Roger Bannister = A Genetic Freak

Armstronglivs wrote:

Stop the b.s. Armstrong wrote:

Stop this sub 4 minute mile myth BS. This morning I read two articles on John Landy. And it is pretty clear that they were expecting him to break 4 minute barrier any day back than. Sure the idea it was going blow up your heart might've been held by doctors back in the 30s. But the idea this was crazy impossible feat back than is a gross exaggeration.

If it wasn't seen as one of the great sporting achievements of the 20th century then someone of your infinitesimal education would never have heard of it. But there you are, talking of "the four minute barrier". Did you make that term up yourself?

"Once deemed impossible, by 1954 it appeared certain the elusive four-minute barrier would be broken. Bannister, Landy and another runner, the American Wes Santee, all appeared close to the mark."

It may have been widely believed to be impossible a few decades earlier, but by 1954 it what a question of when, not if.

The 4 minute mile was HELD BACK to 1954 due to amateurism. The privileged class preventing the working class from competing in athletics.

Armstronglivs said: For many years, until Bannister achieved it, the view of the public and experts alike was that sub-four was impossible.

predictions that Bannister might break four minutes appeared in Athletics Weekly as early as 1950.

the report on Oxford & Cambridge vs Princeton & Cornell, White City, 1st July 1950, appeared in Athletics Weekly on 8 July 1950, p.13, written by Jack Crump who was the manager of the England Team at the time...

"The one mile was a rather unusual race. The first lap was run in 67.2 and then Hawke (Cambridge) dashed into the lead to act as pacemaker, closely followed by Bannister and Wittreich (Princeton). The 880 was reached in 2:12.0 and the ¾ mark in 3:15.4. Then Bannister went away and, running with devastating power, did the last quarter in 57.6 to clock 4:13.0 and win by 60 yards. Examination of his lap times shows that Bannister ran his second half-mile in 2:01 and his last ¾ mile in 3:05.8. We have not yet seen a really fit Bannister and I rate him the most likely athlete in the world to eventually break that 4 minute mile. Barring accidents I consider him a certainty for the 1952 Olympic 1500 metres."

cheers.

I thought people thought a four minute mile could explode a runner's chest. Now I think my head is going to explode!

I think the media hype was pretty well covered and debunked in John Bryant's book, 3:59.4. And John knew Sir Roger very well, in addition to being a very senior editor for many years in Fleet Street; he had access to every paper from the time when researching the book.

Everyone in the sport knew it was coming. But the papers knew a story was coming, and did what they could to hype it up in the preceding weeks - no doubt twisting quotations from doctors out of context. The British tabloids were, and still are, masters of hype.

BrynRunning wrote:

Although one of my friends did XC ski around it one year...

I once made it in from Streatham to the City entirely on skis in 1990! But OUCCC had to go all the way to Aviemore (New Year 85->86) when we fancied some XC skiing.

Masterfully coming back on topic, I think that is about the journey Chris Brasher dragged Bannister on a month before. The 12 hour drive up and back is definitely not what your legs or back would want in preparation for a race, and we were in a minibus - Bannister was wedged into some Brasher sports car AFAIR.

There's nothing in any of the books to suggest Bannister was a regular hillwalker.

Anyone have the full video of this documentary?

Franz Stampfl helped Bannister considerably.

mahmood wrote:

The 4 minute mile was HELD BACK to 1954 due to amateurism. The privileged class preventing the working class from competing in athletics.

That is correct. The "great" Paavo Nurmi was actually just the first amateur to surpass the pro achievements of Walter George 30 years before him.

And George's main "achievement" was singlehandedly lowering the WR from 4:20-something to 4:12 during the first couple decades of records being kept at all. That 4:12 was softer than melted marshmallows.

There is really only one "barrier" in this thread and that is the inability of Letsrun posters of a certain age to grasp that the world was a different place before they were born. Of course Bannister believed he could go below 4 minutes for the mile in 1954, as did Landy, and hence the race to be the first was really on that year. But there would have been no race to be the first to break the "barrier" if for years many had considered it the ultimate sporting challenge, if not impossible. So when it was finally accomplished the world applauded, as they applauded the ascent of Everest, where so many had failed before. To judge these accomplishments by today's standards is to simply project oneself on to history. But that's what Letsrun usually does.

4y4wrt wrote:

The key is INTENSE TRAINING days then REST DAYS. During those five days he took off his body adjusted to the demands by adding extra capacity. That does not happen anywhere near that 4 extent when all or most days are training days.

The training worked to a certain extent but it was way off from being ideal. That is then point. We know that a high diet of intense work followed by a large recovery is not the best way to train. Given today's training methods, recovery methods, track surfaces, shoes, etc... this guy would be able to compete at the highest level now. I don't have any doubts about this.

Even if the training was perfect the shoes they wore were horrible. I have a pair of Landy's running shoes I obtained at an auction and seeing is believing.

Right up until it was broken it seemed like a feat that was not possible much the way the 2 hour barrier is viewed today in the Marathon. The guys involved knew they could do it but it became very mental. Once Bannister did it, it seemed as though he and others could do it at will. The attitude toward that "barrier" had changed forever. To be the guy to do it first must have been the most amazing feeling anyone has ever felt in our sport. Even bigger than the 3:50 mark.

There was nothing physiologically special of Roger Bannister running a sub 4 minute mile. It was all psychologically.

"You must rule the mind, or the mind will rule you. " -Eliud Kipchoge

Everything is Zen wrote:

There was nothing physiologically special of Roger Bannister running a sub 4 minute mile. It was all psychologically.

"You must rule the mind, or the mind will rule you. " -Eliud Kipchoge

If you can break 4 minutes even today there is something physiologically special about you. Let's be honest, it's a bit of both.

Armstronglivs wrote:

There is really only one "barrier" in this thread and that is the inability of Letsrun posters of a certain age to grasp that the world was a different place before they were born. Of course Bannister believed he could go below 4 minutes for the mile in 1954, as did Landy, and hence the race to be the first was really on that year. But there would have been no race to be the first to break the "barrier" if for years many had considered it the ultimate sporting challenge, if not impossible. So when it was finally accomplished the world applauded, as they applauded the ascent of Everest, where so many had failed before. To judge these accomplishments by today's standards is to simply project oneself on to history. But that's what Letsrun usually does.

+1

curious2me wrote:

When or if ever did Wes Santee do it?

Santee's best is 4:00.5 in 1955

Armstronglivs wrote:

There is really only one "barrier" in this thread and that is the inability of Letsrun posters of a certain age to grasp that the world was a different place before they were born. Of course Bannister believed he could go below 4 minutes for the mile in 1954, as did Landy, and hence the race to be the first was really on that year. But there would have been no race to be the first to break the "barrier" if for years many had considered it the ultimate sporting challenge, if not impossible. So when it was finally accomplished the world applauded, as they applauded the ascent of Everest, where so many had failed before. To judge these accomplishments by today's standards is to simply project oneself on to history. But that's what Letsrun usually does.

To argue that it was not widely considered to be impossible does not imply what you suggest.

I don't think it's similar at all to the 2 hour barrier. To reduce the world record from 4:01.4 to 3:59.9 is just 0.62% whereas 2:01:39 to 1:59:59 is 1.37% off. The last time the marathon record was improved by that margin was Derek Clayton in 1967. Even now, after Kipchoge's world record, it is incredibly unlikely that the next marathon world record will be sub 2. Whereas at 4:01.4 it was not unexpected that a record could be broken by that margin (before and after Bannister the record was often improved by 1-2 seconds).

I'm not sure when people started talking about a sub 2 hour marathon. But I remember discussing it with running friends in 2007 when the record was either 2:04:55 or 2:04:26 (at which level a fall of approximately 4% would be required to break 2 hours) and confidently saying it would not happen in our lifetimes (which probably means by the 2060s/2070s). The reason I felt so confident in saying it would take such a long time is that it seemed implausible to me is that I didn't believe the marathon time would reduce by 4% or more than 10 seconds per mile without at least some improvement in shorter distances.

Maybe if the 800m world record were 1:54 and nobody looked like breaking it, I would have argued it was impossible to break four minutes for the mile. But the 800m record was 1:46.6 set in 1939.

Deanouk wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There is really only one "barrier" in this thread and that is the inability of Letsrun posters of a certain age to grasp that the world was a different place before they were born. Of course Bannister believed he could go below 4 minutes for the mile in 1954, as did Landy, and hence the race to be the first was really on that year. But there would have been no race to be the first to break the "barrier" if for years many had considered it the ultimate sporting challenge, if not impossible. So when it was finally accomplished the world applauded, as they applauded the ascent of Everest, where so many had failed before. To judge these accomplishments by today's standards is to simply project oneself on to history. But that's what Letsrun usually does.

+1

The two of you, Subway Surfers and Coevett should form a club.

Oxford University wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E82JSpu3rcY

Anyone have the full video of this documentary?

Franz Stampfl helped Bannister considerably.

What a great video!

Thank you for posting it.

Benenisa Kekele wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

+1

The two of you, Subway Surfers and Coevett should form a club.

Moran A.C.