JJ Clark sub four mile? Says so on his bio?

Clark has claimed this in his former bio’s as well. This is very interesting as it is an outright lie. I’m not saying he should be fired for it but he certainly should not be continuously lying about his accomplishments. They could even write “ran a 3:41 1500m which converts to a sub4 mile and I think everyone would be fine with it.

https://uconnhuskies.com/staff.aspx?staff=148

https://utsports.com/coaches.aspx?rc=489&path=track

Both bios list his as a sub 4 miler as well

Hoyas86 wrote:

Hey Malmo. It appears that YOU are not on the sub 4 list either.

That pretty much makes your opinions on sub 4 status irrelevant.

.

Silly girl. You just reminded me I forgot to get that sub4. It was on my list, right next to milk, butter and eggs. I forgot! Oh my gosh, what am I going to do now? I don't know how I'll be able to sleep at night. I feel so empty that I didn't accomplish something so ordinary. That means I'm less than ordinary. Waaaaah.

;-)

1988 pre mile top 3. wrote:

Stanford is, and especially because of what happened recently, very conscious of bad ethical situations.

Want to elaborate?

Could his sub 4 have been a relay leg and that is why it does not show up on any lisr

mcvred wrote:

1988 pre mile top 3. wrote:

Stanford is, and especially because of what happened recently, very conscious of bad ethical situations.

Want to elaborate?

They were one of the schools that were involved in the admissions scandal. Their rowing coach was helping get people in when they didn’t even row.

Not really in the same ballpark as this, but Stanford is understandably a little more conscious of its image when it comes to coaches not being truthful.

Willing to lie on your very own bio? What else will you do?

If you’ve run 3:41:xx or faster you are a sub 4 miler.

You may have not run the 3:59 mile but you can still in good conscience claim that you are a sub-4 miler. The distance / time / etc. is essentially identical. It’s not like 800 to 1600 or 3000 to 5000. It’s a 1500 to a 1609, and there are tons of athletes who are the same as sub 4 milers even though whatever meet they went to did the 1500m the day they ran 3:41 or faster.

You are a sub 4 miler if you ran the accepted equivalent in the 1500m.

Like Really Bro wrote:

If you’ve run 3:41:xx or faster you are a sub 4 miler.

You may have not run the 3:59 mile but you can still in good conscience claim that you are a sub-4 miler. The distance / time / etc. is essentially identical. It’s not like 800 to 1600 or 3000 to 5000. It’s a 1500 to a 1609, and there are tons of athletes who are the same as sub 4 milers even though whatever meet they went to did the 1500m the day they ran 3:41 or faster.

You are a sub 4 miler if you ran the accepted equivalent in the 1500m.

Said with such authority, as if God has spoken from above. No, “essentially identical” is something like the mile vs the 1600 they run in high school. Not something which is roughly 15-16 seconds of fast running shorter. You’re a sub 4 if you’ve done it, not if you “could have”. As someone said above, that’s why they have a list...if you’ve done it, you’re on it, and you can call yourself one. Otherwise you’re free to explain the difference and conversion to anyone who wants to listen.

Like Really Bro wrote:

If you’ve run 3:41:xx or faster you are a sub 4 miler.

You may have not run the 3:59 mile but you can still in good conscience claim that you are a sub-4 miler. The distance / time / etc. is essentially identical. It’s not like 800 to 1600 or 3000 to 5000. It’s a 1500 to a 1609, and there are tons of athletes who are the same as sub 4 milers even though whatever meet they went to did the 1500m the day they ran 3:41 or faster.

You are a sub 4 miler if you ran the accepted equivalent in the 1500m.

No you don’t assume anything and of course the didn’t hire him because of the sub-4 but lying is grounds for termination no matter what the lie.

I think in one of the Olympic trials they announce that Clark had recently run a sub 4 minute mile.

That’s a quantum leap from splitting hairs over a 3:41 guy stating he’s a sub 4 guy. Ridiculous.

You can get fired for lying on your application. Dip

Idiots kn here. wrote:

You can get fired for lying on your application. Dip

Is there anything else he has claimed to accomplish that he didn’t actually do or is this a one off?

Typically people prone to these things don’t just do it once.

Hi,

As someone who knows JJ Clark personally, I'd just like to say that I know him as a truthful, accomplished man. While I cannot speak to whether or not he has officially run a sub-4 mile (or whether it was in a relay, a 1500 conversion, etc), I can say with confidence that he has accomplished a lot in this sport, both as a runner and a coach. More than that, I can say he cares a lot about his athletes and I believe he will be successful at Stanford.

I don't mean to make anyone more upset, I just wanted to give my point of view.

Hoyas86 wrote:

Hey Malmo. It appears that YOU are not on the sub 4 list either.

That pretty much makes your opinions on sub 4 status irrelevant.

At least you don’t claim to be. Good on you mate.

It is a mile. It is 4 minutes.

Like a porshe 911 there is no substitute.

That is why they make lists.

JJ Clark is not on the list. Why? He never ran a mile in under 4 minutes.

Don’t claim to be what you are not.

i guess since i've run a sub-4, at least according to this post my opinion is relevant. so here it is:

1) the official sub-4 list is NOT as cut and dry as people make it out to be. do you even know who makes these lists? it ain't IAAF, USATF, or the IOC--some are just extremely authoritative and knowledgable fans, or, in T&F news, just a respected publication made for profit. if we wanted to, we could all come up with our own lists and include combinations of road miles, relay splits, and/or 1500m equivalents based on accepted conversion times. alternatively, we could choose to exclude indoor times. or exclude indoor times run on 300m tracks. or give a dirt/cinder conversion or an altitude conversion. none of these ideas would be illogical, though we could easily debate the merits of each point.

2) despite my above argument, i do like the "official" list as set by t&f news and others, and the parameters they've set. you gotta draw a line somewhere, and i'm ok with where they've chosen to draw it--i know a few dudes who've run 1500m equivalents or close, but the "official" list motivated them (some successfully, some not) to chase what has become the standard. but there's nothing wrong with at the end of the day understanding that these standards are by and large arbitrary, and for some reason we have an obsession with round numbers, and, as of yet, my sub-4 has never gotten me a free cup of coffee nor singlehandedly landed me a job.

3) for my part, i don't know any sub-4 milers who'd argue against clark being a sub-4 miler with his overall running resume--it'd be one thing if he ran a 3:41 one time and never competed at a national level (competing at the olympic trials makes him pretty legit) in any other event, etc.

4) sure, as an athlete i'd prefer that they put "developed into the equivalent of a sub-4 miler," but as an english major, that actually reads awkwardly--on these bios you only have so many words to work with, and the majority of your audience could care less about the distinction. so yes: i think people are unnecessarily nitpicking....

that's my story and i'm sticking to it,

cush

Thanks, Cush. Well said, and agreed. Though I'm at heart a purist and don't think a 3:41 1500 makes one a "true" sub-4 miler, this is a nit and certainly not ethically dubious in my book. Plus maybe it's a Stanford thing: I'm pretty sure I've seen Mark Mastalir, Eric Mastalir and Bill Crowley, all Stanford runners in the 80s, claim to be sub-4 minute milers and am also pretty sure that none of them actually did it but are using 1500 times of 3:41 or 3:42.

Farm alum wrote:

Thanks, Cush. Well said, and agreed. Though I'm at heart a purist and don't think a 3:41 1500 makes one a "true" sub-4 miler, this is a nit and certainly not ethically dubious in my book. Plus maybe it's a Stanford thing: I'm pretty sure I've seen Mark Mastalir, Eric Mastalir and Bill Crowley, all Stanford runners in the 80s, claim to be sub-4 minute milers and am also pretty sure that none of them actually did it but are using 1500 times of 3:41 or 3:42.

I don't think that anyone is claiming that Clark is a "true" sub-4 miler, nor is there any attempt by him to deceive. There's no foul here. It's not as though he's Bernie Lagat, who actually hid his American Citizenship in 2004, and the deception involved his coach, his agent, and his sponsors.

I've had friends, who have run sub 4, introduce me as a sub 4 miler, and I've always said "well, not really." Precision is my nature, but to simply say nothing for the sake of conversation there would have been no foul. A sub 4 mile is more of a curio than an achievement, anyway.

From the 1996 film Phenomenon:

Bonnie: "George Malley, you ran the mile in under four minutes?"

George Malley: "Not all of it."

sp2 wrote:

Of course, the horse-sh*t Clark movie got all the attention, and the real hero got just a little.

Stand and Deliver was nominated for an Academy Award and 2 Golden Globes (Lean on Me: none)

This ks interesfkng wrote:

Clark has claimed this in his former bio’s as well. This is very interesting as it is an outright lie. I’m not saying he should be fired for it but he certainly should not be continuously lying about his accomplishments. They could even write “ran a 3:41 1500m which converts to a sub4 mile and I think everyone would be fine with it.

https://uconnhuskies.com/staff.aspx?staff=148https://utsports.com/coaches.aspx?rc=489&path=track

Both bios list his as a sub 4 miler as well

All your doing is pointing out that the SIDs copy from each other.

The "sub 4 mile" is a thing of status. People want to run sub 4. So they enter true miles to do so.

There is a reason people convert 1500s to see if it equivalent to sub 4. The non track population understand sub 4, but not 3:41 for 1500.

Either you entered a mile and ran sub 4 or you didn't. If you didn't , you can't claim it, and if you're a real track person, you also know this isn't merely semantics. Nothing wrong with saying "the equivalent of a sub 4 min mile."

Some might equate it as white lie that turns out to be knowing fraudulent misrepresentation.