Roger Bannister sub-4 spikes up for auction - HOW THE HELL DID HE GO SUB 4 IN THESE!?!?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Yes but it would not suite a low mileage runner who was not prepared for it

Think he was just 22 at Olympics though and simply had not reached peak. In 1954 he beat the only other contender for world No 1 Landy

Bannister was 23 at the time of the 1952 Olympic final, Werner Lueg (bronze) was only 20, Bob McMillan (silver) was 24, Josey Bartel (gold) was 25.

Most of those guys would have been doing low mileage training as that was way most milers trained back then. Someone like Lueg, who was almost 3 years younger than RB at the time, would have likely had less training under his belt.

Yes in 1954 RB beat Landy, but Landy was one year younger and went on to win a bronze in 1956 and the event was moving on by then. All of the guys of that era were so inspirational as they ran fast off limited training and managed to have full and highly successful lives outside of athletics. The professional era seems to have taken a lot away from the sport with PED scandals etc..

It's "extrinsic" not "intrinsic" and it's "biased" not "bias."

In 2006, Barthel was accused of doping by sports journalist Erik Eggers in the German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel.[2] Eggers cited German physician Oskar Wegener who did research on methamphetamine and other doping substances in the 1950s. Wegener strongly denied saying Barthel had any connection with doping.[3] The use of such substances was neither prohibited nor controlled until the 1960s

Barthel was a chemist by profession.....

I despise it when a good thread is hijacked by pointless bickering. You guys suck. Seriously.

Old Shoes wrote:

I ran high school track from 1958 to 1962 and those shoes look very similar to those which I wore. There was no heel and no arch support. It was really just a piece of stiff leather for the sole and some sort of soft leather for the upper. Todays shoes are probably faster but I think it would depend a lot on what your feet are used to running in. Feet adapt themselves quickly. If you train in those ancient shoes, you'll also be able to race in them. Todays runner would find those shoes very difficult to train and race in but over time would get used to them.

What is most amazing is that these athletes from that era never ran with socks in these shoes.

Why would you need a heel or arch support?

arch enemy wrote:

Why would you need a heel or arch support?

Obviously, to hold them up off the ground. :)

He hadn't peaked in any case that was 2 years later when he was far better than any of these guys were in 52

He improved a lot in the following 2 years under the guidance of Franz Stamfl

Did any the guys who beat him in 52 go sub 4 ever. Bannister went sub 4 and demolished the new WR holder. He was the best in the world by miles in 54 whatever happened on 52

Interesting how you all still wet your pants over some American who finished 4th in the olympics at his peak and never came close to any world record

De Villiers Lamprecht, the first South African to run a sub4 mile, did it barefoot if my memory serves me correct. That is impressive.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Interesting how you all still wet your pants over some American who finished 4th in the olympics at his peak and never came close to any world record

Steve wasn't at his peak in '72...

And he was messed up by having the heats delayed by a day after the terrorist attacks.

Runnah wrote:

And he was messed up by having the heats delayed by a day after the terrorist attacks.

Were they only delayed for him? I think Viren might have even been a bit tired out by his WR in the 10.

Blah Blah Blah wrote:

High Intensity wrote:

Bannister achieved his sub-4 by using high intensity workouts. He ate a clean diet composed of mostly protein and good fats. He lifted heavy with an emphasis on full body exercises and functional strength versus slow slogging running. He understood that pain is a sign of growth and that true power doesn't come from running long but rather from powerful exercises and a well built physique.

He also used amphetamines.

LOL That won't help you out at anything over 400 meters. What a dumbo. But we know where you're coming from and why, hasbarat.

Sloppy Research wrote:

"In June 1957 an American public health physician told his audience at a medical conference in New York that a stimulant drug such as amphetamine (‘Benzedrine’) might have enabled athletes to run the mile in less than four minutes"

Might have is the same as shoulda coulda woulda

No doubt he was part of the ongoing attack on Western Civilization and Europeans in general by the Usual Suspects who always play themselves up as victims, but do nothing but leave ruined countries, destruction, and death in their wake as their hive-minded tribe of ethnocentrists moves on the next independent minded and atomized population to prey upon.

reader of the forums wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Interesting how you all still wet your pants over some American who finished 4th in the olympics at his peak and never came close to any world record

Steve wasn't at his peak in '72...

Show me his WR when he was

If Bannister was American the view here would be different

Bannister said he planned to retire in 1952 if he won Gold. Losing kept him motivated to go on and achieve the sub 4 mile.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

reader of the forums wrote:

Steve wasn't at his peak in '72...

Show me his WR when he was

If Bannister was American the view here would be different

What are you going on about?

You wrote that Steve finished 4th in the Olympic Games at his peak.

That was factually incorrect.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

He improved a lot in the following 2 years under the guidance of Franz Stamfl

Did any the guys who beat him in 52 go sub 4 ever. Bannister went sub 4 and demolished the new WR holder. He was the best in the world by miles in 54 whatever happened on 52

Interesting how you all still wet your pants over some American who finished 4th in the olympics at his peak and never came close to any world record

So you seem to believe that RB was way better than:

1. Guys who beat him in the Olympics.

2. Someone who ran faster over 1500m and 1 mile, ran twice as many sub 4s and who won an Olympic medal (something that RB never achieved and the Olympics were the highest level of competition back then).

And you say that Americans have bought into the media hype about Pre?

You're funny!!