Just seems way too heavy for a distance runner. Nobody on the international scene got physiques like that today
Just seems way too heavy for a distance runner. Nobody on the international scene got physiques like that today
fatty macfatbutt wrote:
Just seems way too heavy for a distance runner. Nobody on the international scene got physiques like that today
Actually, Snell back in the day and Nick Symmonds are fairly close in build.
Evidently he was not too heavy for a distance runner.
He was 6 foot 4, 350 lbs. All pure muscle. The ground literally shook when he ran. New Zealand was going to float into Antartica, but Lydiard had Snell run along the continental plate and push it back north.
5'10" 175. Still the highest BMI of any Oly Champ above 400m. McMullen and a few others probably were bigger with sub-4 though.
He looked really tall in his day, he would've been closer to 170 or less when in peak form. I've got a picture of him training top less and he was actually slimmer then what people think.
His 1:44.2 on grass (Lancaster park) would be the equivalent of 1:41/42 on the Rio mondo track. The man was a freak, world t&f athlete of the 1960s.
Mope Dealer wrote:
He looked really tall in his day, he would've been closer to 170 or less when in peak form. I've got a picture of him training top less and he was actually slimmer then what people think.
His 1:44.2 on grass (Lancaster park) would be the equivalent of 1:41/42 on the Rio mondo track. The man was a freak, world t&f athlete of the 1960s.
He was all legs. That's where the weight was. Look at how thick his calves adn ankles were. Not as big as Hillary's stocky slabs, but the heaviest/ thickest ever seen on a World Class 800 / 1500 runner.
Peter Snell was a disgrace and an insult to his fellow athletes to show his stocky legs in full view of millions of viewers around the world.
It should only be possible to win Olympic Gold with Kipchoge calves, as most LetsRunners agree. Snell should have been made to cover his legs and the fact that he didn't means he should now retrospeculately be diqualificated.
Please follow me on Instagram, I want more followers than Patrick Cutter.
Daniel Rosa wrote:
Peter Snell was a disgrace and an insult to his fellow athletes to show his stocky legs in full view of millions of viewers around the world.
It should only be possible to win Olympic Gold with Kipchoge calves, as most LetsRunners agree. Snell should have been made to cover his legs and the fact that he didn't means he should now retrospeculately be diqualificated.
Please follow me on Instagram, I want more followers than Patrick Cutter.
https://www.instagram.com/danielino83/
POTD
kvothe wrote:
He was 6 foot 4, 350 lbs. All pure muscle. The ground literally shook when he ran. New Zealand was going to float into Antartica, but Lydiard had Snell run along the continental plate and push it back north.
Hilarious, more powerful than the Pacific plate, now that is classic.
In Lydiard's book he is 76kg.
I actually went a looked at pictures and video and the answer is don't be ridiculous. He didn't even weigh 170 in those races. 165 tops.
180lb man : men's mid-d race :: caster semenya : women's 800. Giant among midgets.
Don't bother arguing unless you can actually bring back racing Snell and weigh him, with reliable witnesses on a verifiably accurate scale. Which you can't.
Bad Wigins wrote:
I actually went a looked at pictures and video and the answer is don't be ridiculous. He didn't even weigh 170 in those races. 165 tops.
180lb man : men's mid-d race :: caster semenya : women's 800. Giant among midgets.
Don't bother arguing unless you can actually bring back racing Snell and weigh him, with reliable witnesses on a verifiably accurate scale. Which you can't.
He doesn't look a ton bigger than the other guys in this photo, but some people just have more mass than typical.
https://www.si.com/longform/2016/greatest-olympic-photos/common/images/photos/1964_tokyo/1964_track_1.jpgBad Wigins wrote:
I actually went a looked at pictures and video and the answer is don't be ridiculous. He didn't even weigh 170 in those races. 165 tops.
180lb man : men's mid-d race :: caster semenya : women's 800. Giant among midgets.
Don't bother arguing unless you can actually bring back racing Snell and weigh him, with reliable witnesses on a verifiably accurate scale. Which you can't.
C'mon Wiggins...his Wikipedia says 176 lbs. Perhaps you should contact him and settle this once and for all. Certainly he'd know his racing weight back in the day. ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_SnellDQ LaRoid wrote:
Mope Dealer wrote:
He looked really tall in his day, he would've been closer to 170 or less when in peak form. I've got a picture of him training top less and he was actually slimmer then what people think.
His 1:44.2 on grass (Lancaster park) would be the equivalent of 1:41/42 on the Rio mondo track. The man was a freak, world t&f athlete of the 1960s.
No cankles on the Kiwi. Lydiards 20 miler on sundays burned off the muscle, he was 175 max at 5'10" maybe 1 70..read "No Bugles, No Drums".
He was all legs. That's where the weight was. Look at how thick his calves adn ankles were. Not as big as Hillary's stocky slabs, but the heaviest/ thickest ever seen on a World Class 800 / 1500 runner.
This post was removed.
I'm about a cm shy of 6' and weigh 175. I'm not an elite runner, but I'm in consistent 50+ mw shape at 45 years. I look pretty much like the guys in that picture. With my build I could drop 5-8 pounds more (when I was 20 I could get down to 165), but more than that would be very hard. I'd have to probably double my volume.
I'm taller and more muscular and fatter and I weigh 175-180, so I'd agree with the 165 range (for that picture at least).
But who's the German (#35)?
He looks much bigger and more in line with the 180 range.
Mope Dealer wrote:
He looked really tall in his day, he would've been closer to 170 or less when in peak form. I've got a picture of him training top less and he was actually slimmer then what people think.
His 1:44.2 on grass (Lancaster park) would be the equivalent of 1:41/42 on the Rio mondo track. The man was a freak, world t&f athlete of the 1960s.
His time was 1:44.3 not 1:44.2, and as it was hand timed, probably more like 1:44.4 FAT. I agree it was a phenomenal performance, but I think you over exaggerate it’s worth on a mondo track.
Snell said himself that a flat, well kept grass track was faster than a cinder one.
I would suggest a synthetic track was worth about 0.5 to 0.7 secs a lap faster, so if grass was quicker, then I think 0.5 secs is a realistic difference between the 2 surfaces, per lap. That would make Snell’s run worth about 1:43.3/1:43.4 on a 70’s synthetic track. Given that the first lap was too fast, maybe we can knock a couple of more tenths off. If you then compare synthetic to the latest mondo tracks, then you can probably knock another 0.2 -0.3.
I’d conclude that on a modern mondo track, Snell’s run of 1:44.3 ht, was certainly worth 1:43.0, and possibly a couple of tenths faster. Certainly it was a better performance than any 800m up to Juantorena’s 1:43.44 WR.
This post was removed.
