Did Lindgren Run 27:11 for 6 miles as a junior?

6 Mile World Record shared with Billy Mills 27:11.6 AAU Champs 6 Mile, San Diego 1965

www.gerrylindgren.com

It's unfortunate that he didn't run another lap. It is also unfortunate that the US was so slow to adopt metric distances for races. Rupp has the 10k record, Lindgren has the record for 6 miles (an obsolete distance).

wejo wrote:

That's what this blog from mensracing is saying:

http://www.eliterunning.com/fwmr/archives/2005/05/coincidentally.html

Is that true? If so I say he's got the record in my book.

Rupp has the 10K record so just deal with it as best as you can.

They are two separate records- the 6 Mile Record and the 10,000m Record. What is the problem and why the comparison?

Madelyn wrote:

They are two separate records- the 6 Mile Record and the 10,000m Record. What is the problem and why the comparison?

because 9600 and 10000 meters are almost the same distance. it's like saying there are two world records in the sprints, one for the 100m and one for the 104m. it's absurd.

you have a WR for 100y and 100m! deal with it. two separate distances have two separate WR's. similar distances but not the same.

Lindgren's 27:11.6 is superior to Rupp's 28:15 is what people are trying to say.

If Lindgren had ran the .2, the conversion would probably be somewhere around 28:00.

Doesn't really matter, just shows how good Lindgren was--how much mileage can pay off. 27:11.6 as a junior in HS.

dk46 wrote:

it's like saying there are two world records in the sprints, one for the 100m and one for the 104m. it's absurd.

Aren't there records for the 50m, the 55 and the 60?

Lindgren would not have run the last .2(400 meters) in 49.

Probably more like 28:10.

You got a rough time estimate right, but .215 is not 400m, it is 322m. We get too used to talking about "mile" splits in track races when they are really 1600m splits. Lindgren's record was for a full 6 miles, not 9600m. :60 for .2 is 5 min. pace (a 10k is actually slightly longer than 6.2 - it is like 6.215. Some of us are old enough to have run 10k's on 440 yard tracks and the stagger is significant.

If Lindgren had maintained pace (4:31.83 per mile) for the last 322m, he would have run 58.4 for the difference, or 28:09 for 10k.

Uhhhhm. I guess I'll point out the obvious. 6 miles is not 9600 meters but he would not have run 28:00 either. It is 9654 meters therefore at Lindgren's 6mi pace he would have run about 28:10 or 11. I agree it is a slightly superior mark. He did have someone running him to the wire though whereas Rupp had a rabbit but then had to go it alone for quite awhile at the end. Good debate but I think they both belong in the record book until the US has someone blow both records off the books.

Just out of high school, Lindgren ran 13:44 on a non-synthetic track, breaking the pre-existing American record. 40 years ago! I've spoken to two people--very knowledgable guys--who were at Tokyo in 1964, both of whom remarked at the time that they thought Lindgren would have won the Olympic 10K had he not injured his ankle. He is without doubt a fruitcake, but what an extraordinary young runner he was.

wejo wrote:

That's what this blog from mensracing is saying:

http://www.eliterunning.com/fwmr/archives/2005/05/coincidentally.html

Is that true? If so I say he's got the record in my book.

The Purdy tables say Lindgren's record is the equivalent of 28:13.6.

I find it amazing how people will go to just about any length to keep an icon in his (or her) place. Why not make the same arguments about the mile and the 1500m? Yet records are kept in both.

Lindgren will stay in the records books forever as long as imperial marks are kept.

Also, it is a junior record, not a high school record so there is a difference there.

Get over it people.

Does anyone know what Lindgren's last lap was?

V6 wrote:

Lindgren's 27:11.6 is superior to Rupp's 28:15 is what people are trying to say.

If Lindgren had ran the .2, the conversion would probably be somewhere around 28:00.

Doesn't really matter, just shows how good Lindgren was--how much mileage can pay off. 27:11.6 as a junior in HS.

Lindgren wasn't in high school when he ran the 27:11 - he was a freshman in college at WSU. Gerry graduated from HS in 1964.

Brian and mf, great points you make about the distance. However you aren't taking into account the fact that Lindgren (and Mills for that matter) was likely kicking in his final quarter or so. To say that he would run another 322 meters in 58.4 would assume that he would have a kick nearly twice his normal kicking distance (assuming he started his drive at 400 meters out). Take that into account and it puts the his and Rupp's marks very close.

Regardless, Lindgren was an amazing runner. Rupp is a great runner, but doesn't have the crazy runner status that Lindgren had. But comparing the records is like comparing apples and oranges.

Could someone who attended the twilight meet tell us what Rupp 's time was at the 6 mile mark. Undoubtedly some track geek in attendance has at least an approx time.

luv2run wrote:

I find it amazing how people will go to just about any length to keep an icon in his (or her) place. Why not make the same arguments about the mile and the 1500m? Yet records are kept in both.

Lindgren will stay in the records books forever as long as imperial marks are kept.

Wrong on two counts.

1)Rupp could have beaten the six-mile record en route to 10k, although he'd never get official credit for it since no times were taken at the six-mile mark. 6 miles is 9656 meters, and Rupp went through 9600 in 27:11.5, so unless ha managed the next 56 meters in 0.1 seconds he didn't beat Lindgren.

2) Aside from the mile, imperial marks are no longer kept by USATF. No one bothered to get Rupp's six-mile time because no one cares except stat nerds like me.

If we assume a constant speed over the last lap (which is highly unlikely), Rupp's 6-mile time was about 27:20.4.