Tweet
I've just finished Neal Bascomb's "The Perfect Mile" (Hougton Mifflin) and am happy to report that it is a very good and important book. Every track fan should read it, and we can hope that it will transcend the hardcore track world to appeal to a broader public.
Bascomb did a great deal of research for this book and it shows. He conducted extensive interviews with his three main subjects--Bannister, Landy, and Santee--as well as with many of their friends and associates. The resulting narrative provides lots of new detail (private conversations are believably recreated, for example) and a great sense of the individual character of these three stars. The narrative spans the period from the '52 Helsinki Games (at which all three were "also-rans") through the famous Bannister-Landy showdown at the ?54 Empire Games. This was clearly one of the greatest and most exciting two-year stretches in all of track history.
Bascomb is a good writer and propels his story along nicely, giving equal time to each of his three subjects. He succeeds in conveying the distinctly different personalities of the three, as well as the pressures and disappointments they coped with. The real revelation is Santee, who has been unjustly downplayed in earlier versions of this story. Santee was cocky, out-going, and immensely talented--and comes across as nothing less than a pre-"Pre." Unfortunately, he had less than ideal luck. Many of the peripheral figures are also handled reasonably well (although I suspect that characters like Chataway were a bit more lively than their portrayal here). While I sensed that he was not a runner himself, Bascomb does a good job conveying the tension and exhilaration of the actual races.
That said, "The Perfect Mile" is not quite perfect. The historical background that Bascomb periodically gives seems perfunctory and second-hand. He also could have provided a larger context for some of the central issues of the book: the amateur/professionalism debates, for example. Bascomb makes the point several times that this was an era of transition from an old (and presumably "good") kind of amateurism to a newly professional approach. This is an important issue, but its complexities are not examined at all. As a result, the full significance of Santee's ban for taking excess expenses is never made clear. (This could have been an ideal opportunity to cover new ground. I recall reading a recent interview with Chris Chataway in which he mentioned that the "little brown envelopes" [of cash] were common at the time. If Chataway is willing to talk about this now, I'd imagine others would be too.) Bascomb highlights Bannister as the epitome of the old-style amateur spirit, yet it is interesting to realize that the young doctor was by far the most "scientific" of the three in his approach, taking full advantage of state-of-the-art physiological experimentation and analysis. And, at a time when the amateur code frowned on "pacing," Bannister made blatant and repeated use of pacesetters. His 4:02 in 1953 was an absurdly artificial, private time-trial, and--as we know--the famous Oxford race was an exquisitely choreographed public time trial. By comparison, Landy and Santee almost always ran entirely by themselves, with precious little assistance from anyone else. (It is interesting, in this regard, that Bascomb's "perfect" mile turns out to be the Vancouver race.)
This book is clearly written for an audience that transcends the track world. As a result, times and dates are used in moderation. I understand this, but feel that such numbers are employed a little too grudgingly. At a of couple points in the narrative, Bascomb says--essentially--that X "raced every weekend for the entire spring." But without some recitation of races, times, and dates, we don't really know what this means. This problem could have been solved with the inclusion of a few appendices in the back: one for a brief recap of the three careers, for example; another listing the evolution of the mile record; etc. Both of these matters are dealt with in the main text, but too briefly. Bascomb's notes are useful, but I wish a bibliography could have been included.
I was also disappointed by the use of photographs--there are too few, and the selection struck me as distinctly odd and not as strong as it could have been. Notably, Bannister's own book made better use of visuals than this one.
Finally, the manuscript should have been read closely by a couple of track historians before going to press in order to eliminate a number of questionable assertions and foolish small errors. A partial list of such points:
p. 26: In describing Zatopek's reputation in the spring of 1952, Bascomb states that he "ran everything from the mile to the marathon." This seems to me poetic but inaccurate: I don't believe Zatopek had run a marathon at that time, and he was never known as a miler.
p. 38: the word "marathon" is used to describe 24- and 48-hour races.
p. 57 and 60: Walter George's mile time is given variously as 4:12.75 and 4:12.8. Both are incorrect--it was 4:12-3/4.
p. 62: In a brief table summarizing the Haegg-Anderson era, Bascomb lists six WR races with time, location, and date. Amazingly, the first four of these dates are wrong (and wildly wrong--common sense would tell us that no mile records were set in Sweden on January 1 of either 1942 or 1943). The problem would appear to have begun with some confusion between the European and American system of dates: day/month/year vs. month/day/year.
p. 93-94: On the virtues of even pacing, Bascomb writes: "In the mile more energy was used running laps of 58, 62, 64, and 66 seconds than four successive 60 second laps." This may be true, but I find it impossible to believe (can a 4:10 run this way really take more energy than an even-paced 4:00?) and Bascomb gives no source for his assertion.
p. 128: Bascomb uses the phrase "a diary of torture" to describe a seven week stretch of Landy's training in which he covered "over 300 miles, primarily in endurance runs." This represents less than 45 miles a week--hardly "torture" by today's standards, and not even by those of the mid-1950s.
p. 160: in the second line on the page, I suspect Bascomb intended to say "covert" instead of "overt."
p. 211: Bascomb relegates to a footnote the not insignificant fact that Landy's WR run was timed in 3:57.9 and rounded to 3:58.0. He then says, incorrectly, that Landy "had beaten Bannister's time by over a second and a half."
p. 260: Lon Spurrier is incorrectly called "Len."
p. 265: Bascomb states that Landy held the mile record "for 2 days shy of 4 years." Actually, he held it for 2 days shy of 3 years and 1 month.
p. 266: In a recap of the subsequent progression of the mile record, Ryun?s 3:51.3 is mentioned, but not his 3:51.1.
On the 6th page of the photo section, a caption is wrong: Chataway is listed as "at the far left" of the scene instead of on the far right.
The above is mostly nitpicking, I would admit, but it is frustrating that a book of this seriousness and quality should have any errors, however slight.
Bascomb did a great deal of research for this book and it shows. He conducted extensive interviews with his three main subjects--Bannister, Landy, and Santee--as well as with many of their friends and associates. The resulting narrative provides lots of new detail (private conversations are believably recreated, for example) and a great sense of the individual character of these three stars. The narrative spans the period from the '52 Helsinki Games (at which all three were "also-rans") through the famous Bannister-Landy showdown at the ?54 Empire Games. This was clearly one of the greatest and most exciting two-year stretches in all of track history.
Bascomb is a good writer and propels his story along nicely, giving equal time to each of his three subjects. He succeeds in conveying the distinctly different personalities of the three, as well as the pressures and disappointments they coped with. The real revelation is Santee, who has been unjustly downplayed in earlier versions of this story. Santee was cocky, out-going, and immensely talented--and comes across as nothing less than a pre-"Pre." Unfortunately, he had less than ideal luck. Many of the peripheral figures are also handled reasonably well (although I suspect that characters like Chataway were a bit more lively than their portrayal here). While I sensed that he was not a runner himself, Bascomb does a good job conveying the tension and exhilaration of the actual races.
That said, "The Perfect Mile" is not quite perfect. The historical background that Bascomb periodically gives seems perfunctory and second-hand. He also could have provided a larger context for some of the central issues of the book: the amateur/professionalism debates, for example. Bascomb makes the point several times that this was an era of transition from an old (and presumably "good") kind of amateurism to a newly professional approach. This is an important issue, but its complexities are not examined at all. As a result, the full significance of Santee's ban for taking excess expenses is never made clear. (This could have been an ideal opportunity to cover new ground. I recall reading a recent interview with Chris Chataway in which he mentioned that the "little brown envelopes" [of cash] were common at the time. If Chataway is willing to talk about this now, I'd imagine others would be too.) Bascomb highlights Bannister as the epitome of the old-style amateur spirit, yet it is interesting to realize that the young doctor was by far the most "scientific" of the three in his approach, taking full advantage of state-of-the-art physiological experimentation and analysis. And, at a time when the amateur code frowned on "pacing," Bannister made blatant and repeated use of pacesetters. His 4:02 in 1953 was an absurdly artificial, private time-trial, and--as we know--the famous Oxford race was an exquisitely choreographed public time trial. By comparison, Landy and Santee almost always ran entirely by themselves, with precious little assistance from anyone else. (It is interesting, in this regard, that Bascomb's "perfect" mile turns out to be the Vancouver race.)
This book is clearly written for an audience that transcends the track world. As a result, times and dates are used in moderation. I understand this, but feel that such numbers are employed a little too grudgingly. At a of couple points in the narrative, Bascomb says--essentially--that X "raced every weekend for the entire spring." But without some recitation of races, times, and dates, we don't really know what this means. This problem could have been solved with the inclusion of a few appendices in the back: one for a brief recap of the three careers, for example; another listing the evolution of the mile record; etc. Both of these matters are dealt with in the main text, but too briefly. Bascomb's notes are useful, but I wish a bibliography could have been included.
I was also disappointed by the use of photographs--there are too few, and the selection struck me as distinctly odd and not as strong as it could have been. Notably, Bannister's own book made better use of visuals than this one.
Finally, the manuscript should have been read closely by a couple of track historians before going to press in order to eliminate a number of questionable assertions and foolish small errors. A partial list of such points:
p. 26: In describing Zatopek's reputation in the spring of 1952, Bascomb states that he "ran everything from the mile to the marathon." This seems to me poetic but inaccurate: I don't believe Zatopek had run a marathon at that time, and he was never known as a miler.
p. 38: the word "marathon" is used to describe 24- and 48-hour races.
p. 57 and 60: Walter George's mile time is given variously as 4:12.75 and 4:12.8. Both are incorrect--it was 4:12-3/4.
p. 62: In a brief table summarizing the Haegg-Anderson era, Bascomb lists six WR races with time, location, and date. Amazingly, the first four of these dates are wrong (and wildly wrong--common sense would tell us that no mile records were set in Sweden on January 1 of either 1942 or 1943). The problem would appear to have begun with some confusion between the European and American system of dates: day/month/year vs. month/day/year.
p. 93-94: On the virtues of even pacing, Bascomb writes: "In the mile more energy was used running laps of 58, 62, 64, and 66 seconds than four successive 60 second laps." This may be true, but I find it impossible to believe (can a 4:10 run this way really take more energy than an even-paced 4:00?) and Bascomb gives no source for his assertion.
p. 128: Bascomb uses the phrase "a diary of torture" to describe a seven week stretch of Landy's training in which he covered "over 300 miles, primarily in endurance runs." This represents less than 45 miles a week--hardly "torture" by today's standards, and not even by those of the mid-1950s.
p. 160: in the second line on the page, I suspect Bascomb intended to say "covert" instead of "overt."
p. 211: Bascomb relegates to a footnote the not insignificant fact that Landy's WR run was timed in 3:57.9 and rounded to 3:58.0. He then says, incorrectly, that Landy "had beaten Bannister's time by over a second and a half."
p. 260: Lon Spurrier is incorrectly called "Len."
p. 265: Bascomb states that Landy held the mile record "for 2 days shy of 4 years." Actually, he held it for 2 days shy of 3 years and 1 month.
p. 266: In a recap of the subsequent progression of the mile record, Ryun?s 3:51.3 is mentioned, but not his 3:51.1.
On the 6th page of the photo section, a caption is wrong: Chataway is listed as "at the far left" of the scene instead of on the far right.
The above is mostly nitpicking, I would admit, but it is frustrating that a book of this seriousness and quality should have any errors, however slight.
Comment