Bekele vs Jim Ryun in a mile

Bad Wigins wrote:

PED's aside, Bekele's PB at a side event is nearly 1 second faster than Ryun's at his specialty. Bekele has also gone 3:33 or faster 3 times; Ryun's next best is 3:36.

Babble on forever about what you think Ryun could have done, but fair's fair; give Bekele as many races at 1500 and he goes much faster too. There's really no contest.

Next they'll be saying Herb Elliott would beat Haile G. Nope. The clock don't lie.

Elliot likely would. Times are not everything, otherwise every also-ran who has clocked faster than 3.35 was or is better than Elliot. Rubbish. Case in point - even in Elliot's generation: Michael Jazy, who set a world mile mark on 3.53.6 in 1965 - almost a second faster than Elliot's older record of 3.54.5 in 1958. Yet Elliot crushed Jazy - and everyone else - at Rome in '60, when he ran his world record of 3.35.6. Jazy later said, "I won the race of men, Elliot was a god". No one - who knows track - would dream of saying Jazy was the better runner because he subsequently recorded a faster time. And Jazy was better than most who have since surpassed Elliot's times. Same argument applies to Ryun and other great champions.

So why was the sea level 100m WR still only 10.10 in 1968?

I don't know anything about the sport of baseball, but hasn't baseball (and the NFL) always been a professional sport?

Maybe it's 'sportist' to assume that some sports have more ped usage than others, and Wejo will agree if enough of you complain to him.

Let's point to the elephant in the room here and admit the racism behind this thread and Bekele's supporters here. Whites only ever won before 1989 because the genetically superior 'East African invasion' hadn't begun and they were all rubbish, even Elliott, Snell, Ryun, Coe, Ovett, and Cram couldn't have ran 3:40 without 'speed pills' and blood doping, and would have been smoked even with their amphetamimes against the likes of a long distance African GOAT like Bekele.

This is the most clever thing you have ever posted.

Banana Bread wrote:

This is the most clever thing you have ever posted.

Well if you believe that the likes of Snell and Ryun couldn't have ran under 3:40 without amphetamimes you're a bigger racist than me (for claiming that it's possible that no Kenyan has ran under 3:3X clean).

I personally like Bekele and he's obviously one of the all-time greats, even if it's probable he, just like every body else in his era, were advantaged by EPO.

It's hardly a knock on Bekele to suppose that one of the most talented ever milers history has seen might be able to beat him over a Mile.

Coevett wrote:

many took uppers ... wrote:

It is a know fact that MLB and NFL athletes of 1960's and 1970's openly had stimulant tablets available. The pills were open and available. Sport reporters over age 70 know. It is too much to believe that stimulant pills were openly used by baseball players of that era but I am supposed to believe those same stimulants were not used in T&F.

Regarding Bekele, people have previously speculated. I have nothing to add.

So why was the sea level 100m WR still only 10.10 in 1968?

I don't know anything about the sport of baseball, but hasn't baseball (and the NFL) always been a professional sport?

Maybe it's 'sportist' to assume that some sports have more ped usage than others, and Wejo will agree if enough of you complain to him.

Point of correction: the 100m wr had been 10-flat since 1960, set by Armin Hary (hand-timed, as everything was then), equalled at Tokyo '64 by Bob Hayes with 10.06 electronic-timing. (He ran 9.9 in his semi but it was a fraction over the wind limit.) Hayes record-equalling time was rounded to 10-flat. Jim Hines set the first sub-10 time, at altitude at Mexico '68, with a 9.95 timing.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Coevett wrote:

So why was the sea level 100m WR still only 10.10 in 1968?

I don't know anything about the sport of baseball, but hasn't baseball (and the NFL) always been a professional sport?

Maybe it's 'sportist' to assume that some sports have more ped usage than others, and Wejo will agree if enough of you complain to him.

Point of correction: the 100m wr had been 10-flat since 1960, set by Armin Hary (hand-timed, as everything was then), equalled at Tokyo '64 by Bob Hayes with 10.06 electronic-timing. (He ran 9.9 in his semi but it was a fraction over the wind limit.) Hayes record-equalling time was rounded to 10-flat. Jim Hines set the first sub-10 time, at altitude at Mexico '68, with a 9.95 timing.

Fair enough, my mistake. And perhaps the fact that times in the late 70s, and early 80's (until Lewis) didn't get much faster or even slowed suggests sprinters were using 'speed pills' before then.

My point still stands though I think. If amphetamimes were so effective for middle-distance as some people here are claiming, and their use was rampant, surely there would have been a more noticeable effect on times for the sprints. I mean I think they weren't even made illegal until 67 or 68 (or even later) so basically it was a EPO free for all situation for those who wanted to take them. You would have expected the sprint WRs equivalents of 3:26 and 12:37 perhaps, that would have stood for generations (especially as back then even steroids more powerful (produced by the GDR) were available that aren't today).

I'm not sure if your literally saying you think Bekele is on EPO because he isn't. I personally believe all these middle distance runners are the most likely suspects. People whose race distance is just 3.75 or 4 and a little bit laps of a track are likely not good enough to do things like Dean Karnazes and run races literally the equivalent of thousands of laps. If you are not good enough at running that you specialize in shorter races to get them over with you are obviously the kind of person which wants to get your measly 3.75 laps over with quickly. And people which are just wiling to run races this short must be impatient, and probably likely to take shortcuts. We all know what shortcuts I'm talking about. Doping, and lots of it. Look at Kiprop, El Gouruge(retired after 2004 when he would of likely been caught if he continued due to the EPO testing). Millers are dopers. You won't catch Dean Karnazes looking for shortcuts or advantages. In fact, he takes the long way around. He runs all over the place just to get to the start line of his races.

Sprint times have tended to improve very slowly for men. But not for women - steroids.

Hayes was a freak. His time - on rain-soaked ploughed cinders - was only beaten on a synthetic track at altitude. It then took another twenty years to effectively take a 10th off that time. In the women's events we saw times carved up since the late '60's (Eastern bloc athletes) and then the absurdity of Flojo in the late '80's. Steroids of one kind or another have been at the heart of latter day sprint records.

I don't see much evidence of amphetamine use in middle distance running in the 60's although there were accusations of blood-doping in distant racing in the late '60's, especially amongst Europeans, which reached the wider public with speculation about Viren in the mid-70's.

If the mid-sixties guys had been able to dope like athletes have in the last 20 years then their times would be - remarkably similar. Evidence for that is that at the Delhi Commonwealth Games in 2010, with tougher doping control, times from the sprints to the distances for both men and women were about the same as at the Tokyo Olympics of '64.

What nonsense. Although there is no conclusive evidence as to exactly how much slower a dirt track is compared to a synthetic one (not to mention the faster still mondo tracks Bekele ran on), all athletes from that era and anyone with even passing knowledge of the sport knows that a 3:33.1 on dirt is a more impressive run than a 3:32.35 on synthetic. Back in 1980, Mel Watman, then editor of Athletics Weekly and one of the most respected writers and statisticians in the sport, stated that Ryun's run was worth about 2 secs faster on synthetic.

The reason Ryun's next best is 3:36 is because he was American and ran the mile more often than the 1500m. His two 1 mile WR of 3:51.3 and 3:51.1 are equivalent to 3:34.0, and both were also run on dirt. The latter WR in particular was also front run all the way, so one can knock another 1.5 - 2 secs off for that alone. So that represents 3 performances over 1500 or 1 mile by Ryun that were superior in quality to Bekele's pb.

Bekele ran in a time where there were far more races on the circuit, pacing was more reliable and prevalent, and the depth in competition was much greater. Bekele was dragged to a fast time. Ryun was way beyond his peers and had no one that could live with him beyond the bell to drag even faster times out of him.

Herb Elliott ran a solo 3:35.6 on dirt in an Olympic final! Probably worth 3:32 in a paced race on synthetic. That would be enough to be a serious threat to Geb over 1500m. Give him a year to train like they do today, and he has the potential to go faster still.

Armstronglivs wrote:

No one - who knows track - would dream of saying Jazy was the better runner because he subsequently recorded a faster time.

= "you don't know what you're talking about," classic ad-hominem burnout. You're done. Not that it matters after you and Deano both cluttered up this thread with your 5-deep quotes.

When Jazy ran 3:53, he was, as a matter of fact, better than Elliott had been. Let's not pretend that the milers of that era weren't balls-out manic to run fast times. Which olympics did Bannister or Ryun win? That world record was the top prize and what people still remember today.

Now there are dozens (is it hundreds yet?) who are better than either of them, and like it or not, that includes Haile G who ran 3:34 on a lark. Evan Jager and Nick Symmonds would beat him too.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No one - who knows track - would dream of saying Jazy was the better runner because he subsequently recorded a faster time.

= "you don't know what you're talking about," classic ad-hominem burnout. You're done. Not that it matters after you and Deano both cluttered up this thread with your 5-deep quotes.

When Jazy ran 3:53, he was, as a matter of fact, better than Elliott had been. Let's not pretend that the milers of that era weren't balls-out manic to run fast times. Which olympics did Bannister or Ryun win? That world record was the top prize and what people still remember today.

Now there are dozens (is it hundreds yet?) who are better than either of them, and like it or not, that includes Haile G who ran 3:34 on a lark. Evan Jager and Nick Symmonds would beat him too.

You just contradicted yourself. Elliot won an Olympic title over a distant Jazy, so by your own argument Elliot still had to be better. Bar those who actually won Olympic titles, all those others who subsequently ran faster than Elliot never did - so they failed your own test. Bannister won the effective world championship in '54, when he beat Landy at the Empire Games in Vancouver. He didn't run at Melbourne in '56. Who remembers the winner at Melbourne? Ryun demolished the previous world records for mile and 1500m over two years in '66-7 but was handicapped, as was every other non-altitude athlete, at Mexico in '68. But you tie your own shoelaces together because you keep insisting it is all about time. What is it - times, or big titles? Your two halves of your brain aren't talking to each other.

Nick Willis has run faster than either Snell or Walker. I'm sure he would be offended if you said he was the better runner than either of those two

Olympic champions and world record holders.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No one - who knows track - would dream of saying Jazy was the better runner because he subsequently recorded a faster time.

= "you don't know what you're talking about," classic ad-hominem burnout. You're done. Not that it matters after you and Deano both cluttered up this thread with your 5-deep quotes.

When Jazy ran 3:53, he was, as a matter of fact, better than Elliott had been. Let's not pretend that the milers of that era weren't balls-out manic to run fast times. Which olympics did Bannister or Ryun win? That world record was the top prize and what people still remember today.

Now there are dozens (is it hundreds yet?) who are better than either of them, and like it or not, that includes Haile G who ran 3:34 on a lark. Evan Jager and Nick Symmonds would beat him too.

Herb Elliott literally retired at age 22 (undefeated). Jazy was two years OLDER than him. The fact that Jazy went on to run faster suggests that Elliott would have gone on to run a lot faster too.

They may have been going balls to the walls in their WR runs but they were so few and far between, terrible pacing, everything had to be right on the day etc. Look at Ovett for example, he had numerous attempts between 79 and 81, then ran his fastest time in 83 in windy conditions which suggest he should have been even faster and the first sub 3:30. Yet he was probably at his peak in 77/78 when the only WR he broke was in an acutual two mile race against Rono where he did enough to win.

Not sure WRs were as big a thing back then by the way, before live TV and the like. Yes, Bannister's breaking of the 4 minute mile was, and we remember Ryun's WRs and the others now, doesn't mean they meant everything at the time. Ovett's complete non-interest in WRs until pressured by Andy Norman and the fear of being overshadowed by Coe suggests WRs were not everything until the 1980s.

Elliott's gold winning time 50 years ago would still win him a medal in nearly every final since.

C'mon Bad Wiggins, you're more intelligent than this. And I never counted you as one of the 'East African Supremacists' here.

You make an interesting point about world records, that in the more distant past there were fewer attempts. This could have been for a variety of reasons, such as that the conditions -track, weather etc had to be just right - the athlete had to be in peak form, and pacing of the kind we have today was not permitted. Bannister made only one attempt on the world record in his career - which was when he broke 4 minutes - and although he had pacemakers for 3 laps they had to finish the race. (He actually ran a faster time when he beat Landy - a fantastic front runner- at Vancouver at the Empire Games later that year.) Elliot never set out to break the world record in any of his races; he was running only to win. Snell attempted world records only 3 times in a 5 year career. (800/half, 1000m, mile.) His first mile record was an accident; his last was set when he was already losing form following the Tokyo Olympics. In those days getting a record came with the roll of a dice. The top runners mostly just ran to win. Which they did. Especially the big races. When he set his mile records Ryun was going for the time, but he largely achieved them without pacing or being pushed. His 1500 record was not a record attempt: he was only aiming to beat Keino - which he did, spectacularly.

Moran! You left out 'intrinsic'.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Bar those who actually won Olympic titles, all those others who subsequently ran faster than Elliot never did - so they failed your own test.

I agree with your response to Bad Wiggins, but not sure what above means!?

It's also worth noting that Elliott's 3:35.6 is worth 3:52.8 for a mile, which is superior to Jazy's time. No learned fan and historian of the sport would consider Jazy a better 1500/mile man that Elliott.

Wiggins just likes to be purposely contrary.

Armstronglivs wrote:

When he set his mile records Ryun was going for the time, but he largely achieved them without pacing or being pushed. His 1500 record was not a record attempt: he was only aiming to beat Keino - which he did, spectacularly.

Yes, but in the 1500m WR Ryun did have a great pacer, in the form of Keino, taking him to 1200m. Not many of the subsequent 1500m record holders had the benefit of pacing and drafting as far as 1200m.

The first lap was not optimum, but after that Keino's raison d'etre, to stretch Ryun and run the finish out of him, was the perfect scenario to set Ryun up for a fast time. Had the first lap been 3 secs faster and the 2nd lap 2 sec slower, then I'm sure Ryun could have run 3:32 that day, which brings him down to 3:30 on a synthetic track.

Deanouk wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Bar those who actually won Olympic titles, all those others who subsequently ran faster than Elliot never did - so they failed your own test.

I agree with your response to Bad Wiggins, but not sure what above means!?

It's also worth noting that Elliott's 3:35.6 is worth 3:52.8 for a mile, which is superior to Jazy's time. No learned fan and historian of the sport would consider Jazy a better 1500/mile man that Elliott.

Wiggins just likes to be purposely contrary.

The commenter claimed, on the one hand, that winning major championships was what mattered, while still maintaining, on the other hand, that faster times per se were proof of superiority. My response was and is that many since Elliot have run faster, yet few have won a major championship, as he did. Therefore, by that reasoning, they weren't as good as him, as the "faster times" argument is nullified by the "championship title" argument. The argument is inherently contradictory.

It is interesting to conjecture how champions from previous eras would have fared against those they never met or against runners today. We will never know. But it is naive to assert they could not have been amongst the best in any era - including today. Conditions of competing may have changed but human physiology hasn't. But the millennial world-view has yet to encompass an understanding of anything outside itself. In that view, the present is everything.