Where Does Louie Zamperini Rank?

And how can you say he was only "a good International for his era?" His PBs of 4:07 and 1:49 were both very close to world records, that's a lot better than "good." Like I said, how many in the NCAA today could run a 1:49 half mile on a dirt track, I would speculate maybe 5.

"And your ignorance of sarcasm is not so well hidden"

-2/10 for trying to cover up you failure to grasp eras: track surfaces, traning techniques/gimmicks, equipment quality, TUEs, gray-zone drugs, special coaches...

"how many in the NCAA today could run a 1:49 half mile on a dirt track, I would speculate maybe 5."

Zero... if they have to wear the same 1936-style unpadded, leather running shoes.

My original post was simply to get a better understanding of whether or not Zamperini was the real deal or whether he has been over hyped. With "Unbroken" debuting the story interested me. From my perspective it seems like he was the real deal but I was curious to see if others might have more insight into the history as I could certainly be wrong. 8th place in an olympic distance event at 19 years old is rare even in 1936. As well as nearly setting a world record at such a young age. Just hoping for some insightful honest discussion was all. I wasn't putting a stake in the ground or trying to infer anything.

Breathe in breathe out wrote:

Like Gunder Hägg, he probably would have continued on improving if there were such thing as financial support for runners.

Anyone who made it to the amphetamine era would have dropped a few seconds off their PR before retiring early.

running history wrote:

My original post was simply to get a better understanding of whether or not Zamperini was the real deal or whether he has been over hyped. With "Unbroken" debuting the story interested me. From my perspective it seems like he was the real deal but I was curious to see if others might have more insight into the history as I could certainly be wrong. 8th place in an olympic distance event at 19 years old is rare even in 1936. As well as nearly setting a world record at such a young age. Just hoping for some insightful honest discussion was all. I wasn't putting a stake in the ground or trying to infer anything.

I read the book and his older brother (who helped coach him) believed that Louie could have broken the 4 min mile before bannister did. I guess you have to take that with a grain of salt, but it was one thing in the book that alluded to his potential.

His story is more important than his running career

so Zamperini is greater than Bannister based on potential time

Walter White wrote:

His story is more important than his running career

pretty incredible story

i wonder whether the man's spirit enabled his training and pain tolerance,

or if the training strengthened the spirit and pain tolerance

probably both

woulda coulda shoulda wrote:

so Zamperini is greater than Bannister based on potential time

No, that isn't what he's saying at all. Bannister retired at age 25 the year he first broke 4 and won the Commonwealth Games 3:58. He didn't reach his potential either, he accomplished everything he wanted to accomplish.

As for whether Zamperini would break 4, depends on how much you think he could have improved on this training:

I wonder about this, too. I am not an elite runner, but I can say that one's spirit/faith does play a role. It is complicated, though, and somewhat mysterious. It is probably some type of physical/spiritual symbiosis.

This kind of discussion really ruins the beauty of track and field. What's special about our sport is that the comparisons are made for us. Talking about "would have" and "could have" really cheapens the purity for me. You race your contemporaries on an even playing field, or at least as even as genetics and opportunity and luck allow. This kind of questioning even leaves doubt in current World Records (which don't need anymore doubt that is already over them with doping, etc.), since "Oh, if Louie were born in 1999 he would have won Footlocker this year, the Olympics in 2016, and set a new 5k record in 2018!".

Mr. Zamperini ranks exactly where 4:07 puts him in the Universe, it just happens to be a slightly more impressive 4:07 because of his circumstances/timing.

And since I mentioned World Records, if you look at the age of the athlete that set them, the average for males is something in the neighborhood of 22 year old and change.

800m: 23

1000m: 20

1500m: 23

mile: 24

3k: 20

5k: 21

10k 23

I think there is a pretty significant difference between 19 and 23, sure, but its not like its a linear progression upwards.

Whose faith and accomplishments are greater Ryan Hall or the Z Man??

Breathe in breathe out wrote:

And how can you say he was only "a good International for his era?" His PBs of 4:07 and 1:49 were both very close to world records, that's a lot better than "good." Like I said, how many in the NCAA today could run a 1:49 half mile on a dirt track, I would speculate maybe 5.

And only an idiot would fail to realize that the era he ran in also makes "being close to a world record and coming in 8th at the Olympic Finals at a young age" much less accomplished than what it would be today.

I'll give you a very bare example: Half the posters on this board like to bash on triathlons for lacking depth since only well-off individuals from fairly well-off countries can actually afford the equipment and training schedule for it.

This "lack of depth" is basically what running in Zamperini's era was like.

1) There were NO professional runners. This means that once a man reached his early 20s, found a job, started working, etc. running had to take a backseat. It's not all that easy to work a full time job and train at an extremely high level. Even less so for anyone whose job had him working in smoke-filled conditions or involved manual labor of any sort. If the man had kids, this became even MORE difficult. It's likely that legions of stellar HS or college runners were more or less forced to quit before even approaching their potential, since making an actual living had to come first.

2) As far as the Olympics go, back in the 1930s, all athletes (being that they were amateurs) would have to pay their way to the trials and for their own room and board for the duration. Taken from Zamperini's Wikipedia page, apparently, he was able to get a free ride because his father worked with a railroad company, and a bunch of guys from his hometown gathered enough money for him to house himself. There were probably plenty of great runners who weren't nearly as lucky in those circumstances. Especially since competing in the Olympic Trials also meant having to take a leave of absence from work.

In short, in the 1930s, a 19 year old only had to compete with a small group of early-mid 20-year-olds who had enough free time outside of their work to train at a high level. In the present, a 19 year old has to compete with sponsored athletes whose ONLY job is to run, and have been training and competing for years with that sole purpose. Hell, guys like Lagat and Farah have families and were still improving into their 30s (which is something you would NEVER have seen in the Zamperini Era) and Bekele was able to purchase and build a personal track that was designed to be softer and help him avoid injury.

In the same way that we can all acknowledge that an 18-year old running a 4:00 on a dirt track in the mid-1900s is a greater accomplishment than an 18-year old running a 4:00 on a synthetic track in the 21st century, we should all be able to realize that an 18-year-old competing on the world stage in the earlier time period is a LESSER accomplishment than an 18-year old competing on the world stage today.

You know very little about the history of running in the Olympic games, don't you?

Poor thing. There, there...

According to David Epstein (who asked around) you can figure the track surfaces from the 30s is worth a 1.5% penalty or so. That makes his 4:07 about 4:03--and that does not take into account shoes. Still pretty decent.

I have a bias here as I met Louis Zamperini and had read his autobiography (I highly recommend it) along with Unbroken. He is an amazing person. I am not religious, but I find his story of salvation to be fantastic. He was headed into a life of misery.

As for how good he could have gotten, that is a fun thing to do with any young athlete who either dies young (Pre) or has key years of his career taken from him (imagine Ted Williams' numbers if not for WWII AND Korea).

I think Louis exemplifies the old code of the amateur athlete and the spirit of sportsmanship. We could use a whole lot more like him.

RIP

Seyta wrote:

There were probably plenty of great runners who weren't nearly as lucky in those circumstances.

Really, who? He held a national high school record, an NCAA record that stood for 15 years, and was within 1 second of the world record in two events. Who were all these "plenty" of greater runners that weren't as lucky as he?

Ok, I'll bite.First of all, I've run faster. I've run in an Olympic race in the old shoes of that period. Yes, I'm old. I was a POW too, not American, and I've lived a long life. Now, what prize do I get?

Lucky Z wrote:

beyond? wrote:

the original poster seems to infer that Zamperini would have progressed to even greater heights as a runner but for the war

And you don't think a 19 year old could have progressed?

And have you educated yourself? Do you know what being in a POW camp was like in Japan in 1944/45?

Do you even run?

OlyMan1952 wrote:

Ok, I'll bite.

First of all, I've run faster. I've run in an Olympic race in the old shoes of that period. Yes, I'm old. I was a POW too, not American, and I've lived a long life. Now, what prize do I get?

And you have a 150+ IQ, make $250K, have a hot wife and several hot mistresses...