Some of the comments here miss what is glaringly obvious, which is that Bannister's name stands virtually alone in the history of the sport because his achievement was seen as momentous as few others are. He accomplished what had hitherto been seen as impossible. Many had tried before him - and failed. The 4 minute mile was truly a mythic "barrier". If it had not been so, we wouldn't know his name. So what if legions of runners have since run under 4 minutes? Bannister was the first to climb that particular Everest - and until him it was regarded as virtually insurmountable.
Yet, in early 1954, Bannister, who believed he could be the first to break the "barrier" that had eluded so many before him, knew that two other runners were closing in on that goal; Australia's John Landy and Wes Santee from the US. In every sense, there was no time to lose, so in less than ideal conditions, on a windy day on an Oxford track, Bannister made his historic attempt. The amazing Landy then lowered Bannister's time in Finland. The two "greatest milers in history" met at the end of the year at the Vancouver Empire Games mile, in which Bannister triumphed in one of the greatest races ever run.
But none of this can be understood if we simply project our experience of the present on to the past. The past was - and always is - another country.