Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Running a 3:49.80 mile

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    26mi235
    Senior Member

  • 26mi235
    replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Breaking 3:50 requires not only good form and a good race, but a mile race, and those are getting more scarce.

    Leave a comment:

  • 15mph
    Senior Member

  • 15mph
    replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Does somebody here think Webb is going to break 3:50 this summer?

    Leave a comment:

  • paulthefan
    Senior Member

  • paulthefan
    replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Spivey was awe inspiring on and off the track!

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Yeah, it is an old list. Saw the updated list just now. Webb is in the upper half of the top twenty list. Lets hope Webb makes the list again. This nightmarish two seasons he has had cannot last forever.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Andy, your list hasn't been updated in years - no Dick Boulet 3:53.26 or Alan Webb 3:53.43?

    Trivia: Is Boulet the fastest American ever at the Pre Classic?

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    One more look at the "good old days".

    Mile
    3:47.69 Steve Scott 1982
    3:48.83 Sydney Maree 1981
    3:49.31 Joe Falcon 1990
    3:49.80 Jim Spivey 1986
    3:50.34 Todd Harbour 1981
    3:50.60 Steve Holman 1996
    3:50.84 Tom Byers 1982
    3:51.10 Jim Ryan 1967
    3:51.34 John Gregorek 1982
    3:51.39 Richie Harris 1984
    (10)
    3:51.62 Chuck Aragon 1984
    3:52.02 Craig Masback 1979
    3:52.2 Marty Liquori 1975
    3:52.80 Jeff Atkinson 1988
    3:53.2 Tony Waldrop 1974
    3:53.3 Dave Wottle 1973
    3:53.3 Rick Wohlhuter 1975
    3:53.64 Terrence Herrington 1995
    3:54.06 Kevin Johnson 1984
    3:54.19 Don Paige 1982

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    >What does Steve Scott's personal life have to do
    >with fast mile times.

    In an earlier post, Scott was held up as a good role model for young runners, as if a person's selfish decisions that have caused hurt to others in the past have nothing to do with an attitude that may have a possible negative influence on kids. THAT'S how Scott came into this.

    >What Scott does in his private life is
    >his own business.

    As pointed out very well above, Scott made his private life public to help sell his book.

    >He has made mistakes in his
    >life,

    This is why it is very appropriate that his potential for future mistakes involving the young runners the first poster was so sure would benefit from Scott's influence be held up to scrutiny.

    >but he has also overcome cancer, which
    >proves he has character.

    This is just plain stupid. Scott overcoming cancer shows Scott overcame cancer, period. What was the alternative--do nothing and die?
    If this proves anything, it is that he had good doctors and was very lucky it was the type of cancer that could be "cured" with organ (testicle) removal. For the other, not-so-lucky kind, just ask Warren Zevon's family.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Lets not get personal. This thread is about running period.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    >What Scott does in his private life is
    >his own business.

    Well, it WAS until he CHOSE to make it PUBLIC by PUBLISHING IT IN A BOOK.

    >He has made mistakes in his
    >life, but he has also overcome cancer, which
    >proves he has character.

    Just not integrity, eh?

    >I have to admit I was
    >surprised that Spivey dropped by. The third best
    >miler in US history was here.

    Are you sure you're ready to admit to being THAT much of an outsider? REALLY, it didn't show! It must come as a surprise that everyone who visits this site doesn't feel like shooting off at the mouth like you do.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    What does Steve Scott's personal life have to do with fast mile times. We are talking about why the sub 3:50 mile eludes todays best US milers. Actually, Spivey has answered this question quite well.

    What Scott does in his private life is his own business. He has made mistakes in his life, but he has also overcome cancer, which proves he has character.

    So far we have heard from Spivey and now Byers coach from the 70's. I wonder who else is listening or will drop by. Hmm, maybe Scott will show himself on this board.

    I have a feeling Krummenacker has been on these message boards.

    I have to admit I was surprised that Spivey dropped by. The third best miler in US history was here.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Actually, I wrote the above.

    Sorry. It's been a week and I forgot what handle I was using.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    The above gradations of
    >cheating are well outlined.

    Once again, there are NO gradations of cheating, this is simply your idea. There are DEGREES OF HARM done by cheating and that is different.

    >Is it cheating to read the first and last
    >paragraphs of a book?

    Again, this is NOT cheating. This is simply YOU CHOOSING to not read the entire book. The only way it couldbe cheating is if you were in some book-reading contest. There has to be OTHERS involved in order for you to take unfair advantage. Why is it so hard for you to grasp this simple concept? There must be someone slighted in order for it to be cheating!!!!

    And there is no such thing as "cheating yourself." That's a concept used by people either to chide children into doing the right thing ("You're just cheating yourself if you do that!")or to play the ultimate victim (I'm so worthy of pity, I cheated myself!). There is no such thing as cheating yourself, only choices made to direct you down different paths...do I read the whole book? If I choose to do so. Do I read only the parts I wish? If I so choose. Others must be involved/slighted in order for those personal choices to be cheating.

    As I said above, cheating
    >is almost always wrong. But, as you outlined
    >above, wrong to different degrees.

    This is absolutely moronic. And it is NOT what I said. I said, cheating is cheating and the DEGREES OF HARM coming from that cheating vary. Stop twisting my words just because you can't defend your foolish defense of your hero.

    >If a runner
    >cuts the corner of his training run but still
    >calls it a five mile run even though it is
    >actually 4.8 is this the same as someone cutting
    >the course in a race?

    No, because OTHERS are now involved and it is no longer simply an individual choice being made but a choice to defraud someone else being made.

    >Would you have the same
    >opinion of someone who cut the corners on his
    >training run or skipped to the last chapter of
    >his book as you would for the guy who cheated
    >shareholders out of millions of dollars?

    You re-read my last two comments and see if you've progressed enough to tell me.

    >They
    >are both cheating. One is only doing wrong to
    >oneself, the other is doing wrong to others. The
    >second instance is a greater infraction than the
    >first. But, both are wrong.

    Now you're getting it, except you still haven't grasped the idea that someone else must be involved in order for it to be anything other than an individual choosing a path for themself.

    >What Steve did by
    >cheating on his wife hurt his family. This is
    >much different than if he had taken EPO which
    >would have shown he lacked credibility as a
    >runner and therefore also as a coach.

    As I said many times, this choice he made shows an attitude toward other people and toward his value of keeping his word.
    Whether he chose to hurt/slight his wife and his family by doing certain things to gratify himself personally at her/their expense or whether he chose to hurt/slight his fellow competitors by doing certain things to gratify himself financially or otherwise at their expense, the attitude and self-serving action is the same, ethics-wise.
    Cheating is cheating.

    No, he did not kill.
    No, he did not steal.
    No, he did not choose to read only part of the book or exagerate his mileage.

    He chose to cheat. Just as Ben Johnson did, just as the Enron folks did.

    He chose to cheat.

    Cheating is cheating, no matter what the degree of harm that may occur from it. The concept is the same.

    Maybe one of these days you'll get it. Once you stop kissing Scott's you-know-what.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Wow, thanks for the insight Wayne.

    "I could tell you stories of fantastic workouts that you would not believe followed by unbelievably poor performances at his next competition. Tom was an unbelievably good athlete but he never came close to his potential because he didn’t have confidence in either himself or his coach."

    This specific paragraph sounds a lot like A. Webb in the Sub-4 book written by Chris Lear. I really hope he changed his outlook from his college years to now.

    The more stories about elites that one hears, the more and more he/she realizes that the most important aspect of running is the mental side. A runner can miss weeks of training before a big race, but if they believe they deserve to win and have the will power, they can get it done. Likewise, a guy can have all the monster 53sec 400 workouts in him, but if his confidence is that of a junior high schooler, then good luck.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    As Byers' coach for most of his early races, and his coach during the '74 AAU and the Olympic Trials races mentioned below, I am well aware of Tom's ability. I have been involved in the sport since I was in 7th grade in 1956, and I have never seen a middle distance runner with anything like the talent Tom had. His problem was much as Jim states. He was a great athlete but no matter what he had done in practice or competition he never had any confidence in himself. He would go out on extra workouts at 10:00 pm that I knew nothing about because he didn't think he was working hard enough. He also never had any confidence in his coaches. Not me, or any of the four of so others he had after leaving me. He always had to get advice from someone else. This was probably another source of his extra workouts. This undoubtedly contributed to the nearly nonstop injuries he had in the period ‘77-80.

    At the trials race the plan was for him to run much as he had at the ‘74 AAU. Even pace through the 1200 and then go as hard as he could for the last 300. He did pretty much what I asked him to do in ‘74. 58 for the first 400, 1:57 at the 800, and 2:56 at the 1200 [I have to admit that I did a double take when I saw what I had written down]. The only thing he didn’t do was take off as hard as he could with 300 to go. He hesitated, Dixon passed him and Tom couldn’t catch him. 3:37.9, not bad for a 19 year old, a time bettered only 10 times by the winner of the next 29 editions of the race. Looking back, I think it is probably only that he had no expectation of running so fast that he was able to do so. He didn’t psych himself out because he hadn’t thought about winning.

    At the ‘76 trials he knew that I expected him to make the team and beat everyone except perhaps Wohlhuter. The plan was again for him to run the first 1200 in even splits. He was much better then, so 58, 1:56, 2:54, then try to run the last 300 in 40 or less. He could easily have done this and would have certainly made the team if he had. There was no way that 3 others would have run 3:34. Instead, when the gun went off he started like a scared rabbit. He must have run the first 100 in under 13. His 400 was 53.5 and his 800 was 1:50.9. He might even have gotten away with the 1:50.9 if it had been a more even pace. I thought Popejoy and Durkin were going to kill me after the race. They thought that pace was my idea. Mike Slack almost punched me in the face (probably would have if I hadn't been a lot bigger than him). My second biggest disappointment as a coach, second only to Dick Bruggeman being injured at the last moment before the ‘72 Olympics and not doing well.

    I could tell you stories of fantastic workouts that you would not believe followed by unbelievably poor performances at his next competition. Tom was an unbelievably good athlete but he never came close to his potential because he didn’t have confidence in either himself or his coach.

    The last time I saw Tom was in the fall of ‘91 shortly before I moved from Columbus. I was walking on High Street just north of downtown when he called out my name from behind. We started talking about Croghan and Tom said how good Mark was. I just looked at him and shook my head and said “Yes, he’s good all right, but you were so much better than he is that it’s not even a contest.” Those were the last words I spoke to Tom.

    >In 1981, Tom Byers was the rabbit for the 1500
    >meters in Oslo, Norway. I was in Eugene,
    >training
    there for 7 days, visting a former Sout
    >Eugene HS athlete who still holds the 4xmile
    >record, John Gustafason (he ran 3:40/4:03 at
    >Indiana).
    Byers was the rabbit, period. He
    >was supposed to run through 1200m as fast as he
    >could, then drop out. When he hit the 1200m
    >mark, he put his head down, and started to jog.
    >Not the moment of an athlete getting ready to
    >rock the world. Ovett, et al, were all just
    >reacing the finish line for the final lap. He
    >had a 100m lead!
    Byers jogged the
    >backstretch, why? The rule was that the rabbit
    >had to finish the race. I think it was changed
    >around that time, that they could drop out, but
    >Tom was probably not sure. He looked back with
    >250 to go, and no one was in sight.
    With 300m
    >to go, Ovett realized that the rabbit had
    >continued to run, and was way ahead. Everyone
    >started to run hard, Ovett included.
    With 150
    >to go, Tom found life in his legs, and started
    >to race for the finish. The pack closed on him,
    >but with 40 or so to go, Tom found the last gear
    >and won, in 3:39. Ovett was 2nd, and I believe
    >it was the first time he had been beaten over
    >1500m since the '80 Olmpics, and even longer in
    >non-championship events.
    Tom went from no one
    >knowing him except a runner who ran 2:06 for a
    >1000yards to set the Big Ten record, the athlete
    >who went out at 1:51 in the finals of the
    >Olympic trials in 1976 after being reinstated
    >from being tripped in the heats (and finishing
    >last, as one of my coaches had the ability to
    >win (Mike Durkin) but choose to be 3rd because
    >he did not want the added pressure of being the
    >American champion in Canada; and my other coach,
    >Ken Popejoy (whose boys finished 7th and 17th in
    >the Ill State meete today)bringing up the rear
    >passing Tom to finish one place ahead of him.
    >
    On long runs with Ken in Chicago during the
    >e winter, with temps hovering in the teens, I
    >would ask Ken to tell me stories about when he
    >ran in college, and overseas. Pre stories - that
    >make the videos look tame. Liquouri stories.
    >And Byers? "His pace, and me going with him
    >like a fool, cost me a chance to make the
    >Olympic team."

    Tom made the '83 World team
    >with Steve and Sydnee, and before the semis, I
    >remember sitting in his room with he and his
    >favorite person, Anne his wife. He was so
    >unsure of his fitness, showing me his training
    >from Mr. Dellinger was having him do. One
    >workout, I still remember I was in awe: 3x1200
    >in 2:59 or about (2:57-3:01) with a 400 jog. I
    >think, he even came back that afternoon and ran
    >8x300 in 43-46 seconds. He killed himself in
    >training, and could handle it. Then, before the
    >semis, he says he is not sure of his shape. I
    >remember, realize at age 23 you are unsure
    >yourself, saying: Just sit in, and out kick
    >them. You have great speed. He said ok,
    but
    >took the lead from the start and went through
    >the 800, and put his head down and was done.
    >
    My coach, Sam Bell while at Indiana, thought
    >t Tom was one of the most talented athletes he
    >had ever seen run. I agree. He had speed that
    >was unmatched.

    js

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    >No, b.s. here,

    Since I don't have my T&F
    >collection here with me at work I'll have to rely
    >on memory. Check out May '03. Also I believe
    >there was a mention of the race (and the fact
    >that is was the deepest ever) in this month's
    >issue - with a picture of Solinsky and the
    >leaders. I think I said 2mi., or course it was a
    >3200m.>

    Pull out November's Track and Field News and look on page 8 under 2 miles. There is a blurb about Arcadia being the deepest 8 lapper of all time. Now whether that is inclusive of 2 mile races I have no idea.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X