Best Miler

What's to disagree with on Scott? Read his book...even Scott agrees on this! He admits he blew certain races that cost him: Zurich against Cram for the later top world ranking, and that first Worlds 1500 by waiting too long to kick.

(Plus how do you blow so completely the Olympic final held in your own backyard?!!? Sure, there was pressure, but geez! First time at State high school tactics!!)

Nobody said Coe and Ovett avoiding each other was good. I didn't. I said they had the most intriguing match-ups, both head to head, the few times it happened, and against each other's records. Please read a little better or turn off your opinions long enough to understand what's in print in front of you.

Elliot did it all. Period. Even your head to head standard. But still you argue, this time because Elliot didn't stay in the sport long enough for age, injury or sickness to allow somebody to beat him (key word: ALLOW!) so your point can be superior. That is moronic.

Bannister, Coe, Morceli, El G, Ryun... in no particular order.

Cinder tracks are slower, but not 10-15 seconds! I think the world of Ryun, but I don't think he could have gone sub-3:40! Dry cinder tracks = 2sec mile max. (probably not that much).

I would have to agree with Guest on Elliot. Also, is it just me, or does anyone else out there think John Walker deserves mentioning as top miler for being the first under 3:50? While not as romantic perhaps as Bannister being the first under 4:00, Walker breaking the 3:50 barrier presented the aura of total invincibility to other runners of his time period (sorry I stole the last part from John L. Parker, Jr).

If you put all those runners on the line together, Morcelli, El G., Elliot, Coe, Ovett, Walker, Snell, Ryun - the outcome would be immensely affected by strategical considerations. Additionally, preparation would be immensely affected by the build up of them knowing that they were about all race. Their careers would be entirely changed under such a circumstance. The difference among the whole group - all at their best - would probably be in the order of one or two strides. To put it another way, on any given day any one of them might well beat all the rest.

When I read your presentation of the scenario of everyone on the line at one time like that, I immediately see Coe winning. Sheer speed, strength for a sustained kick, big-meet poise (2 x gold), regularly beat some stud peers: it all points to Seb.

Don't forget, Elliot never lost a mile.

And he had strength that surely rivaled Coe's.

"Did Bannister run that on a cylinder gravel track?"

If you mean cinder track, then yes

middle aged middle distance wrote:

When I read your presentation of the scenario of everyone on the line at one time like that, I immediately see Coe winning. Sheer speed, strength for a sustained kick, big-meet poise (2 x gold), regularly beat some stud peers: it all points to Seb.

My favorite take on Coe came from Johnny Gray. When he was retiring (sort of) not too long ago, an interviewer asked him who his toughest opponent was in the 800 -- who he would least like to see when he stepped to the starting line. Without a moment's hesitation he said, "Coe".

The interviewer was a little surprised and tried to question further. What about Cruz? What about Kipketer? What about... But Gray just cut him short. "No, it was Coe. No question. That guy had gears"

Of course, that was talking about an 800, not a 1500 but it changes nothing for me. I'm with "Middle Aged Middle Distance": Coe all the way.

tuff to call on the greatest miler of all time but an easy pick on the greatest indoor miler of all time "the chairman of the boards" Eamon Coughlin

Is this correct??? did 300 guys go sub 4 in the 12 months after Bannister's run???

http://www.runningroom.com/AboutRR/logbook.html

3 best milers a dead heat.....Scott - Coughlan - Walker

guest wrote:

Elliot did it all. Period. Even your head to head standard. But still you argue, this time because Elliot didn't stay in the sport long enough for age, injury or sickness to allow somebody to beat him (key word: ALLOW!) so your point can be superior. That is moronic.

Guest - you condescending dipshit - nearly every miler included in our sample stayed in the sport long enough to have a downside - after they were at their peak which probably has lessened them a bit in the eyes of the public.

Elliot did not allow that to happen.

It's quite possible that if Walker had retired right after Montreal we would have a different opinion of him. I don't even think he's mentioned but he was Olympic Champ and the first under 3:50. Yet because he had a long career after Montreal which was not as successful as the prior few years he's not included in our sample.

I'm not arguing for or against Elliot but I think it's a factor that's never weighed in with him.

mashed taters wrote:

Is this correct??? did 300 guys go sub 4 in the 12 months after Bannister's run???

http://www.runningroom.com/AboutRR/logbook.html

No, it's a lie designed to sell their book. In the subsequent 12 months, one other person (John Landy) did it; the following year, just 3 more.

So let me get this straight--all of those who are not claiming El-G to be the best are saying "your pick" could go sub-3:26, am I correct?

The question wasn't who is the fastest miler of all time, the question was designed to garner subjective opinions...it was who is the best miler of all time.

The fastest time goes a long way towards picking the right guy which is why El G gets a lot of mentions but other factors must be taken into account too. Longevity, medals, records, and for me it I just picked the three guys who I have the best memories of them racing. Those 3 guys ran some real epic miles and some fantastic races which is why I give them the nod over a great time trailist like El G.

My pick was Morceli and I certainly think Morceli could have gone sub 3:26 (though he "only" managed 3:27.37). El G's best is 3:26.00 which is not sub 3:26.

I pick Morceli because he was #1 for 7 straight years with 3 world titles and an Oly Gold plus world records. El G has been on top for 6 straight years with 3 world titles and world records but no Oly Gold. So if he wins in Athens '04 then El G is the guy.

For his first 3 years Morceli had the same career as Elliot with the exception of getting blasted in Barcelona. After that, Morceli dominated for the next 4 years while Elliot quit at 22. You need some longevity to be "best ever". John Walker surely deserves mention with the first sub 3:50 and an Oly Gold but his career doesn't quite stack up. Coe's 2 Golds deserves much credit but he wasn't favored in either of those races. Ovett, Cram and Aouita competed for number one rankings with Coe which effectively cancels all 4 of them out. Bannister, Ryan and Steve Scott didn't have any titles (and Scott didn't have any World Records) so that pretty much eliminates them from "best ever" status. So based on sheer dominance over an extended period, I pick Morceli.

Wow, that was one amazing list. But it isn't complete. For instance, it is missing Jason Pyrah, and Paul Cummings.

Still pretty cool that less than 1,000 people have run sub-4

All those guys could run in the 3:26 range. Think about it -- Coe ran 1:41+, Ryun ran 1:44 as a teenager, Elliott once finished an 880 with the last 440 in 49 seconds. Snell won the Olympic Games 800 as a neophyte coming in at 1:49 and upset the reigning world record holder who had 1:45. Next Olympics he wins the 800 and the 1500 toying with the field. The guy second in the 800, Crothers of Canadian, was a smooth 45+ 400 meter runner at the height of his 800 maturity, and Snell ran away from him like a kid brother. These guys were champions: they have great speed, stamina, and, most importantly, the will to win.

Put it this way, if El G came along in 1958, do you think that he would have run 3:26? I don't. Just as he doesn't lead the world right now by ten seconds, he wouldn't have led it back then by ten seconds. I'll concede that he could have been a world record holder back then, just as he is today but quickly add that he may have suffered some losses back then just as he has today.

Of course, all this is idle, pointless conjecture - which is what makes it necessary to discuss.

The question was asked: who is/was the best miler ever.

I answered "Ryun on talent, Elliot on competitiveness."

YOU then argued my opinion (instead of expressing yours). Don't come around two pages later saying you didn't argue anything...what the hell else do you call it?

And what do you call someone who beat everybody if not competitive?

So he left the sport earlier than some others. So what? Are we supposed to base our opinions on some fool "what might have been if only.." type of thinking? In that case:

--Ryun would be considered the best ever IF ONLY he hadn't been tripped up at Munich.

--IF ONLY Coghlan had given up the prime indoor money and concentrated on outdoors, he'd have had a better chance of beating Coe in that Dubai mile.

--IF ONLY Walker had not lost two years to injury, he'd have lowered the world record at least a few seconds more, possibly discouraging Coe and Ovett from trying for it and beginning their back and forth battles of the early eighties.

--IF ONLY Ben Jipcho hadn't turned pro with the ITA group, he would have been the first under 3:50.

--IF ONLY the US hadn't boycotted Moscow, Scott might have used his strength to upset in the 1500 after getting through the tough rounds the easiest.

--IF ONLY I had been born with better genes resulting in a talent far beyond any of the milers named on this thread, this whole discussion would be moot!

My point is, your arguement is based on what if/if only and the only way to answer the initial question is by basing your answer on what actually WAS in reality.

P.S.ru4real=learn to read more accurately, argue rationally, and while you're at it, look up what condescending truly means.