Peter Snell vs.Herb Elliot

Other Running Related Topic

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4

3 years ago 08/08/2020 2:57am EDT

re: Salvatore Stitchmo

Salvatore Stitchmo wrote:
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.

In response to an earlier claim, Elliot didn't run a second lap of 50secs in his 1.49 Cardiff 880y. I read his account of that race and he said he was through the first lap in about 57-58.

He was not as fast as Snell, who was a 22-low 200m runner. They therefore raced differently. Quite apart from the fact that Snell was fast enough to be an 800m specialist and Elliot wasn't, Snell was able to sit back in the field over the mile (he only raced the 1500 at Tokyo), knowing he was faster than anyone else at the finish. Elliot didn't have that advantage so he typically ran his races at a faster overall pace and began his finishing drive from 500-700m out. His advantage was his extraordinary strength-endurance. That also partly explains why his times were consistently faster over the longer distance; Snell almost never ran a fast race over the mile - he didn't have to, he was so dominant over his competition. When he broke Elliot's mile record he basically did it all in the last half lap, with an incredibly powerful finish.

Remember also that Snell never raced over the 1500m distance except at Tokyo. The metric distance was run more often then. He was a relative novice over the metric distance. Further, in comparing Elliot's performance at Rome with Snell's at Tokyo, we should also acknowledge that Snell's effort came as his 6th race in 9 days, while Elliot ran 2 races - a heat and a final. Yet Snell utterly crushed his competition in the Tokyo final with his explosive finishing power.

Each of these great athletes had different strengths and in the amateur era were in some ways unfulfilled talents. What they had in common was tremendous competitive strength and a killer instinct. If they had met in their primes it would have been a helluva race.

3 years ago 08/08/2020 12:32pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Well, again, if Elliott had training consistently, it's not hard to imagine that he would have running the1500m 3 or 4 secs faster than Peter could have hoped to achieve, and therefore any clash between then would have been a great disappointment. As to Herb's finishing speed, and 800m potential, well, again, Elliott's 1min 47,3 sec 880m in 1958 ( converted, at the time, to 1min 46.6sec 800m) which would have equalled the world 800m record in 1954. And, he never improved on that time. ( although, clearly with consistent training programme he surely would have done so) Also, because Herb adopted the Kuts' " run them into the ground" approach in all his famous races, we will never know what his finishing kick - in a top class race - might have been.

3 years ago 08/09/2020 5:38am EDT

re: portsea57

portsea57 wrote:
Well, again, if Elliott had training consistently, it's not hard to imagine that he would have running the1500m 3 or 4 secs faster than Peter could have hoped to achieve, and therefore any clash between then would have been a great disappointment. As to Herb's finishing speed, and 800m potential, well, again, Elliott's 1min 47,3 sec 880m in 1958 ( converted, at the time, to 1min 46.6sec 800m) which would have equalled the world 800m record in 1954. And, he never improved on that time. ( although, clearly with consistent training programme he surely would have done so) Also, because Herb adopted the Kuts' " run them into the ground" approach in all his famous races, we will never know what his finishing kick - in a top class race - might have been.

If Snell had ever run the 1500m, apart from his 6th race in an Olympic final that he destroyed, it isn't hard to imagine he could have run that event way faster if he had been paced for time or pushed. He easily broke Elliot's mile mark - and on grass - by simply kicking over the last half-lap. He had never been seriously challenged over 4 years - he had way more up his sleeve - and he had the advantage over Elliot of greater speed (22 sec 200) and a more powerful kick. And great strength. If they were together in the home straight the race would have been Snell's. This was a 1.44 runner on grass in '62; as great as Elliot was, I wouldn't have bet against Snell.

3 years ago 08/09/2020 11:41am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
portsea57 wrote:
Well, again, if Elliott had training consistently, it's not hard to imagine that he would have running the1500m 3 or 4 secs faster than Peter could have hoped to achieve, and therefore any clash between then would have been a great disappointment. As to Herb's finishing speed, and 800m potential, well, again, Elliott's 1min 47,3 sec 880m in 1958 ( converted, at the time, to 1min 46.6sec 800m) which would have equalled the world 800m record in 1954. And, he never improved on that time. ( although, clearly with consistent training programme he surely would have done so) Also, because Herb adopted the Kuts' " run them into the ground" approach in all his famous races, we will never know what his finishing kick - in a top class race - might have been.
If Snell had ever run the 1500m, apart from his 6th race in an Olympic final that he destroyed, it isn't hard to imagine he could have run that event way faster if he had been paced for time or pushed. He easily broke Elliot's mile mark - and on grass - by simply kicking over the last half-lap. He had never been seriously challenged over 4 years - he had way more up his sleeve - and he had the advantage over Elliot of greater speed (22 sec 200) and a more powerful kick. And great strength. If they were together in the home straight the race would have been Snell's. This was a 1.44 runner on grass in '62; as great as Elliot was, I wouldn't have bet against Snell.

Just remind me, how old was Snell when he set his best mile time? Well, I'll tell you. 26. Now, how old was Elliott when he set his best mile time? 20! By 26, Herb would be so far ahead of Snell it would have been embarrassing. Or put, another way. Peter and Herb were born the same year but Snell only emerged on the international scene in 1960, which just happens to be the year Herb retired. Food for thought, I hope

No, again, if Herb had trained year in and year out like Snell, he would have pushed the mile/1500m record way beyond what Peter was even remotely capable of.

3 years ago 08/09/2020 11:44am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Can everyone at least try to spell Elliott's name correctly? It's "Elliott" with two t's.

Both great runners of course, but Elliott for the win. As someone else said, he barely trained at all in 1959 before finally starting up again in December of 1959. But then he dealt with a knee injury that set him back in spring 1960. Shows up in Rome not haven't showed much and barely having raced, and destroys the field in a WR.

In my view, Elliott was the greatest miler ever.

3 years ago 08/09/2020 1:22pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Haha I love statements like "He easily broke Elliot's mile mark" - dude he broke it by 1/10th of a second (which was the smallest amount possible in that era) and this was hand-timed so it's even possible he didn't. You talk as if Snell just decided to crank up the final 200m knowing he could monitor his pace coming in to nonchalantly take the record.

You also talk about strength in the home straight and some massive edge to Snell. Huh? Both of these guys had epic strength - just in different forms. Snell was a tank of a guy - big powerful muscles and relied on that, whereas Elliott was a more wiry, "classical" looking distance runner who had a massive engine. As to who comes out on top in the home straight? Depends entirely on what kind of race it was!

As I said, I believe that if it was 2.58 at 1200m with a huge burn-up in the last 300 then Peter Snell comes out on top vs Elliot and most runners in history. But if it was 2.52 at 1200m and Snell could even hold on at that pace I think Elliot simply outlasts him. And I'm not even saying that with no basis because we have two races that back that up - The 3.54.4 of Snell where he was able to explode in the final 400 because of a more comfortable pace through 1209 and the 3.54.1 where he did it the completely opposite and really found it difficult in the final 800m because of that pace. I don't think Elliott finds it anywhere near as tough off 1.54 through the halfway point.

I love Snell - I said it earlier, he arguably has the case to be the greatest ever middle distance runner based on his elite 800m status (2nd best ever) and great 1500m status (OC and mile WR holder) - but Elliot has the same credentials over 1500m/mile and had more potential based on everything we saw (including the fact he ran 3.35.6 front running an Olympic final at age 22 despite large holes in his training leading up to that).

3 years ago 08/09/2020 1:47pm EDT

re: portsea57

portsea57 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If Snell had ever run the 1500m, apart from his 6th race in an Olympic final that he destroyed, it isn't hard to imagine he could have run that event way faster if he had been paced for time or pushed. He easily broke Elliot's mile mark - and on grass - by simply kicking over the last half-lap. He had never been seriously challenged over 4 years - he had way more up his sleeve - and he had the advantage over Elliot of greater speed (22 sec 200) and a more powerful kick. And great strength. If they were together in the home straight the race would have been Snell's. This was a 1.44 runner on grass in '62; as great as Elliot was, I wouldn't have bet against Snell.
Just remind me, how old was Snell when he set his best mile time? Well, I'll tell you. 26. Now, how old was Elliott when he set his best mile time? 20! By 26, Herb would be so far ahead of Snell it would have been embarrassing. Or put, another way. Peter and Herb were born the same year but Snell only emerged on the international scene in 1960, which just happens to be the year Herb retired. Food for thought, I hope
No, again, if Herb had trained year in and year out like Snell, he would have pushed the mile/1500m record way beyond what Peter was even remotely capable of.

More twaddle. Snell was close in age to Elliott but started his running career at a much later age, of 19. He beat Elliott's best mile time at age 23, when he had only started running the distance a year previously. He was still only a novice over the mile - never having beaten 4 minutes before - when he took the record. He did so with a 54xsec last lap, chiefly accomplished by a huge kick over 220y. It was contemptuously easy. His later record was done as he was coming down off his peak at Tokyo, and was the only time he actually attempted a record over the mile.

Elliott trained incredibly hard in his career and later said that was one of the reasons he retired early, combined with the way he put everything in to his races. He had had enough of the pain. There is nothing to suggest he would have been faster than his best in1960 if his career had continued. At Rome he ran to his limits. Snell never did.

As I said previously, Snell was by far the faster athlete in terms of his basic speed; combined with his Lydiard-trained strength endurance I would have put my money on him in any contest between them at their best.

3 years ago 08/09/2020 2:49pm EDT

re: Salvatore Stitchimo

Salvatore Stitchimo wrote:
Haha I love statements like "He easily broke Elliot's mile mark" - dude he broke it by 1/10th of a second (which was the smallest amount possible in that era) and this was hand-timed so it's even possible he didn't. You talk as if Snell just decided to crank up the final 200m knowing he could monitor his pace coming in to nonchalantly take the record.
You also talk about strength in the home straight and some massive edge to Snell. Huh? Both of these guys had epic strength - just in different forms. Snell was a tank of a guy - big powerful muscles and relied on that, whereas Elliott was a more wiry, "classical" looking distance runner who had a massive engine. As to who comes out on top in the home straight? Depends entirely on what kind of race it was!
As I said, I believe that if it was 2.58 at 1200m with a huge burn-up in the last 300 then Peter Snell comes out on top vs Elliot and most runners in history. But if it was 2.52 at 1200m and Snell could even hold on at that pace I think Elliot simply outlasts him. And I'm not even saying that with no basis because we have two races that back that up - The 3.54.4 of Snell where he was able to explode in the final 400 because of a more comfortable pace through 1209 and the 3.54.1 where he did it the completely opposite and really found it difficult in the final 800m because of that pace. I don't think Elliott finds it anywhere near as tough off 1.54 through the halfway point.
I love Snell - I said it earlier, he arguably has the case to be the greatest ever middle distance runner based on his elite 800m status (2nd best ever) and great 1500m status (OC and mile WR holder) - but Elliot has the same credentials over 1500m/mile and had more potential based on everything we saw (including the fact he ran 3.35.6 front running an Olympic final at age 22 despite large holes in his training leading up to that).

First point: Elliott's record was also hand-timed, so he also may not have run the time given, if you are going to question Snell's time.

When Snell beat Elliott's record he was only trying to get under 4 minutes, which he hadn't done before, since he had scarcely raced the distance. Unlike Elliott's more even-paced effort, Snell ran a comparatively slow early race, at around 61 for the quarter and 3 minutes or so for the 3/4 - he only closed on Elliott's record with an incredible burst in the last half lap. He was nowhere near his limits that night. He showed that with his 1.44.3 (again on grass) over 800m a week later - far and away faster than anything Elliott was capable of.

Elliott was chiefly a miler and ran the distance many times more than Snell - but never faster. Because he didn't have the kind of top-end speed that Snell had he ran his races more even-paced with a sustained finishing drive. Snell didn't race that way - he didn't have to. He said the race only began for him at the 3/4 mark; the first 3 laps "were about positioning and relaxation". None of his rivals could match his finish (until he was coming off his peak in '65, when he lost to a certain Jim Ryun). Apart from his demolition of the 1500 final at Tokyo, take a look at how he destroyed America's finest (including the indoor wr holder Jim Beatty) at Modesto and Compton in '63.

It isn't credible to compare their respective 1500 times, as Snell raced the distance only once in his career, which was at Tokyo, and he ran only to win. That is how he ran most of his races.

You talk about "holes" in Elliott's training, but Snell had injury breaks in his career, including early '64, when his Olympic aspirations were in doubt, and he didn't train hard or continuously year and year out. He trained to peak for championships - and there has never been a better championship middle-distance runner. He successfully defended his Olympic 800m title and took the 1500 first time of asking and utterly convincingly (as well as the Empire Games double in '62). Elliott has the one Olympic gold (and the EG double in '58).

The argument can be made that as Elliott raced the mile many times in his career we have a more complete evaluation of his level as well as his possible limits over the distance. Short of being a professional and running on modern tracks with modern shoes he was likely as near as he was going to get to being his best with the records he achieved over the metric and imperial distance. By contrast, we can only guess at the potential Snell had over either distance. (I don't think Snell's later mile record truly represented his best as he had peaked earlier for Tokyo. His best career-form was likely to have been his record-breaking spree in January '62. But he was never pushed in those efforts).

Elliott is truly a great miler - but so was Snell, albeit according to a different tactical approach. His superior speed would have given him an advantage had they met over the 1500/mile and I remain to be persuaded that Elliott could have defused Snell's kick if they had met in the perfect race.

Both were 3.54 milers - Elliott on cinders and Snell on grass - and in that sense there is nothing really between them. In a way, there still isn't.

3 years ago 08/09/2020 4:45pm EDT

re: sandybeaver

Finally a decent thread! You might save Let's Run!

3 years ago 08/09/2020 4:48pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Salvatore Stitchimo wrote:
Haha I love statements like "He easily broke Elliot's mile mark" - dude he broke it by 1/10th of a second (which was the smallest amount possible in that era) and this was hand-timed so it's even possible he didn't. You talk as if Snell just decided to crank up the final 200m knowing he could monitor his pace coming in to nonchalantly take the record.
You also talk about strength in the home straight and some massive edge to Snell. Huh? Both of these guys had epic strength - just in different forms. Snell was a tank of a guy - big powerful muscles and relied on that, whereas Elliott was a more wiry, "classical" looking distance runner who had a massive engine. As to who comes out on top in the home straight? Depends entirely on what kind of race it was!
As I said, I believe that if it was 2.58 at 1200m with a huge burn-up in the last 300 then Peter Snell comes out on top vs Elliot and most runners in history. But if it was 2.52 at 1200m and Snell could even hold on at that pace I think Elliot simply outlasts him. And I'm not even saying that with no basis because we have two races that back that up - The 3.54.4 of Snell where he was able to explode in the final 400 because of a more comfortable pace through 1209 and the 3.54.1 where he did it the completely opposite and really found it difficult in the final 800m because of that pace. I don't think Elliott finds it anywhere near as tough off 1.54 through the halfway point.
I love Snell - I said it earlier, he arguably has the case to be the greatest ever middle distance runner based on his elite 800m status (2nd best ever) and great 1500m status (OC and mile WR holder) - but Elliot has the same credentials over 1500m/mile and had more potential based on everything we saw (including the fact he ran 3.35.6 front running an Olympic final at age 22 despite large holes in his training leading up to that).
First point: Elliott's record was also hand-timed, so he also may not have run the time given, if you are going to question Snell's time.
When Snell beat Elliott's record he was only trying to get under 4 minutes, which he hadn't done before, since he had scarcely raced the distance. Unlike Elliott's more even-paced effort, Snell ran a comparatively slow early race, at around 61 for the quarter and 3 minutes or so for the 3/4 - he only closed on Elliott's record with an incredible burst in the last half lap. He was nowhere near his limits that night. He showed that with his 1.44.3 (again on grass) over 800m a week later - far and away faster than anything Elliott was capable of.
Elliott was chiefly a miler and ran the distance many times more than Snell - but never faster. Because he didn't have the kind of top-end speed that Snell had he ran his races more even-paced with a sustained finishing drive. Snell didn't race that way - he didn't have to. He said the race only began for him at the 3/4 mark; the first 3 laps "were about positioning and relaxation". None of his rivals could match his finish (until he was coming off his peak in '65, when he lost to a certain Jim Ryun). Apart from his demolition of the 1500 final at Tokyo, take a look at how he destroyed America's finest (including the indoor wr holder Jim Beatty) at Modesto and Compton in '63.
It isn't credible to compare their respective 1500 times, as Snell raced the distance only once in his career, which was at Tokyo, and he ran only to win. That is how he ran most of his races.
You talk about "holes" in Elliott's training, but Snell had injury breaks in his career, including early '64, when his Olympic aspirations were in doubt, and he didn't train hard or continuously year and year out. He trained to peak for championships - and there has never been a better championship middle-distance runner. He successfully defended his Olympic 800m title and took the 1500 first time of asking and utterly convincingly (as well as the Empire Games double in '62). Elliott has the one Olympic gold (and the EG double in '58).
The argument can be made that as Elliott raced the mile many times in his career we have a more complete evaluation of his level as well as his possible limits over the distance. Short of being a professional and running on modern tracks with modern shoes he was likely as near as he was going to get to being his best with the records he achieved over the metric and imperial distance. By contrast, we can only guess at the potential Snell had over either distance. (I don't think Snell's later mile record truly represented his best as he had peaked earlier for Tokyo. His best career-form was likely to have been his record-breaking spree in January '62. But he was never pushed in those efforts).
Elliott is truly a great miler - but so was Snell, albeit according to a different tactical approach. His superior speed would have given him an advantage had they met over the 1500/mile and I remain to be persuaded that Elliott could have defused Snell's kick if they had met in the perfect race.
Both were 3.54 milers - Elliott on cinders and Snell on grass - and in that sense there is nothing really between them. In a way, there still isn't.

Distance races over an 800 should not have to be Fully Electronically Timed.

3 years ago 08/09/2020 4:50pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Salvatore Stitchimo wrote:
Haha I love statements like "He easily broke Elliot's mile mark" - dude he broke it by 1/10th of a second (which was the smallest amount possible in that era) and this was hand-timed so it's even possible he didn't. You talk as if Snell just decided to crank up the final 200m knowing he could monitor his pace coming in to nonchalantly take the record.
You also talk about strength in the home straight and some massive edge to Snell. Huh? Both of these guys had epic strength - just in different forms. Snell was a tank of a guy - big powerful muscles and relied on that, whereas Elliott was a more wiry, "classical" looking distance runner who had a massive engine. As to who comes out on top in the home straight? Depends entirely on what kind of race it was!
As I said, I believe that if it was 2.58 at 1200m with a huge burn-up in the last 300 then Peter Snell comes out on top vs Elliot and most runners in history. But if it was 2.52 at 1200m and Snell could even hold on at that pace I think Elliot simply outlasts him. And I'm not even saying that with no basis because we have two races that back that up - The 3.54.4 of Snell where he was able to explode in the final 400 because of a more comfortable pace through 1209 and the 3.54.1 where he did it the completely opposite and really found it difficult in the final 800m because of that pace. I don't think Elliott finds it anywhere near as tough off 1.54 through the halfway point.
I love Snell - I said it earlier, he arguably has the case to be the greatest ever middle distance runner based on his elite 800m status (2nd best ever) and great 1500m status (OC and mile WR holder) - but Elliot has the same credentials over 1500m/mile and had more potential based on everything we saw (including the fact he ran 3.35.6 front running an Olympic final at age 22 despite large holes in his training leading up to that).
First point: Elliott's record was also hand-timed, so he also may not have run the time given, if you are going to question Snell's time.
When Snell beat Elliott's record he was only trying to get under 4 minutes, which he hadn't done before, since he had scarcely raced the distance. Unlike Elliott's more even-paced effort, Snell ran a comparatively slow early race, at around 61 for the quarter and 3 minutes or so for the 3/4 - he only closed on Elliott's record with an incredible burst in the last half lap. He was nowhere near his limits that night. He showed that with his 1.44.3 (again on grass) over 800m a week later - far and away faster than anything Elliott was capable of.
Elliott was chiefly a miler and ran the distance many times more than Snell - but never faster. Because he didn't have the kind of top-end speed that Snell had he ran his races more even-paced with a sustained finishing drive. Snell didn't race that way - he didn't have to. He said the race only began for him at the 3/4 mark; the first 3 laps "were about positioning and relaxation". None of his rivals could match his finish (until he was coming off his peak in '65, when he lost to a certain Jim Ryun). Apart from his demolition of the 1500 final at Tokyo, take a look at how he destroyed America's finest (including the indoor wr holder Jim Beatty) at Modesto and Compton in '63.
It isn't credible to compare their respective 1500 times, as Snell raced the distance only once in his career, which was at Tokyo, and he ran only to win. That is how he ran most of his races.
You talk about "holes" in Elliott's training, but Snell had injury breaks in his career, including early '64, when his Olympic aspirations were in doubt, and he didn't train hard or continuously year and year out. He trained to peak for championships - and there has never been a better championship middle-distance runner. He successfully defended his Olympic 800m title and took the 1500 first time of asking and utterly convincingly (as well as the Empire Games double in '62). Elliott has the one Olympic gold (and the EG double in '58).
The argument can be made that as Elliott raced the mile many times in his career we have a more complete evaluation of his level as well as his possible limits over the distance. Short of being a professional and running on modern tracks with modern shoes he was likely as near as he was going to get to being his best with the records he achieved over the metric and imperial distance. By contrast, we can only guess at the potential Snell had over either distance. (I don't think Snell's later mile record truly represented his best as he had peaked earlier for Tokyo. His best career-form was likely to have been his record-breaking spree in January '62. But he was never pushed in those efforts).
Elliott is truly a great miler - but so was Snell, albeit according to a different tactical approach. His superior speed would have given him an advantage had they met over the 1500/mile and I remain to be persuaded that Elliott could have defused Snell's kick if they had met in the perfect race.
Both were 3.54 milers - Elliott on cinders and Snell on grass - and in that sense there is nothing really between them. In a way, there still isn't.

Apparently you have never run on dry cinders versus wet grass or mud!

3 years ago 08/09/2020 4:56pm EDT

re: sandybeaver

Unfortunately, there isn't much incentive to run until age 30. If there were, we would really see some battles.

I do not know or care who was the best miler of all time.

Jim Ryun may not have been the most talented. However, they burnt him out way too early.

We did not see his best.

Paavo Nurmi ran 4:10. That may have been the best achievement in the mile considering his lifestyle, and when he ran it!

3 years ago 08/09/2020 7:47pm EDT

re: waltertompatton

waltertompatton wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
First point: Elliott's record was also hand-timed, so he also may not have run the time given, if you are going to question Snell's time.
When Snell beat Elliott's record he was only trying to get under 4 minutes, which he hadn't done before, since he had scarcely raced the distance. Unlike Elliott's more even-paced effort, Snell ran a comparatively slow early race, at around 61 for the quarter and 3 minutes or so for the 3/4 - he only closed on Elliott's record with an incredible burst in the last half lap. He was nowhere near his limits that night. He showed that with his 1.44.3 (again on grass) over 800m a week later - far and away faster than anything Elliott was capable of.
Elliott was chiefly a miler and ran the distance many times more than Snell - but never faster. Because he didn't have the kind of top-end speed that Snell had he ran his races more even-paced with a sustained finishing drive. Snell didn't race that way - he didn't have to. He said the race only began for him at the 3/4 mark; the first 3 laps "were about positioning and relaxation". None of his rivals could match his finish (until he was coming off his peak in '65, when he lost to a certain Jim Ryun). Apart from his demolition of the 1500 final at Tokyo, take a look at how he destroyed America's finest (including the indoor wr holder Jim Beatty) at Modesto and Compton in '63.
It isn't credible to compare their respective 1500 times, as Snell raced the distance only once in his career, which was at Tokyo, and he ran only to win. That is how he ran most of his races.
You talk about "holes" in Elliott's training, but Snell had injury breaks in his career, including early '64, when his Olympic aspirations were in doubt, and he didn't train hard or continuously year and year out. He trained to peak for championships - and there has never been a better championship middle-distance runner. He successfully defended his Olympic 800m title and took the 1500 first time of asking and utterly convincingly (as well as the Empire Games double in '62). Elliott has the one Olympic gold (and the EG double in '58).
The argument can be made that as Elliott raced the mile many times in his career we have a more complete evaluation of his level as well as his possible limits over the distance. Short of being a professional and running on modern tracks with modern shoes he was likely as near as he was going to get to being his best with the records he achieved over the metric and imperial distance. By contrast, we can only guess at the potential Snell had over either distance. (I don't think Snell's later mile record truly represented his best as he had peaked earlier for Tokyo. His best career-form was likely to have been his record-breaking spree in January '62. But he was never pushed in those efforts).
Elliott is truly a great miler - but so was Snell, albeit according to a different tactical approach. His superior speed would have given him an advantage had they met over the 1500/mile and I remain to be persuaded that Elliott could have defused Snell's kick if they had met in the perfect race.
Both were 3.54 milers - Elliott on cinders and Snell on grass - and in that sense there is nothing really between them. In a way, there still isn't.
Apparently you have never run on dry cinders versus wet grass or mud!

I ran on grass - a lot - including the track where Snell set his '62 wr. It was fast. But so was Santry Stadium, where Elliott set his mile record.

3 years ago 08/09/2020 10:09pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

How would Walker and Dixon have done against Snell and Elliot?

3 years ago 08/10/2020 12:48am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

You seem to be ignoring that Elliott's 1500 WR converted to 3:52-ish for a mile. Not that that settles the argument, which of course can't be settled, but it at least undermines your notion that Snell actually ran faster. Elliott was injured with a broken foot in '56, had an abbreviated season as a junior in '57 off only a few month's training coming back from the foot injury, trained for and raced an incredible '58 season, barely did anything in '59 by his own admission given that he was focused on his new job and was newly married (and pretty sure first baby was born in early 1960), then started training again in Dec '59 as I said earlier (in his book, he says he gave up smoking to start training again, if you can believe it), got hurt in the spring, and still managed to run his 3:35 WR in early September 1960. And he was 22. So, to recap, he ran 2 full seasons as a world class athlete, maybe 1.5, and retired at age 22. And still ran faster than Snell over the distance. And there's absolutely no way, given the above summary of his age and career, that he had reached his peak. Yes he trained plenty hard for the maybe 2 years that he trained at an elite level, but this is not the biography of a miler who had reached his ultimate peak. But Cambridge was waiting, he had a wife and child to support, there was no money in the sport, he had the WR and an Olympic gold, and he moved on. More power to him, but it's ludicrous to think he couldn't have run faster if he had kept it for a few more years.

Armstronglivs wrote:
First point: Elliott's record was also hand-timed, so he also may not have run the time given, if you are going to question Snell's time.
When Snell beat Elliott's record he was only trying to get under 4 minutes, which he hadn't done before, since he had scarcely raced the distance. Unlike Elliott's more even-paced effort, Snell ran a comparatively slow early race, at around 61 for the quarter and 3 minutes or so for the 3/4 - he only closed on Elliott's record with an incredible burst in the last half lap. He was nowhere near his limits that night. He showed that with his 1.44.3 (again on grass) over 800m a week later - far and away faster than anything Elliott was capable of.
Elliott was chiefly a miler and ran the distance many times more than Snell - but never faster. Because he didn't have the kind of top-end speed that Snell had he ran his races more even-paced with a sustained finishing drive. Snell didn't race that way - he didn't have to. He said the race only began for him at the 3/4 mark; the first 3 laps "were about positioning and relaxation". None of his rivals could match his finish (until he was coming off his peak in '65, when he lost to a certain Jim Ryun). Apart from his demolition of the 1500 final at Tokyo, take a look at how he destroyed America's finest (including the indoor wr holder Jim Beatty) at Modesto and Compton in '63.
It isn't credible to compare their respective 1500 times, as Snell raced the distance only once in his career, which was at Tokyo, and he ran only to win. That is how he ran most of his races.
You talk about "holes" in Elliott's training, but Snell had injury breaks in his career, including early '64, when his Olympic aspirations were in doubt, and he didn't train hard or continuously year and year out. He trained to peak for championships - and there has never been a better championship middle-distance runner. He successfully defended his Olympic 800m title and took the 1500 first time of asking and utterly convincingly (as well as the Empire Games double in '62). Elliott has the one Olympic gold (and the EG double in '58).
The argument can be made that as Elliott raced the mile many times in his career we have a more complete evaluation of his level as well as his possible limits over the distance. Short of being a professional and running on modern tracks with modern shoes he was likely as near as he was going to get to being his best with the records he achieved over the metric and imperial distance. By contrast, we can only guess at the potential Snell had over either distance. (I don't think Snell's later mile record truly represented his best as he had peaked earlier for Tokyo. His best career-form was likely to have been his record-breaking spree in January '62. But he was never pushed in those efforts).
Elliott is truly a great miler - but so was Snell, albeit according to a different tactical approach. His superior speed would have given him an advantage had they met over the 1500/mile and I remain to be persuaded that Elliott could have defused Snell's kick if they had met in the perfect race.
Both were 3.54 milers - Elliott on cinders and Snell on grass - and in that sense there is nothing really between them. In a way, there still isn't.

3 years ago 08/10/2020 2:29am EDT

re: The Floyd

The Floyd wrote:
You seem to be ignoring that Elliott's 1500 WR converted to 3:52-ish for a mile. Not that that settles the argument, which of course can't be settled, but it at least undermines your notion that Snell actually ran faster.
Elliott was injured with a broken foot in '56, had an abbreviated season as a junior in '57 off only a few month's training coming back from the foot injury, trained for and raced an incredible '58 season, barely did anything in '59 by his own admission given that he was focused on his new job and was newly married (and pretty sure first baby was born in early 1960), then started training again in Dec '59 as I said earlier (in his book, he says he gave up smoking to start training again, if you can believe it), got hurt in the spring, and still managed to run his 3:35 WR in early September 1960. And he was 22.
So, to recap, he ran 2 full seasons as a world class athlete, maybe 1.5, and retired at age 22. And still ran faster than Snell over the distance. And there's absolutely no way, given the above summary of his age and career, that he had reached his peak. Yes he trained plenty hard for the maybe 2 years that he trained at an elite level, but this is not the biography of a miler who had reached his ultimate peak. But Cambridge was waiting, he had a wife and child to support, there was no money in the sport, he had the WR and an Olympic gold, and he moved on. More power to him, but it's ludicrous to think he couldn't have run faster if he had kept it for a few more years.
Armstronglivs wrote:
First point: Elliott's record was also hand-timed, so he also may not have run the time given, if you are going to question Snell's time.
When Snell beat Elliott's record he was only trying to get under 4 minutes, which he hadn't done before, since he had scarcely raced the distance. Unlike Elliott's more even-paced effort, Snell ran a comparatively slow early race, at around 61 for the quarter and 3 minutes or so for the 3/4 - he only closed on Elliott's record with an incredible burst in the last half lap. He was nowhere near his limits that night. He showed that with his 1.44.3 (again on grass) over 800m a week later - far and away faster than anything Elliott was capable of.
Elliott was chiefly a miler and ran the distance many times more than Snell - but never faster. Because he didn't have the kind of top-end speed that Snell had he ran his races more even-paced with a sustained finishing drive. Snell didn't race that way - he didn't have to. He said the race only began for him at the 3/4 mark; the first 3 laps "were about positioning and relaxation". None of his rivals could match his finish (until he was coming off his peak in '65, when he lost to a certain Jim Ryun). Apart from his demolition of the 1500 final at Tokyo, take a look at how he destroyed America's finest (including the indoor wr holder Jim Beatty) at Modesto and Compton in '63.
It isn't credible to compare their respective 1500 times, as Snell raced the distance only once in his career, which was at Tokyo, and he ran only to win. That is how he ran most of his races.
You talk about "holes" in Elliott's training, but Snell had injury breaks in his career, including early '64, when his Olympic aspirations were in doubt, and he didn't train hard or continuously year and year out. He trained to peak for championships - and there has never been a better championship middle-distance runner. He successfully defended his Olympic 800m title and took the 1500 first time of asking and utterly convincingly (as well as the Empire Games double in '62). Elliott has the one Olympic gold (and the EG double in '58).
The argument can be made that as Elliott raced the mile many times in his career we have a more complete evaluation of his level as well as his possible limits over the distance. Short of being a professional and running on modern tracks with modern shoes he was likely as near as he was going to get to being his best with the records he achieved over the metric and imperial distance. By contrast, we can only guess at the potential Snell had over either distance. (I don't think Snell's later mile record truly represented his best as he had peaked earlier for Tokyo. His best career-form was likely to have been his record-breaking spree in January '62. But he was never pushed in those efforts).
Elliott is truly a great miler - but so was Snell, albeit according to a different tactical approach. His superior speed would have given him an advantage had they met over the 1500/mile and I remain to be persuaded that Elliott could have defused Snell's kick if they had met in the perfect race.
Both were 3.54 milers - Elliott on cinders and Snell on grass - and in that sense there is nothing really between them. In a way, there still isn't.

Elliott - 3.54.5 for the mile. Snell - 3.54.4, 3.54.1. We know for sure who was the faster miler.

Snell only ran the 1500m at Tokyo. He also didn't run it tactically the same way as Elliott, whose race was faster from the gun - and, as he admitted, ran to his limit. Elliott wouldn't necessarily have improved on that time if his career had continued. Ryun ran his fastest times at 20. Elliott was 22.

Snell's 1500 victory at Tokyo came after 6 races - not 2, as was the case with Elliott - and yet took much less out of him. His victory was utterly emphatic.

Elliott trained extremely hard under Cerutty - that was one of the reasons he had a short career (as he later said), combined also with the way he raced. Snell trained hard only for championships - which he invariably won - and almost never ran flat out in a race. He didn't have to. His second mile record in late '64 came off the back of declining condition; he had peaked two months earlier for the Olympics, which was his goal.

Elliott was the greatest miler of his era, but made no significant mark over the half or any distance longer than the mile. His greatest achievement was undoubtedly his victory at Rome. Snell was utterly dominant over two distances in his career - which was longer than Elliott's - and his feat at Tokyo, in defending his title and accomplishing the 800/1500 double, was more demanding than Elliott's victory. It was a higher order of achievement. Only one other middle distance runner has accomplished the same md feat - and that was back in 1920.

Snell was considerably faster than Elliott - his 1.44 as against Elliott's 1.47 over 800 showed that; he never ran to his limits over the longer distance, while completely dominating his opposition from late '60 to the end of '64. It is hard to believe that as the faster athlete he wouldn't have been able to match Elliott if they had met over the mile (they raced only over the half, which Snell won - unsurprisingly - in '61). His '65 was no more committed than Elliott's '61; they had each done what they set out to achieve and the motivation had gone.

Both were incredible athletes, who did what they did as amateurs and without the advances in training, nutrition, and equipment that athletes have today. We will never know what their true best might have been. But only a fool would bet against Snell at his peak.

3 years ago 08/10/2020 2:52am EDT

re: sky

sky wrote:
How would Walker and Dixon have done against Snell and Elliot?

Put in the same era they would have not matched Snell over the mile - nor likely Elliott either. Both Walker and Dixon say Snell was the best. Too much power; so much talent. But it was his example that was their inspiration. And we - and they - all owe much of that to Lydiard.

Walker had a famous kick like Snell, but wasn't quite as fast - he was a 22.7 man over 200m while Snell was 22-22.3. Their 800 times and performances also showed that; Snell was easily the best half-miler of his era; it was Walker's second distance, notwithstanding an impressive 1.44.9 to finish third at Christchurch in '74. Dixon was more a true distance runner, capable of championship-level performance from the 1500 to the marathon - a terrific range. Even though he ran 3.33.9 over 1500 to finish 4th behind Bayi, Walker and Jipcho in Christchurch in '74, he wasn't in Snell's class over that distance - and acknowledges that. Walker also says Snell was the better when compared with him.

If we put a hypothetical field together over a 1500/mile with all these athletes at their peak, I would predict Snell by a nose over Elliott, with Walker close behind and Rod staring at their backs. In today's conditions and as professionals it would undoubtedly be a sub-3.28-29 race, as Willis has run 3.29x.

3 years ago 08/10/2020 3:02am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Well, again, Elliott's best season was when he was 20! He ran his fastest mile. His fastest 880yds ( which also the fastest time in the world that year) . He ran the 1500m onlt marginally faster in 1960.

So, I think we can argue that a 20 yr old Elliott would have given a Snell, at his peak, a great race BUT an Elliott who had kept training progressively up to the 1964 Olympics would have been seconds fastest than Snell.

3 years ago 08/10/2020 5:32am EDT

re: portsea57

Another statistic to think about is the rate of improvement. Apart from Ryun, whose ultimate potential was curtailed by illness, no other World champ/Olympic champ - apart from Herb -has failed to improve their best 1500m/mile times, from the age of 20, by over 5 secs.

Another point which posters keep bringing up is the fact that Snell set his mile record on grass ( he also set his 800m.880 yds record on grass ) BUT it's generally recognised that good grass track can be faster than cinder.

3 years ago 08/10/2020 9:32am EDT

re: portsea57

portsea57 wrote:
Well, again, Elliott's best season was when he was 20! He ran his fastest mile. His fastest 880yds ( which also the fastest time in the world that year) . He ran the 1500m onlt marginally faster in 1960.
So, I think we can argue that a 20 yr old Elliott would have given a Snell, at his peak, a great race BUT an Elliott who had kept training progressively up to the 1964 Olympics would have been seconds fastest than Snell.

You mean he would have improved like the way Ryun ran so much faster past 20? Oh, wait ...

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4

Next Last

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Peter Snell vs.Herb Elliot

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Peter Snell vs.Herb Elliot

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow portsea57

Block portsea57

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow portsea57

Block portsea57

Follow The Floyd

Block The Floyd

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow waltertompatton

Block waltertompatton

Follow waltertompatton

Block waltertompatton

Follow waltertompatton

Block waltertompatton

Follow waltertompatton

Block waltertompatton

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow The Floyd

Block The Floyd

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow portsea57

Block portsea57

Follow portsea57

Block portsea57

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.