I've always thought Roger Bannister was overrated, but...

Well, it could be argued that Roger was the best miler in the world from 1950 to 1954.

His Olympic defeat can be put down to the insertion of an extra round - at the last moment - which completely screwed up his preparation.

And, if he had not retired at 25 - in 1954, who knows what he could have gone on to achieve.

portsea57 wrote:

His Olympic defeat can be put down to the insertion of an extra round - at the last moment - which completely screwed up his preparation.

And, if he had not retired at 25 - in 1954, who knows what he could have gone on to achieve.

I am a fan of Bannister but every other runner competing in the 1952 Olympic 1500m would have had their preparations adversely affected by having an extra round at the last moment - like Bannister they had all been preparing to run 2 rounds and they all had to make adjustments at the last moment to cope with the insertion of the extra round.

In Bannister's era many athletes did retire young as the sport was amateur and careers almost inevitably took over one's life- e.g. Herb Eliott retired at aged 22, Snell retired at aged 26 etc.

The real shame is that so few know of Sir Roger Bannister 's contributions after he retired from running. Remember it is only recently that runners could really make a living off running and Bannister thought he had better things to do like become a neurologist--he received a lifetime achievement award in that field.

He makes me think of Eric Heiden in a lot of ways.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/04/sir-roger-bannister-obituary

portsea57 wrote:

Well, it could be argued that Roger was the best miler in the world from 1950 to 1954.

His Olympic defeat can be put down to the insertion of an extra round - at the last moment - which completely screwed up his preparation.

And, if he had not retired at 25 - in 1954, who knows what he could have gone on to achieve.

Why did they change the format at the last moment in the Olympics? They threw in an extra heat?

I never knew of this.

Josey Bartel wrote:

portsea57 wrote:

His Olympic defeat can be put down to the insertion of an extra round - at the last moment - which completely screwed up his preparation.

And, if he had not retired at 25 - in 1954, who knows what he could have gone on to achieve.

I am a fan of Bannister but every other runner competing in the 1952 Olympic 1500m would have had their preparations adversely affected by having an extra round at the last moment - like Bannister they had all been preparing to run 2 rounds and they all had to make adjustments at the last moment to cope with the insertion of the extra round.

In Bannister's era many athletes did retire young as the sport was amateur and careers almost inevitably took over one's life- e.g. Herb Eliott retired at aged 22, Snell retired at aged 26 etc.

Bannister was well aware that he rest of the field ran more than he did. His training was geared towards single one off races, not rounds.

It was covered by most of the world's media.

After all it is the mile, on a global scale an obscure distance.

Pretty much limits the mpact of the achievement tothe area of post-colonialism.

more shocking for him wrote:

Josey Bartel wrote:

I am a fan of Bannister but every other runner competing in the 1952 Olympic 1500m would have had their preparations adversely affected by having an extra round at the last moment - like Bannister they had all been preparing to run 2 rounds and they all had to make adjustments at the last moment to cope with the insertion of the extra round.

In Bannister's era many athletes did retire young as the sport was amateur and careers almost inevitably took over one's life- e.g. Herb Eliott retired at aged 22, Snell retired at aged 26 etc.

Bannister was well aware that he rest of the field ran more than he did. His training was geared towards single one off races, not rounds.

Not really true. The rest of the field were all amateurs just like Bannister and most of them would have been training lightly. Training monsters like Zatopek were the exception rather than the rule back in the early 1950s.

Josey Bartel wrote:

more shocking for him wrote:

Bannister was well aware that he rest of the field ran more than he did. His training was geared towards single one off races, not rounds.

Not really true. The rest of the field were all amateurs just like Bannister and most of them would have been training lightly. Training monsters like Zatopek were the exception rather than the rule back in the early 1950s.

Barthel’s coach was the famous Woldemar Gerschler and the lightly trained British athletes, Chataway, Bannister and Brasher were amazed when meeting Gerscchler at Helsinki airport when he openly described how strenuously Barthel had trained for coming 1500 event.

I notice a few years back a German sports journalist doing research into doping in sports in the 1950’s, accused Barthel of using methamphetamine during that period, a drug admittedly not on the prohibited list until the 1960’s.

"... who knows what he could have gone on to achieve."

certainly had all the tools to win Olympic gold in 1956 - when there were only two rounds in the 1500 (?). But his medical studies were very important to him and he probably did not want to compromise that aspect of his life.

Also, by 1954 the "serious" trainers were taking over - at least in the longer distances; Kuts, Zatopek, Pirie etc. Bannister probably read the writing on the wall and did not fancy the level of commitment to running that would have been necessary to succeed at international level. Remember, he came from an environment where the ideal was the well rounded, Renaissance man, whose running was only one part of a multi faceted life. Even if the opportunity had presented itself the idea of being a full time professional runner would have horrified him!

Josey Bartel wrote:

more shocking for him wrote:

Bannister was well aware that he rest of the field ran more than he did. His training was geared towards single one off races, not rounds.

Not really true. The rest of the field were all amateurs just like Bannister and most of them would have been training lightly. Training monsters like Zatopek were the exception rather than the rule back in the early 1950s.

Doesn't matter. They still did more work.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

It was covered by most of the world's media.

Yeah, but only through cookie-cutter articles well down on the main page. This:

is more what I was expecting as coverage, except from more places and right away. Like when Muhammad Ali died. I think 20 years ago we might have seen that, but I'm not sure most journalists today are capable of even writing a BS version of a runner's obituary.

He went sub 4 first then beat Landy head to head in Commonwealths in another sub 4!

You are simply delusional if you expected “tons of coverage”. You really thought it’d be the day’s headline?

Josey Bartel wrote:

more shocking for him wrote:

Bannister was well aware that he rest of the field ran more than he did. His training was geared towards single one off races, not rounds.

Not really true. The rest of the field were all amateurs just like Bannister and most of them would have been training lightly. Training monsters like Zatopek were the exception rather than the rule back in the early 1950s.

Nonsense! Take the winner Jose Barthel he was trained by Woldemar Gerschler ( trainer of Rudolf Harbig) and Jose would have trained a lot harder than Roger.

For silver medalist Bob Mcmillen, the insertion of am extra round was a Godsend.

A product of the US college system he would have been used to doubling up at meets and probably running relays as well. Just the sort of conditioning to cope with multiple rounds.

Still is amazing to me they did what they did on cinder tracks. Not sure if too many of you have run on a cinder track, but if you have, you'd appreciate them having to race on that surface.

Were there any synthetic track surfaces back then? Did Bannister ever race on one?

It was all over the British media and the main story on BBC tv news coverage

CrossFan wrote:

Were there any synthetic track surfaces back then? Did Bannister ever race on one?

No in both cases. Mexico City was the first Olympics contested on one. Pretty sure that the same is true of the US Trials for that Olympiad. (Great story there, a beautiful red track with trees in the infield that was relocated to a lower elevation site afterwards!) There have been hundreds of debates here about how much of a handicap cinder tracks really were and besides the first synthetic tracks had a certain element of trial and error to them as well.

The one at Hayward Field during the Prefontaine era is represented as the very best you could buy when Bowerman talked the donors into it yet was supposed to be hard enough that it ruined Roscoe Devine's achilles tendon forever. (According to Kenny Moore's biography anyway.)

Where this topic gets really obtuse is when you try to put Peter Snell's 1:44.3 800 meter record on a short (350 meter?) New Zealand grass track into the whole matrix.

I was also surprised that it didn't get more prominent placing on the websites I checked at the times I checked them. Guess I thought it would be better mainly because I'm a runner. However, I was wondering what sort of placement it got in printed newspapers. Online is sort of a living document so things can get posted prominently to begin with then fall down the page quickly. I haven't read a printed paper in quite a few years. Anyone out there see if this news made the front page of the main section or if it was relegated to the sports section or perhaps not covered at all in some major papers?