Jim Ryun turns 70 on April 29

Happy birthday and many more thanks for the inspiration to run for God.

Fanis_Jero wrote:

then dedicate his post career to public service and ministry.

To total BS & nonsense.

Happy birthday! Hard to believe he is now 70.

He inspired so many of us!

zxczvxcvxzc wrote:

No one else could stand up under that regimen, but what it produced was equal or better to anyone at any time in the history of the sport. 3:26 was not exactly run unpaced on dirt.

Very true, and it's hard to believe that 3:26 was done w/out PEDs. That said, I don't think you can give Ryun more than a second per lap off his PR in similar circumstances, which makes him a 3:47 miler. Maybe he would still be the AR holder...

1 second a lap for the track... but that would mean his splits would be something like 58, 59, 58, 52, and without a pacer. Not an easy way to run 3:47

HardLoper wrote:

1 second a lap for the track... but that would mean his splits would be something like 58, 59, 58, 52, and without a pacer. Not an easy way to run 3:47

True, but maybe it's just 0.5 sec for the track. I will give him the "hypothetical" AR in a perfect race, but how much faster do you think he'd have gone?

I don't have a number in mind but I think cinder tracks were at least 1 second per lap slower and even more if they were chewed up. The biomechanics expert David Epstein cited in his speech says a cinder track in ideal condition is 1.5% slower.

HardLoper wrote:

I don't have a number in mind but I think cinder tracks were at least 1 second per lap slower and even more if they were chewed up. The biomechanics expert David Epstein cited in his speech says a cinder track in ideal condition is 1.5% slower.

Epstein does not mention 'ideal' conditions when claiming a 1.5% loss in energy. He is talking in context between Bannister competing in the UK in 1954 and the current (as of 2014) synthetic (i.e. mondo) tracks.

There are different types of 'dirt' track for a start. Some will have sand in them. The maintenance and weather conditions on said dirt track will also have an impact on how fast the track is. In addition, the tracks run on today are faster than the first generation synthetic and asphalt tracks used in the 70's.

At no point does Epstein mention any of those variables, so his claim of 1.5% is a rough figure that cannot be applied as a set blanket conversion for all non synthetic track performances.

Above is his lecture.

"Dirt tracks are a mixed bag. In ideal conditions, they should provide decent shock absorption (although not as much as turf) for an easy run. Most traditional cross-country tracks will be dirt and offer scenic trails. On hot days, though, the dirt can dry out and become as hard as asphalt from dense packing. A loose surface layer may also create a slippery tread for runners."

"Asphalt is harsher on your joints than (generally) dirt and turf surfaces because it offers a harder surface, but this property also allows you to break out with faster run times. "

From -

So, the above link implies that a well maintained cinder/dirt track in a hot climate can be well packed and as hard as asphalt, which in turn allows for faster times.

To take a dirt track in Spring 1954, in cold, damp England and extrapolate the conditions to a hot summer's day in California in the late 60's is misleading and inaccurate.

1.5% = c. 0.85 secs per 400m in an elite mile race. I would use this as an average. After all, Epstein wanted to make an impact and a statement in his lecture. Saying, 'we can't really be sure and it could range from almost no difference to a couple of seconds a lap', isn't going to get the headlines.

Even 2 modern synthetic tracks are not identical in the speed/comfort/energy return they offer, so why on earth would the less standardized surface of dirt or cinders offer a homogenous conversion?

In addition, if synthetic tracks were 1 sec per 400m faster than cinders, then the WRs should have all improved dramatically in the late 60's/early 70's by the following amounts: -

100m - 0.25sec

200m - 0.5sec

400m - 1.0 secs

800m - 2.0 secs,

1500m - 3.75 secs

5000m - 12.5 secs, etc.

This did NOT happen. Ergo, a cinder track was not 1 sec per 400m slower than a synthetic. On some occasions it would have been, but on others it would have been a lot less.

IMO MOST cinder tracks would have fallen in range between 0.4 secs and 1.0 secs per lap for a mile. For 800m it would be slightly less, and for 5000m slightly more.

HardLoper wrote:

I don't have a number in mind but I think cinder tracks were at least 1 second per lap slower and even more if they were chewed up. The biomechanics expert David Epstein cited in his speech says a cinder track in ideal condition is 1.5% slower.

Epstein isn't a biomechanics expert, he's a journalist.

eh ?

is this a joke ?

offer it

then stop pleading, post direct

he said ~ 4'02 when "completely flat/dead"

you have other opinion to offer ?

is this a joke ???

he ran 3'51.3WR many weeks later !!!

who ever said he hadn't made some recovery later ?

is this a joke ?

is this a joke ?

he says in a many many posted vid interview he was ill !!!

how many ignorant times do you have to be told to learn to watch/listen until it sinks in :

if you were his physician back in '66, then post it !!!

is this a joke ?

you dare offer medical opinion of a guy in '66 against his stated testimony of that day offwhat background ?

were you then or at any time Ryun's physician or ever in a position to be such ?

is this a joke ?

you run what coach tells you to in '66

his coach was clueless & when he stopped his watch he was completely shocked as he had no idea of 2-laps ability

is this a joke ?

were you his physician in '66 ?

what qualified diagnosis you offer ?

yes

offer

then offer his medical condition from reports in '66

offer...

sounds similar to vid

offer source

i'm sure he can expand...

is this a joke ?

that is his statement

were you or ever his physician in '66 to offer other ?

[quote]And an ill person certainly doesn't come back the next day to run 2 more events![/quote

it was total rubbish 4'02+

offer his bloodwork that day ?