jim ryun ovetrained

Training Advice/Discussion High School

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 7

13 years ago 09/23/2010 8:43am EDT

re: my criteria

Wait, there's also this - if a synthetic track accounts for 1 sec/lap then we should see some pretty big jumps in all the world records in the 60's 70's. There should be an immediate 1 second jump in the 400, 2 seconds in the 800, 4 seconds in 1500 & mile, 12.5 seconds in the 5k, 25 seconds in the 10k. So did those jumps actually happen due to the new faster surfaces?

Obviously this is challenging exercise when you don't know what types of surfaces these were run on. But let's try:

400 meters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_400_metres_world_record_progression

This one is tough because Lee Evans 43.86 was at altitude...still, let's ignore Evan's mark and go back one. Larry James 44.19 - shoot, also at altitude. How about Tommy Smith's 44.5 in San Jose. This link suggests that mark was run on a non-synthetic track:

http://speedendurance.com/2007/07/20/440-yard-and-400-meter-racing-facts-and-figures/

OK, so if Smith ran 44.5 on a dirt track in 1967, as soon as synthetic tracks become prominent we should see someone pop a 43.5. Except no one even runs faster than 43.86 until 1988 - 21 years later. Where is the immediate 1 second difference?

800 meters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/800_metres_world_record_progression

Let's see - we know that Wottle's 1:44.3 in Eugene in 1972 was on synthetic (from the Hayward Field wiki page). Doubell's WR was at altitude. Ah - Peter Snell's 1:44.3 on grass in 1962. So people should be running 1:42.3 pretty soon thereafter, right? I mean, the 1972 and 1976 games were on synthetic surfaces. You have the great Alberto Juantorena in his prime. But nope, Juantorena never goes more than a second faster than Snell despite the difference in surfaces, we have to wait until Coe in 1979 to see that 1:42.33. Where was the immediate 2 second drop in the WR?

1500 meters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500_metres_world_record_progression

Bayi's record was at the 1974 Commonwealth Games, which was on a synthetic track. So we'll assume Ryun's 3:33.1 was the last run on non-synthetic. We should see an immediate 3.75 second reduction in the WR - someone should run 3:29.4, right? But that doesn't happen for 18 more years when Aouita does it. No Walker, Coe, Ovett, Cram, Maree, or Bayi can do it. Where was the immediate 3.75 second drop in the WR?

Mile - same thing. Ryun ran 3:51 on dirt in 1967, but we don't see a 3:47 for another 14 years. There should have been an immediate drop to that level.

5k & 10k - I imagine we'd see the same trend but this has already been time consuming enough.

You get the picture? Your 1 sec/lap rule of thumb is bogus.

13 years ago 09/23/2010 9:50am EDT

re: my criteria

my criteria wrote:
Wait, there's also this - if a synthetic track accounts for 1 sec/lap then we should see some pretty big jumps in all the world records in the 60's 70's. There should be an immediate 1 second jump in the 400, 2 seconds in the 800, 4 seconds in 1500 & mile, 12.5 seconds in the 5k, 25 seconds in the 10k. So did those jumps actually happen due to the new faster surfaces?
Obviously this is challenging exercise when you don't know what types of surfaces these were run on. But let's try:
400 meters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_400_metres_world_record_progression
This one is tough because Lee Evans 43.86 was at altitude...still, let's ignore Evan's mark and go back one. Larry James 44.19 - shoot, also at altitude. How about Tommy Smith's 44.5 in San Jose. This link suggests that mark was run on a non-synthetic track:
http://speedendurance.com/2007/07/20/440-yard-and-400-meter-racing-facts-and-figures/
OK, so if Smith ran 44.5 on a dirt track in 1967, as soon as synthetic tracks become prominent we should see someone pop a 43.5. Except no one even runs faster than 43.86 until 1988 - 21 years later. Where is the immediate 1 second difference?
800 meters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/800_metres_world_record_progression
Let's see - we know that Wottle's 1:44.3 in Eugene in 1972 was on synthetic (from the Hayward Field wiki page). Doubell's WR was at altitude. Ah - Peter Snell's 1:44.3 on grass in 1962. So people should be running 1:42.3 pretty soon thereafter, right? I mean, the 1972 and 1976 games were on synthetic surfaces. You have the great Alberto Juantorena in his prime. But nope, Juantorena never goes more than a second faster than Snell despite the difference in surfaces, we have to wait until Coe in 1979 to see that 1:42.33. Where was the immediate 2 second drop in the WR?
1500 meters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500_metres_world_record_progression
Bayi's record was at the 1974 Commonwealth Games, which was on a synthetic track. So we'll assume Ryun's 3:33.1 was the last run on non-synthetic. We should see an immediate 3.75 second reduction in the WR - someone should run 3:29.4, right? But that doesn't happen for 18 more years when Aouita does it. No Walker, Coe, Ovett, Cram, Maree, or Bayi can do it. Where was the immediate 3.75 second drop in the WR?
Mile - same thing. Ryun ran 3:51 on dirt in 1967, but we don't see a 3:47 for another 14 years. There should have been an immediate drop to that level.
5k & 10k - I imagine we'd see the same trend but this has already been time consuming enough.
You get the picture? Your 1 sec/lap rule of thumb is bogus.

Great point and analysis!

It would also mean that the 200m should have dropped by 0.5 and the 100m by 0.25, almost immediately. Neither did.

I might take a look at the 5 & 10k myself later if I get the time.

It's interesting that Ventolin asks for scientific evidence for a 0.5 conversion but offers only "old timers" accounts who ran on cinders, and his own dubious efforts, to back up his opinion.

Both Mel Watman and Peter Matthews, two of the world's leading statisticians, who were both around when athletes were running on cinders, go along with a 0.5 conversion. These are people who produce books and participate in ranking panels. I'd sooner take their word than someone who is only known for ranting like an adolescent and playing with his calculator.

13 years ago 09/24/2010 12:55am EDT

re: deanouk

deanouk wrote:Both Mel Watman and Peter Matthews, two of the world's leading statisticians, who were both around when athletes were running on cinders, go along with a 0.5 conversion. These are people who produce books and participate in ranking panels. I'd sooner take their word than someone who is only known for ranting like an adolescent and playing with his calculator.

moron

watman left school at 15

you think i'm interested in an imbecile who coudn't even graduate high school for an opinion ???

as for "participating in ranking panels", this imbecile set up his own stats organisation - i have no interest in some organisation set up by a high school dropout - if iaaf had set up a committee, then i'd be interested, but they never did

13 years ago 09/24/2010 1:15am EDT

re: my criteria

my criteria wrote:Wait, there's also this - if a synthetic track accounts for 1 sec/lap then we should see some pretty big jumps in all the world records in the 60's 70's. There should be an immediate 1 second jump in the 400, 2 seconds in the 800, 4 seconds in 1500 & mile, 12.5 seconds in the 5k, 25 seconds in the 10k. So did those jumps actually happen due to the new faster surfaces?...

you are making the puerile mistake of assuming these athletes of the '70s were of same calibre as the '60s - the one's mentioned weren't

smith at 44.5 - garry hill, editor of t&f rates him as greatest 200/400 runner ever, greater than mj & says he believes he was a mid-43 guy ( off mostly 200 training & no specific 400 training ) if he'sd been running a 400 on synthetic

& you do now that smith crushed evans in the only 400 they ran ( it may actually have been that 44.5wr )

similarly, snell was likely a superior 800 guy to wottle/doubell & probably even caballo - remember he "only" ran 1'43.4 - there have been a dozen+ non-descript africans who have run faster than that since - no problem with snell being of similar ability to them & significantly superior to caballo

as for 1500, bayi/walker/ovett/maree/cram couldn't hold ryun's jockstrap & he'd have crushed them all by veritable mile ( albeit coe woud be best of this bunch )

look at this way - bernie has run low-3'26 - he is a commendable athlete & i've seen everyone of his major euro races ( his 3'26+ is on youtube, his 3'27+ when he beat hicham ( not on youtube ) ) - nothing i've seen from him shows me that he was a superior "talent" to what i've seen of ryun & i have no hesitation in ascribing ryun the ability in '67 to whatever bernie managed at 1500

as for 5k/10k, ron was probably worth 13'05/27'15 - yes, i'd rate him far superior to likes of viren/yifter/puttemans in a paced races & rono woud have had 2 less wrs in '78 if ron had run his 13'16 & 27'39 on synthetic - ron was a superior tt'er than that lot

learn something about relative level of talents...

13 years ago 09/24/2010 1:29am EDT

re: my criteria

my criteria wrote:Let's not base it on your youth times since (1) that's a case study of 1, (2) you weren't elite, (3) we have no hard evidence that can be seen by all.

for 3y at high school champs we ran on local dirt track & then next level championship on a synthetic track

i did a dozen races on both in short interval & my proportioned times were 1s/lap different

that's a case study of 1, but repeated a dozen times - statistically very valid - a 1 of observation may have error of x, but repeating experimenting 12 times reduces error to x/3.46

i also noted the times of a 1/2 dozen of my team-mates who also ran both - their times proportioned were also 1s/lap

being non-elite is immaterial - you can proprortion a 4'00 miler or a 6'00 one to give you an answer

13 years ago 09/24/2010 2:19am EDT

re: deanouk

deanouk wrote:Everything you said is conjecture and an opinion, none of it is FACT. Certainly not worthy of wasting my time to respond in any depth.
You are a sad, ridiculous person. LOL.

idiot

you have to look beyond facts

otherwise we get nowhere

FACT : rudy & kip are 0.6 - 0.7s faster than coe

FACT : clock tells us they are far superior 800 guys to him

FACT : coe had a best of 3'29.77 - hicham/bernie are infinitely better 1500 guys because the clock says they are 3.4 - 3.7s faster - coe was not in their league according to all that matters - the clock

ALL FACTS

13 years ago 09/24/2010 3:46am EDT

re: ventolin^3

Amazing what EPO can do.

If the clock is all that metters than Ryun would have trouble getting on to the USA team with a 3:33 pb. There have been hundreds of guys faster. Does that mean they're better? You contradict yourself taking loads of time off Ryun for some far fetched reasons and then compare others using just times. I think you've got issues.

13 years ago 09/24/2010 3:54am EDT

re: Issues anyone?

no problemo

just guestimate for us what you think hicham/bernie/noah wouda run on dirt in 95F off a jog for 300m & then putting his foot down & compare that to 3'33.1

13 years ago 09/24/2010 11:14am EDT

re: ventolin^3

ventolin, do you really expect me to read through your loony rants?

I think you require stronger medication.

13 years ago 09/24/2010 11:22am EDT

re: deanouk

deanouk wrote:
wellnow wrote:
Different surfaces require different training. Last night I was struggling with the pace on the track but ran better on grass. Saying that Ryun's 3.51 was worth 3.46-7 is pure speculation not absolute fact.
ventolin you live in a fantasy world of stats.
yours sincerely
another moron.
You're right. Ventolin is fixated on their being a 1 sec variable between cinders and synthetic, which isn't a universally agreed figure, and has no scientific proof.
How can you compare the variable needed to convert 1 surface to another, when the condition of cinders varied wildly itself?
A cinder track at White City after a downpour is going to be very different to a hard smooth one in the sun of California. Maybe the constant pounding on a torn up cinder track in a 10,000m race might be worth an average of 1 second a lap for the duration of 25, but not for 4 laps in good weather conditions.
I've read in several publications that 0.5 secs per lap is a more sensible "estimate" for a half decent cinder track or grass one. That's the opinion of some experts and again, is not a fact either.
I have no doubt Ryun could have run 3:30 for 1500 and a 3:47 Mile in 67 on a synthetic track with reasonable rabbiting up to the bell, perhaps slightly faster. But the 3:24 and 3:42 Ventolin reckons, 2 and 1 second ahead of the current WRs (set at a time when advances in middle & long distance times were at their greatest), are a nonsense.
No one else from the late 60's (Beamon at altitude apart; being No. 2 on all time list) in any other event, set a mark which would still put them such a large margin in front of all others.
Ryun had an 800m pb (hand timed) of 1:44.3 on a synthetic track and a 2 Mile pb of 8:25. Even if we take 8 secs off that time for a synthetic performance (too generous in many expert's opinions), that gives 8:18. His speed looks as good as Ovett (1:44.09, probably capable of 1:43.5 in 78) or Aouita (1:43.86), but his endurance doesn't look to be as good. Both Ovett & Aouita ran c. 8:13 for the 2 Miles. Yet somehow in an intermediate distance of 1500m and 1 Mile, we're expected to believe Ryun was 4 to 5 secs better than either Ovett or Aouita!
I think at their peak Ovett and Aouita could have run around the 3:28 low - 3:29 low mark ( or about 3:45 for the Mile) in near perfect conditions (perfect ones don't exist). Apart from Ventolin's unproven conversion amounts, there is no evidence to suppose that Ryun would have been any faster at 1500/Mile than those two.
Of course you can take this amount off for surfaces, that amount for weather, another for uneven distribution of pace to "jack" a time up. But then you have to do the same for everyone else whose set a fast time.
Ventolin is entitled to his opinion but to ridicule others for not agreeing with him, and stating his opinions as facts not to be questioned, just makes him look slightly mad.

*********************************************

Good post deano. He obviously has a personality disorder.

13 years ago 09/24/2010 11:27am EDT

re: my criteria

my criteria wrote:
Wait, there's also this - if a synthetic track accounts for 1 sec/lap then we should see some pretty big jumps in all the world records in the 60's 70's. There should be an immediate 1 second jump in the 400, 2 seconds in the 800, 4 seconds in 1500 & mile, 12.5 seconds in the 5k, 25 seconds in the 10k. So did those jumps actually happen due to the new faster surfaces?
Obviously this is challenging exercise when you don't know what types of surfaces these were run on. But let's try:
400 meters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_400_metres_world_record_progression
This one is tough because Lee Evans 43.86 was at altitude...still, let's ignore Evan's mark and go back one. Larry James 44.19 - shoot, also at altitude. How about Tommy Smith's 44.5 in San Jose. This link suggests that mark was run on a non-synthetic track:
http://speedendurance.com/2007/07/20/440-yard-and-400-meter-racing-facts-and-figures/
OK, so if Smith ran 44.5 on a dirt track in 1967, as soon as synthetic tracks become prominent we should see someone pop a 43.5. Except no one even runs faster than 43.86 until 1988 - 21 years later. Where is the immediate 1 second difference?
800 meters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/800_metres_world_record_progression
Let's see - we know that Wottle's 1:44.3 in Eugene in 1972 was on synthetic (from the Hayward Field wiki page). Doubell's WR was at altitude. Ah - Peter Snell's 1:44.3 on grass in 1962. So people should be running 1:42.3 pretty soon thereafter, right? I mean, the 1972 and 1976 games were on synthetic surfaces. You have the great Alberto Juantorena in his prime. But nope, Juantorena never goes more than a second faster than Snell despite the difference in surfaces, we have to wait until Coe in 1979 to see that 1:42.33. Where was the immediate 2 second drop in the WR?
1500 meters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500_metres_world_record_progression
Bayi's record was at the 1974 Commonwealth Games, which was on a synthetic track. So we'll assume Ryun's 3:33.1 was the last run on non-synthetic. We should see an immediate 3.75 second reduction in the WR - someone should run 3:29.4, right? But that doesn't happen for 18 more years when Aouita does it. No Walker, Coe, Ovett, Cram, Maree, or Bayi can do it. Where was the immediate 3.75 second drop in the WR?
Mile - same thing. Ryun ran 3:51 on dirt in 1967, but we don't see a 3:47 for another 14 years. There should have been an immediate drop to that level.
5k & 10k - I imagine we'd see the same trend but this has already been time consuming enough.
You get the picture? Your 1 sec/lap rule of thumb is bogus.

Thanks for the analysis. Ryun's talent is undeniably as great as today's top milers. Records evolve, who knows why? Yes synthetic track are faster, but that extra speed takes more out of our legs, and that causes different types of fatigue from one surface to another, so the conditioning must be different for each surface.

13 years ago 09/24/2010 11:50am EDT

re: wellnow

Wait, Jim Ryun ran his two mile as a collge frosh, 8:24 I believe, and it was indoors on an 11 lap to the mile track also, not positive but that is where it was done.

So, he was capable of a much faster 2 mile if he wanted to go after it.

13 years ago 09/24/2010 12:19pm EDT

re: man from uncle...

So ventolin what you are saying is that EVERY single event in the 60's had a superior athlete to the synthetic track 70's group?

Wow, so the 70's must have sucked, if we didn't have a single athlete competing in track who was better than their 60's counterpart.

13 years ago 09/24/2010 2:33pm EDT

re: ventolin^3

ventolin^3 wrote:
you are making the puerile mistake of assuming these athletes of the '70s were of same calibre as the '60s - the one's mentioned weren't
smith at 44.5 - garry hill, editor of t&f rates him as greatest 200/400 runner ever, greater than mj & says he believes he was a mid-43 guy ( off mostly 200 training & no specific 400 training ) if he'sd been running a 400 on synthetic
& you do now that smith crushed evans in the only 400 they ran ( it may actually have been that 44.5wr )
similarly, snell was likely a superior 800 guy to wottle/doubell & probably even caballo - remember he "only" ran 1'43.4 - there have been a dozen+ non-descript africans who have run faster than that since - no problem with snell being of similar ability to them & significantly superior to caballo
as for 1500, bayi/walker/ovett/maree/cram couldn't hold ryun's jockstrap & he'd have crushed them all by veritable mile ( albeit coe woud be best of this bunch )
look at this way - bernie has run low-3'26 - he is a commendable athlete & i've seen everyone of his major euro races ( his 3'26+ is on youtube, his 3'27+ when he beat hicham ( not on youtube ) ) - nothing i've seen from him shows me that he was a superior "talent" to what i've seen of ryun & i have no hesitation in ascribing ryun the ability in '67 to whatever bernie managed at 1500
as for 5k/10k, ron was probably worth 13'05/27'15 - yes, i'd rate him far superior to likes of viren/yifter/puttemans in a paced races & rono woud have had 2 less wrs in '78 if ron had run his 13'16 & 27'39 on synthetic - ron was a superior tt'er than that lot
learn something about relative level of talents...

No way, what you're arguing is too unlikely. In order for what you're saying to be true, then (1) every guy who set the last dirt WR is generations ahead of the guys who follow him just a few years later. Every single one?? (2) Smith, Snell, & Ryun would all have to be 1 sec/lap faster than their peers. Because let's just say Tommy Smith was 44.5 on dirt/43.5 on synthetic...shouldn't the guy who is 44.7 on dirt who always comes in second to Smith be a 43.7 guy on synthetic? And shouldn't the guy who always gets third to them in 44.8 dirt be a 43.8 synthetic guy? But there were no 43.7 or 43.8 guys once the change to synthetic happened. No one ran 43.8 until 1988!!!!!

If Ryun is 3:33.1 on dirt/3:29.4 synthetic, surely there must have been some peer who was 3:34.1 on dirt. Why didn't that guy run 3:30.4 synthetic? In fact no one ran that caliber time until 1983. Or shouldn't there AT LEAST been a 3:35 dirt guy who was immediately capable of 3:31 synthetic? But no one ran that until 1980.

You're telling me there weren't several 3:35 dirt guys in 1967? Come on, Ryun was good but he wasn't 2 seconds better than everyone else.

Use your brain, admit that you might be wrong for once.

13 years ago 09/24/2010 3:09pm EDT

re: shoesarethedevil

shoesarethedevil wrote:
So ventolin what you are saying is that EVERY single event in the 60's had a superior athlete to the synthetic track 70's group?
Wow, so the 70's must have sucked, if we didn't have a single athlete competing in track who was better than their 60's counterpart.

just that ryun/snell/elliot/keino/hayes/smith/evans/hines were superior to the '70s guys :

100m - hayes ran 10.06 on a chewed up dirt track - he was regarded by many ( i disagree - i reckon lewis was quicker ) as greatest 100m runner of all time before bolt -

hines ran 9.95wr at altitude but backed it up in the trials with a 10.03 at low altitude on synthetic

no one ran faster than this 100m at low-altitude in '70s - best 100m of the '70s was borzov with a 10.07 slightly easing down at the line in 1/4f ( big hasely ran 10.06 to win '76, but borzov's 10.07 was better as he eased off )

200m - smith ran 19.83wr at altitude, but ran a slow bend due to a hamstring injury & eased of 15m before the line - in all, i'd reckon that more than compensated for the altitude & he was at least 19.8 at sea-level

fastest sea-level time of '70s was borzov with 20.00

400m - see tommie smith/lee evans - caballo was fastest of '70s but i rate 43.86wr higher & smith is regarded as mid-43 calibre by editor of t&f news who saw him

800m - coe with 1'42.3 & snell look level pegging, but i doubt they'd have lived with a ryun of '67

1500 - ryun v bayi/walker/coe/ovett ???

it'd be a massacre

in fact the keino of 3'34A shape wouda probably whupped the latters as well

i'm bored now, but viren/yifter/puttemans weren't beating ron over a 5 or 10k gun-to-taper - rono wouda run him close

3ksc - '70s guys better

110h - skeets is actually the goat

400h - moses similarly the goat

the talent is heavy in the '60s favor

13 years ago 09/24/2010 4:05pm EDT

re: my criteria

my criteria wrote:No way, what you're
arguing is too unlikely

it's just a distinct possibility

In order for what you're saying to be true, then (1) every guy who set the last dirt WR is generations ahead of the guys who follow him just a few years later. Every single one??

not all

see my anlysis event-by-event in previous post - ryun has been discussed already

(2) Smith, Snell, & Ryun would all have to be 1 sec/lap faster than their peers. Because let's just say Tommy Smith was 44.5 on dirt/43.5 on synthetic...shouldn't the guy who is 44.7 on dirt who always comes in second to Smith be a 43.7 guy on synthetic?

smith hammered evans by helluva lot more than 0.2s

race was 44.5 v 45.0 in '67

the previous wr was 44.9 which smith broke by 0.4s ( otis davis in '60 - another legend - 44.9 on dirt - which is close enough to your 44.7 requested )

And shouldn't the guy who always gets third to them in 44.8 dirt be a 43.8 synthetic guy?

the 3rd guy in that race probably barely cracked 46, so what ???

never heard of a blow-out by a wr holder ???

But there were no 43.7 or 43.8 guys once the change to synthetic happened. No one ran 43.8 until 1988!!!!!

they simply weren't that good, although bert cameron wouda probably run mid-high 43 in '84 if not for his hamstring pull - ran ~45.5 whilst grabbing his hamstring on backstretch, limping for 10m then restarted running

If Ryun is 3:33.1 on dirt/3:29.4 synthetic, surely there must have been some peer who was 3:34.1 on dirt

why ???

he broke elliot's 3'35.6wr by 2.5s

elliot is still regarded by some today as greatest 1500 runner of all time

if he coudn't run 3'34.1 on dirt, why must someone else have ( apart from ryun who actually crushed it ) ???

Why didn't that guy run 3:30.4 synthetic? In fact no one ran that caliber time until 1983. Or shouldn't there AT LEAST been a 3:35 dirt guy who was immediately capable of 3:31 synthetic? But no one ran that until 1980

see above

the only one who couda was keino in mexico form, but he was past his peak by the '70s & ran only to win by then - not in shape to chase times

You're telling me there weren't several 3:35 dirt guys in 1967?

there weren't

the list in '67 when ryun broke the wr was :

3'33.1 - ryun

3'35.6 - elliot

3'36.3 - jazy

3'36.4 - may

3'36.7 - keino

NO ONE broke 3'35 except ryun

Come on, Ryun was good but he wasn't 2 seconds better than everyone else

he wasn't

he was 2.5s better than anyone by end '67

Use your brain, admit that you might be wrong for once.

i am

you aren't

take 1s/lap of above 1500 times or 0.5s/lap & consider calibre of guys involved & see which conversion looks nearer the mark...

13 years ago 09/24/2010 5:35pm EDT

re: ventolin^3

ventolin^3 wrote:
the list in '67 when ryun broke the wr was :
3'33.1 - ryun
3'35.6 - elliot
3'36.3 - jazy
3'36.4 - may
3'36.7 - keino

Would you mind providing a link for where we would find information like this? Thanks.

13 years ago 09/24/2010 6:03pm EDT

re: victory

victory wrote:
was jim ryun overtrained, He ran 110 miles a week with most of it fast pace and never ran fatser than a 3:51. also kip keino beat him of only running 40-50 miles a week? was he overtrained?

"Only" 3:51 and in the 1960s. Wow, I never thought I'd see someone post that, even on letsrun.

13 years ago 09/24/2010 6:12pm EDT

re: victory

victory wrote:
was jim ryun overtrained, He ran 110 miles a week with most of it fast pace and never ran fatser than a 3:51. also kip keino beat him of only running 40-50 miles a week? was he overtrained?

Who cares if he was overtrained? There is a fine line between being trained optimally and being overtrained, and if it happens that Ryun crossed over it at times, so what? He would not have been the best miler in the world without an incredible work ethic, and a concomitant aspect of this is a risk of training too hard at times. There were probably dozens of potential sub 4 minute milers in Ryun's day who were severely undertrained, in that they never ran track or they dabbled in it halfheartedly. Trying to be the best means that you take some risks.

13 years ago 09/24/2010 6:28pm EDT

re: my criteria

my criteria wrote:
Wait, there's also this - if a synthetic track accounts for 1 sec/lap then we should see some pretty big jumps in all the world records in the 60's 70's. There should be an immediate 1 second jump in the 400, 2 seconds in the 800, 4 seconds in 1500 & mile, 12.5 seconds in the 5k, 25 seconds in the 10k. So did those jumps actually happen due to the new faster surfaces?
Obviously this is challenging exercise when you don't know what types of surfaces these were run on. But let's try:
400 meters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_400_metres_world_record_progression
This one is tough because Lee Evans 43.86 was at altitude...still, let's ignore Evan's mark and go back one. Larry James 44.19 - shoot, also at altitude. How about Tommy Smith's 44.5 in San Jose. This link suggests that mark was run on a non-synthetic track:
http://speedendurance.com/2007/07/20/440-yard-and-400-meter-racing-facts-and-figures/
OK, so if Smith ran 44.5 on a dirt track in 1967, as soon as synthetic tracks become prominent we should see someone pop a 43.5. Except no one even runs faster than 43.86 until 1988 - 21 years later. Where is the immediate 1 second difference?
800 meters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/800_metres_world_record_progression
Let's see - we know that Wottle's 1:44.3 in Eugene in 1972 was on synthetic (from the Hayward Field wiki page). Doubell's WR was at altitude. Ah - Peter Snell's 1:44.3 on grass in 1962. So people should be running 1:42.3 pretty soon thereafter, right? I mean, the 1972 and 1976 games were on synthetic surfaces. You have the great Alberto Juantorena in his prime. But nope, Juantorena never goes more than a second faster than Snell despite the difference in surfaces, we have to wait until Coe in 1979 to see that 1:42.33. Where was the immediate 2 second drop in the WR?
1500 meters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500_metres_world_record_progression
Bayi's record was at the 1974 Commonwealth Games, which was on a synthetic track. So we'll assume Ryun's 3:33.1 was the last run on non-synthetic. We should see an immediate 3.75 second reduction in the WR - someone should run 3:29.4, right? But that doesn't happen for 18 more years when Aouita does it. No Walker, Coe, Ovett, Cram, Maree, or Bayi can do it. Where was the immediate 3.75 second drop in the WR?
Mile - same thing. Ryun ran 3:51 on dirt in 1967, but we don't see a 3:47 for another 14 years. There should have been an immediate drop to that level.
5k & 10k - I imagine we'd see the same trend but this has already been time consuming enough.
You get the picture? Your 1 sec/lap rule of thumb is bogus.

Ventolin is stuck in the 1960's because that's when he was running. Of course he's going to look back with rose tinted spectacles. I've just had a brief look at the last "cinders" track world records for each event up to 10k, and if one were to believe Ventolin's unproven 1 sec per lap conversion, then almost all world records set on cinders would have lasted an average of 20 years had they been run on synthetic tracks. It's rare for any record to last that long, but to presume that the class of 65 (or round about that year) were so much better than what followed in the 70's and most of the 80's (when there was supposed to be more drug use, more money in the sport, better training, longer careers, etc) is ridiculous.

100m ~ Hayes (1964) ~ 10.06 - 0.25 = 9.81 , a time not bettered on a synthetic track until Maurice Greene ran 9.79 some 35 years later in “99!

200m ~ T. Smith (1966) ~ 20.0 - 0.50 = 19.5, a time not bettered until Johnson's WR of 19.32 in '96, some 30 years later.

400m ~ T. Smith (1967) ~ 44.5 - 1.0 = 43.5, not bettered until B. Reynolds in '88 (21 years later)

800m ~ P. Snell (1962) ~ 1:44.3 - 2.0 = 1:42.3 ~ not bettered until Coe's 1:41.7 in '81 (19 years later)

1500m ~ J. Ryun (1967) ~ 3:33.1 - 3.75 = 3:29.4 ~ only bettered by Morceli in 92, (25 years later)

1 Mile ~ J. Ryun (1967) ~ 3:51.1 - 4.0 = 3:47.1 ~ not improved on until Cram in 85, (18 years later)

2000m ~ M. Jazy (1966) ~ 4:56.2 - 5.0 = 4:51.2 ~ had to wait until Aouita in 87 to improve that one! (21 years)

3000m ~ K. Keino (1965) ~ 7:39.6 - 7.5 = 7:32.1 ~ equalled by Rono in '78 but not improved on until Aouita in 89. ( 24 years)

2 Miles ~ R. Clarke (1967) ~ 8:19.8 - 8.0 = 8:11.8 ~ not bettered until Kiptanui ran 8:09.01 in 1994, 27 years later.

5000m ~ R. Clarke (1966) ~ 13:16.6 - 12.5 = 13:04.1 ~ not bettered for 16 years until Moorcroft ran 13:00

10,000m ~ R. Clarke (1965) ~ 27:39.4 - 25.0 = 27:14.4 ~ not bettered until F. Mamede ran 27:13.81 in 84, some 19 years later.

That's an average of just over 23 years per record! And we're not talking about 1 or 2 "freak of nature" runners. In the above list there are 7 different names. Yet all, Ventolin would have us believe, were 20 + years ahead of their time and all happened to run in the 60's when conditions, training, blah, blah, etc, were meant to be so inferior! In fact the average of Ryun's 2 WR performances have him at only 21.5 years ahead of his time, so he was no better than his peers competing in the other events at the time.

People talk about the athletes of the 70's taking drugs, well perhaps those in the '60's (was there any kind of testing in those days? I doubt it) were dosed to the gills (I can't imagine there were any drugs taken on the US collegiate scene in the mid '60's though!....) in order to set performances way above anything that anyone else would achieve for 2 decades.

I also took a brief look at Kip Keino's career and yearly best times for 1500m & Mile, being as he was one of the few athletes at the top of the pack both before (on cinders) and after the introduction of synthetic tracks in c. 1968. Here's his yearly progression: -

1965 (age 25) ~ 3:37.6 / 3:54.2; - cinders

1966 ( " 26) ~ 3:36.8 / 3:53.4; - cinders

1967 ( " 27) ~ 3:36.7 / 3:53.1; - cinders

1968 ( " 28) ~ 3:34.91 / 3:55.5; - synthetic for 1500 time.

1969 ( " 29) ~ 3:37.3 - synthetic?

1970 ( " 30) ~ 3:36.6 (Commonwealth gold) - synthetic;

1971 ( " 31) ~ 3:36.8 (Nairobi, so probably cinders?)/ 3:54.4 - synthetic;

1972 ( " 32) ~ 3:36.8 (Mombasa) & 3:36.81 for Olympic silver - synthetic

So, strangely, Keino's best times over a 7 year period were very similar, with a range of only about 2.5 secs. In fact, if we take the average of his 3 best time on cinders (3:36.7, 3:36.7 & 3:36.8) we get an average of 3:36.77

Do the same for his 3 best synthetic track times (3:34.91, 3:36.6 & 3:36.81) we get an average of 3:36.1, only 0.67 faster. Quite a difference to the 3.75 secs some would expect if the 1 sec per lap differential applied.

Of course Vento **** will just argue that Keino was great when he ran on cinders but suddenly deteriorated ( how convenient!) by many seconds once the synthetic tracks came along in 68/69. He will use any excuses and manipulation of facts and opinions, in order to bludgeon his exaggerated beliefs on others.

When the clock shows A to be faster than B and it fits with his opinions, he will use it as FACTS. But when the clock shows A to be slower than B and it is contrary to who he feels is the better athlete, then he'll manipulate the circumstances, come out with a load of old spin and state categorically that in actual OPINION athlete A is faster than athlete B (despite having a slower time) and thus it must also be a FACT in the eyes of Ventolin.

The man is rude, self -indulgent and rants all over the place, killing most intellectual discussions on here stone dead. His 1second a lap conversion is clearly an exaggeration and his persistent droning on about it shows he is delusional.

Avoid at all costs.

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 7

Next Last

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

jim ryun ovetrained

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

jim ryun ovetrained

Jump To A Page

Follow deanouk

Block deanouk

Follow ventolin^3

Block ventolin^3

Follow ventolin^3

Block ventolin^3

Follow ventolin^3

Block ventolin^3

Follow ventolin^3

Block ventolin^3

Follow ventolin^3

Block ventolin^3

Follow ventolin^3

Block ventolin^3

Follow ventolin^3

Block ventolin^3

Follow 3200guy

Block 3200guy

Follow deanouk

Block deanouk

Jump To A Page

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.