Peter Snell vs.Herb Elliot

Fascinating discussion.

I would put Elliott higher up the list of all time 1500m/milers than Snell, but the latter was arguably the greatest 2 lap runner in history and certainly in the top 2 over the ‘middle distances’ (800 to 1 mile) of all time.

A couple of points as good for thought:

-Elliott’s 3:35.6 front run win in Rome is equivalent to a 3:52.8 mile, which compares favourably to both’s 3:54 miles. Had he been paced/drafted to bell in a circuit race it would likely have been a bit quicker.

- Snell was on record as stating that he believed grass was a quicker surface than cinders.

- I doubt Elliott reached his full potential by 20, although there are cases of those that never improved after that age! (Ryun). So no certainty he would have run faster.

-Snell’s flat speed and change in pace were superior to Elliott’s, so I would make him a favourite to win in a 1500/mile of pace up to 1200m was outside 2:58. If it were faster, who knows? If they ran 5 races at their peak over a season, the same person wouldn’t win all of them.

- on synthetic tracks I see Snell as a 1:43 flat/ 3:34 runner, and Elliott probably getting down to 3:33/3:51

Lydiard said Snell's 1.44 for 800 was worth 1.42-low on a modern track. Walker also says Snell was better than he was - and Walker was a 3.32/3.49 man - so he is suggesting that Snell was capably better than that over the longer distance. Trained as a pro, Snell would also have been better than Willis, who was a 3.29 runner. The same would have applied in that regard to Elliott. He and Snell were amateurs. Further, Snell never put the effort into miling that Elliott did, as he basically moved up from the half, and won as economically as he needed to. I don't think we saw what he was fully capable of over the mile or 1500.

A good grass track was undoubtedly faster than the rain-soaked cinders at Tokyo, but not all cinders tracks were the same and Santry was lightning quick, according to Elliott.

The fascinating and unanswerable question is if Elliott and Snell were pitted against each other at their respective peaks, could Elliott have either distanced himself from Snell or run the finish out of him by a sustained drive of the kind that won him victory in Rome? That is the only way he would have won. Yet no one was able to do that to Snell during his career. (And 1965 - for the Ryun fans - was not Snell at his peak, as 1961 was no longer peak Elliott).

Hmm, it doesn't seem like you even read what I wrote. First, to disregard 1500/mile conversions is just silly. Not just an Elliott issue but a track issue. Elliott ran objectively faster. Full stop. As I said earlier, I don't think that ends the argument, but a mile-to-mile comparison doesn't either. Elliott's "training hard" thing is also silly. He trained for two years. Sure, he trained hard. So did Snell. So did Ryun. Elliott's heart wasn't in it (shoot, 1959 he barely trained and was a smoker) for all the reasons he said and I wrote about: job, Cambridge, new wife, new child, no money, already reached the pinnacle. But that doesn't mean he had reached his peak. No athlete -- and I mean none -- has reached his career peak with essentially 2 years of high level training/racing (with a down-year in between) and retiring at his age. Comparing Ryun to Elliott at similar ages makes no sense. Ryun was training insanely hard from age 16 or so. Totally different from Elliott. Go read Elliott's book. It's actually a great read. Elliott left a huge career on the table, and that's reflective of his era and his personal motivations, so can't fault him for that. Snell was great too, of course. But just because Snell was faster at 800/880 doesn't mean he was the better potential miler.

Armstronglivs wrote:

A good grass track was undoubtedly faster than the rain-soaked cinders at Tokyo, but not all cinders tracks were the same and Santry was lightning quick, according to Elliott. .

I am sure it was lightening fast compare to the crap he normally ran on.:) It was a different era and the chance and incentives were running fast were just way different. People quitting at 22/23 was pretty normal.

Snell and Elliot had similiar times at the 1500m. You can make all sorts of arguments about which one was closest to their potential and so on. And no the guy with the fast 800m doesn't always win the 1500m.

I read Elliott's book - and more about him. He was one of my boyhood heroes. I grew up following those guys. But your account of his career is more fiction than fact. Your points don't wash.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A good grass track was undoubtedly faster than the rain-soaked cinders at Tokyo, but not all cinders tracks were the same and Santry was lightning quick, according to Elliott. .

I am sure it was lightening fast compare to the crap he normally ran on.:) It was a different era and the chance and incentives were running fast were just way different. People quitting at 22/23 was pretty normal.

Snell and Elliot had similiar times at the 1500m. You can make all sorts of arguments about which one was closest to their potential and so on. And no the guy with the fast 800m doesn't always win the 1500m.

That isn't the argument. But with two milers of approximately equivalent ability over that distance I would put my money on the clearly faster athlete if they were to go head to head.

But of course, it was an utterly different era from today - for both of them. Neither was given the opportunities that runners have in the modern era to max out their potential.

Yeah? In what way?

Armstronglivs wrote:

I read Elliott's book - and more about him. He was one of my boyhood heroes. I grew up following those guys. But your account of his career is more fiction than fact. Your points don't wash.

If we back to my point about how much World Champs/Olympic Champs and medalists, it is true that Jim Ryun is the only one not to improve his best mile/1500m time after the age of 20. Herb, of course did improve his 1500m time marginally at 22. So, it could be said that Jim is the only athlete not to have improved. Why was that? Over training? Effects of the mono illness. Psychological problems? Lack of motivation? Injuries?

But, only motivation applies to Herb. I've no doubt, -and I bet that none of Herb's contemporaries had any doubt too - that Herb came no where near reaching his true potential. You can't say the same for Snell.

Armstronglivs wrote:

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 ...

Okay good discussion - no right or wrong let's not forget that before it gets personal. Obviously you are a New Zealander (you said you ran at Cooks Gardens on grass?) So am I - so my bias should be for Snell as he was very prevalent in my adolescence and I read NBND so many times for inspiration I can't remember the actual number. Let me reiterate, I think Snell is almost unequivocally the greatest MD runner ever. But a large portion of this is weighted in his 800m excellence where to this very day he is number 2 or 3 all time behind Rudisha and possibly Kipketer (or possibly not depending on your criteria), but doesn't approach the top 5 when it comes to the mile/1500m (Coe, Ovett, Walker, El Guerrojou, Morceli are all easy ones off the top of my head ahead of him and there isn't much debate there. This is even leaving out Elliott who I believe slots into that list).

But this is about Elliott and Snell and it's gone down the path of ultimate potential so let's just address that.

In the fastest race possible - let's just say a mass sub 3.30 race like Monaco in 2015 where Willis ran 3.29, who crosses the line first? My answer is Herb Elliot.

Jesus, Herb Elliott

I appreciate what you say - and Herb Elliott told Snell himself at the Milers of the Century back in the 90's that he would have "kicked his butt" - in good spirit of course. However, I think Snell was never pushed to anything like his max over the mile in his career; he didn't race it that often and he never met a competitor of Elliott's mettle. He cruised. Elliott however raced closer to his limit. He ran his races harder. Apart from the need to make a career, he said that one of the reasons he retired young was that his style of training and racing took so much out of him.

Elliott was a truly great runner and steely competitor, but Snell had the same killer instinct and in his career never lost a race he had to win. He carried that aura of invincibility into the stadium. John Davies said of him that in the warm-up area none of the athletes would look at each other but Snell would look them each in the eye as though to say, "you can do whatever you want but I will beat you with my power". And he did. The 1500 final at Tokyo showed it as well as any time. He had enormous power, a terrific kick, and knew how to find his best when he needed. And he had more speed than Elliott. That's why I would give him the nod. But in the end I feel they share greatness equally and represent the very best of amateur sport - which most here would have no memory of.

portsea57 wrote:

If we back to my point about how much World Champs/Olympic Champs and medalists, it is true that Jim Ryun is the only one not to improve his best mile/1500m time after the age of 20. Herb, of course did improve his 1500m time marginally at 22. So, it could be said that Jim is the only athlete not to have improved. Why was that? Over training? Effects of the mono illness. Psychological problems? Lack of motivation? Injuries?

But, only motivation applies to Herb. I've no doubt, -and I bet that none of Herb's contemporaries had any doubt too - that Herb came no where near reaching his true potential. You can't say the same for Snell.

You can't say that. Snell was also an amateur who trained mainly to peak for championships and he competed less often than Elliott over the mile, as he was initially a half miler. He also ran tactically differently from Elliott as he was generally able to rely on his superior speed to beat his competition. He was never pushed to his limits. Elliott pretty much said after Rome that he ran to his, and the effort it took - and the pain - was one of the reasons he retired young.

The Floyd wrote:

Yeah? In what way?

Armstronglivs wrote:

I read Elliott's book - and more about him. He was one of my boyhood heroes. I grew up following those guys. But your account of his career is more fiction than fact. Your points don't wash.

You depict Elliott as little more than a talented dilettante. Talented for sure - but he worked enormously hard under Cerutty from the time he formed an ambition to be the best after seeing the Melbourne Olympics in '56. His career was very concentrated - he had only 3 years at his peak - and it was an astounding peak - unbeaten over the mile and 1500m, and 3 fantastic world records. He was head and shoulders above his competition. But he never met a runner of the calibre of Snell. The Lydiard-trained Snell had endurance but also more speed and power than any other miler - including Elliott - as shown by astonishing half-mile prowess. He was Coe at twice the size. Snell would have been a nightmare for Elliott - or his greatest feat, if he had overcome him. It is a shame that their careers - amateurs both - passed each other.