500 in tokyo OG and finished worse than last because he refused the fight.

They both have something Ryun never could, Olympic Gold.

longjack wrote:

ventolin^3 wrote:

3'29/3'30

guys on '70's track

lucky for them they didn't race ryun/keino of '67/'68 who were vastly superior...

ryun sent snell into retirement.

I assume you're kidding, but for the kidz out there--

There was virtually no $$$ in the sport in the 1960s, so there was little incentive for Peter Snell, having won 3 Olympic gold medals and two commonwealth gold medals (never having lost when a major title was at stake) to stick around after Tokyo. 1965 was intended to be his farewell tour, he was not in great shape, having trained haphazardly after the 1964 Olympics, and his losses in 1965 to Ryun and others had nothing to do with his leaving the sport, which he'd planned long before.

Captain Oblivious wrote:Running is mathematical AFTER the times have been accomplished, not before.

Ryun would be a bum today. 3:33-1:44.

That is all.

you are 1 serious moron

ventolin^3 wrote:

Captain Oblivious wrote:Running is mathematical AFTER the times have been accomplished, not before.

Ryun would be a bum today. 3:33-1:44.

That is all.

you are 1 serious moron

No, there is only 1 "serious moron" on these boards, and his name starts with V and ends in 3. ;)

In this fantasy Olympic 1500m final, regardless of Snell's phenomenal acceleration as seen in the video of the '64 Olympic 1500m final, and his utter devastation of his rivals, I feel Herb Elliott - had he continued to compete until '64 (he was 26 that year, Snell was 25), would definitely have initiated a long, sustained and brutal drive from 600 or 700 yards out that would have nullified Snell's awesome kick. No one, and I mean no one in the world, could have stuck with and then out-kicked a focused and motivated and Cerutty-trained Elliott at his (presumably) peak age of 26, with his superb natural talent and innate killer instinct. He simply wouldn't allow anyone to beat him, even if that athlete was the very great and very fearsome Peter Snell. But, as with all these "what might have been" scenarios, mine is, of course, an extremely subjective opinion.

[/quote]

I assume you're kidding, but for the kidz out there--

There was virtually no $$$ in the sport in the 1960s, so there was little incentive for Peter Snell, having won 3 Olympic gold medals and two commonwealth gold medals (never having lost when a major title was at stake) to stick around after Tokyo. 1965 was intended to be his farewell tour, he was not in great shape, having trained haphazardly after the 1964 Olympics, and his losses in 1965 to Ryun and others had nothing to do with his leaving the sport, which he'd planned long before.[/quote]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

point well taken, kind of, see below. would have in not been better to take some time off and run some decent world records like 214 1K and 350 mile that he was certainly capable of? there might be a decent paycheck in that.

anyway, with snell not feeling good and the high school ryun emerging retirement seems like an intelligent option.

http://www.racingpast.ca/john_contents.php?id=113

Career Wind-Down

The New Zealand track season began three months later. Not surprisingly Snell was still fatigued from his Olympic efforts and was only doing “spasmodic training.” But he felt an obligation to race. He came up trumps again, beating the 1,000 WR and the Mile WR with 2:16.7 and 3:54.1. In December 1964, a tired Snell went to Australia and managed a 3:57.6 Mile to beat the Australian record.

A final world tour was on the cards for 1965. He trained hard from January to the end of May. On June 4 in the USA, he won a Mile race in 3:56.8 against Odlozil, Grelle and Ryun: “ I’d never been made to run that hard up the straight,” he wrote later (209) This was the last international race that he won. He was beaten over 880 in Canada by Bill Crothers, and then by Jim Ryun in California. In Finland he was 5th in a 1,500, and in Dublin he was beaten by Whetton and Wiggs over a Mile. Odlozil beat him in Prague and Crothers (again) in Oslo. In his last race, a mile in Berlin, he was third behind Grelle and a local runner.

welshy wazzoch / captain stoopid wrote:

No, there is only 1 "serious moron" on these boards, and his name starts with V and ends in 3. ;)

no

moron

Geoffrey Owers wrote:

About 10 days after the Rome Olympics in 1960, Snell and Elliott raced first each other in Dublin -- first over the 880; Snell won, Elliott was fourth.

BUT.. the next day, still in Dublin, they raced over a mile, and Elliott won convincingly in 3:57, while Snell came 5th in 4:01.5.

Thank you. Question answered.

longjack wrote:

I assume you're kidding, but for the kidz out there--

There was virtually no $$$ in the sport in the 1960s, so there was little incentive for Peter Snell, having won 3 Olympic gold medals and two commonwealth gold medals (never having lost when a major title was at stake) to stick around after Tokyo. 1965 was intended to be his farewell tour, he was not in great shape, having trained haphazardly after the 1964 Olympics, and his losses in 1965 to Ryun and others had nothing to do with his leaving the sport, which he'd planned long before.[/quote]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

point well taken, kind of, see below. would have in not been better to take some time off and run some decent world records like 214 1K and 350 mile that he was certainly capable of? there might be a decent paycheck in that.

anyway, with snell not feeling good and the high school ryun emerging retirement seems like an intelligent option.

Career Wind-Down

The New Zealand track season began three months later. Not surprisingly Snell was still fatigued from his Olympic efforts and was only doing “spasmodic training.” But he felt an obligation to race. He came up trumps again, beating the 1,000 WR and the Mile WR with 2:16.7 and 3:54.1. In December 1964, a tired Snell went to Australia and managed a 3:57.6 Mile to beat the Australian record.

A final world tour was on the cards for 1965. He trained hard from January to the end of May. On June 4 in the USA, he won a Mile race in 3:56.8 against Odlozil, Grelle and Ryun: “ I’d never been made to run that hard up the straight,” he wrote later (209) This was the last international race that he won. He was beaten over 880 in Canada by Bill Crothers, and then by Jim Ryun in California. In Finland he was 5th in a 1,500, and in Dublin he was beaten by Whetton and Wiggs over a Mile. Odlozil beat him in Prague and Crothers (again) in Oslo. In his last race, a mile in Berlin, he was third behind Grelle and a local runner.[/quote]

It was much worse than the above suggests. See

Boom, had this discussion with a work colleague today and knew I could find something here. from way back. It's a great hypothetical and classic MD discussion - even better in the non-action days of Covid-19

My colleague thought it was hands down Snell and had him ranked as his 4th greatest miler behind El G, Coe and Walker. He also remarked on the dominance of Snells win in the 1964 1500m. Of course he clearly overlooked that Elliot was even more dominant in Rome - winning by a ridiculous 2.8 seconds - margin which was only even beaten by Keino in '68 (2.98 seconds) and hasn't been even remotely approached since, and also that Elliot ran 2.5 seconds faster in breaking the WR in that race.

This wasn't a knock on Snell who has a case as the greatest MD runner ever by virtue of being the last 800m/1500m Olympic champion and is probably only behind Rudisha in the Mount Rushmore of 800m running. But Elliot was a better 1500m runner/miler and when we discussed how they would run on todays tracks and in meets like Monaco this is where I landed.

Snell was a little too muscular to be a great 1500m/mile time trialler at a really hot pace. He was one of those 800m guys that if you messed around in the first 1000m of a mile would own you in the last 300m because of his power and his large aerobic base. In a 3.38 race this is a deadly combo (see Tokyo). But a good aerobic base doesn’t automatically mean you are a stud over longer distances. To run 3.32 and under you need a different type of speed endurance, especially over 3000m – I don’t think Snell had this whereas Elliot did – who was strong in a different way. Snell did tons of mileage (of course 100 pw) but wasn’t a threshold guy – he wasn’t the sort of runner than could handle an 8x1000m in 2min35-40 workout which is the type of tempo practice those guys would do.

Snell kind of showed this with his best mile times. He ran 3min54.4 going through 1209m in 2min59.8 (54.6 last lap). He then tried it the other way when he ran 3min54.1 going through 800m in 1.54.0 and running 2.00.1 final 800m.

So at least in my opinion, Snell wasn’t much faster over 1500m than we saw in Tokyo – maybe 3min37.0 in that era? Send him to Monaco where dudes are running 1min50 for the first 800m does he hold off and try and play catch up? I give him 2-2.5 seconds for elite talent and the improvement of the track surface. I think today he runs 3min35.0 +/- 0.5 seconds (so 3.34.5 to 3.35.5) and my feeling it's on the upper end of that range.

Elliot though? I think he could handle 1min54, 2min50 and then 41, 42 for that final 300m. He also gets 2 seconds for the track and elite talent but another couple of seconds because that type of speed threshold and fast pace grinding race just suits him way better.

So who wins? In a race that is 2min58 at 1200m it's hard to imagine Elliot have the pure power and speed to beat Snell who would be capable of ripping off 38 seconds in the last 300 and would challenge anyone in history. But Elliot would never lets this happen. He would drag a race out from 600m to go with a pace that Peter Snell just could not sustain and had the blunt force will to not be beaten.

Snell over 800m

Elliot over 1500m/mile

Two of the greatest, still to this day, to ever do it.

I f you're talking the 24 year old Snell of 64 vs the 21 yo Elliott of 1960, I would say Elliott 3:34 Snell 3:35

If you're talking a 25 yo Elliott of 64 who had never retired at 22 vs 24 yo Snell of 64, I would say Elliott 3:31 Snell 3:35

Well, I hope most of you know the Elliott story. In 1958, as a 20 year old he does it all. Fabulous world records, double Commonwealth title, fastest 880yds of the year, and then returns to Australia and virtually takes 1959 off.

He returns to serious training in 1960 and desperately tries to regain his former fittest. Wins the Olympic title but without really improving from his 1958 peak. Now, us Elliott fans are convinced that had he trained consistently, after returning from Europe in 1958, up to the 1960 Olympics, that he would have running seconds faster than the 3min 35sec in Rome. No, by 1964 ( at 26 ) Elliott would have running silly times for the 1500m and probably the 5000m, and, who knows, what his 800m potential was.

Small note. An earlier poster mentioned Elliott went sub-50 for the second lap of the CG half.

If I recall correctly--it was several decades ago--from reading Brian Hewson's autobiography, it was *Hewson* who ran 49.9 for that second lap. Elliott, the winner, ran 50.5.

Obviously the opening lap was at a shockingly slow pace. That kind of situation generally favors milers who are coming down to the half: They typically finish races faster than they start. And Elliott/Hewson, both milers, finished 1-2 in that race.

lease wrote:

Small note. An earlier poster mentioned Elliott went sub-50 for the second lap of the CG half.

If I recall correctly--it was several decades ago--from reading Brian Hewson's autobiography, it was *Hewson* who ran 49.9 for that second lap. Elliott, the winner, ran 50.5.

Obviously the opening lap was at a shockingly slow pace. That kind of situation generally favors milers who are coming down to the half: They typically finish races faster than they start. And Elliott/Hewson, both milers, finished 1-2 in that race.

Well, there is a good argument for saying that Hewson was the best 800m runner in Europe in 1958. For a start, he always had the beating of Mike Rawson who became European 800m champ that year. However, Elliott beat Hewson at Empire/Commonwealth Games and beat him again - this time easily - not long after that in a 1min 47.3 sec 880yds ( the fastest in the world that year ). I think Elliott has be the greatest "what if" in the history of middle-distance running.

portsea57 wrote:

Well, I hope most of you know the Elliott story. In 1958, as a 20 year old he does it all. Fabulous world records, double Commonwealth title, fastest 880yds of the year, and then returns to Australia and virtually takes 1959 off.

He returns to serious training in 1960 and desperately tries to regain his former fittest. Wins the Olympic title but without really improving from his 1958 peak. Now, us Elliott fans are convinced that had he trained consistently, after returning from Europe in 1958, up to the 1960 Olympics, that he would have running seconds faster than the 3min 35sec in Rome. No, by 1964 ( at 26 ) Elliott would have running silly times for the 1500m and probably the 5000m, and, who knows, what his 800m potential was.

Absolutely know the Elliot story. I think he is the most underrated middle distance runner of all time. When trying to figure out how this is possible, I can only land on this. His 1500m win in Rome was weirdly overshadowed by Snell because he (Elliot) was the favorite and expected to win. In those days it wasn't really seen as that epic to run a WR in an Olympic final (like it was almost weirdly accepted that you should be doing that to win anyways) - even though as we now know, it's super epic. Either way Snell winning as an underdog kind of stole the thunder there and Snell going on to dominate that 4 year period of 60-64 pushed Elliot into the background as of course he retired in 62.

Look we unfortunately don't really have a great idea what he could have run for 800m - I mean you would guess a guy who ran 3.35 and was probably capable of 3.33 would be a 1.45.5 guy at absolute minimum. Running 1.49 closing in 50 would also suggest that. Problem is he never did it and only has a Commonwealth Games title over that distance.

Either way, I feel like Snells "what if" ability is always overestimated (I sometimes hear "could have run 3.32..... - no chance) , but Elliots is always underestimated. I think even Elliot 1960 jumps into a hot Euro race and busts 3.32 with potential for maybe faster.