pre-Bannister, even pre-Victorian sub-4s?

[basehead617]

as there is no search feature on these forums its hard to know when something has already been discussed. anyway, does anybody have any thoughts on this Peter Radford article?:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/st ... 66,00.html

and a followup:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/st ... 64,00.html

[Conor Dary]

Re: pre-Bannister, even pre-Victorian sub-4s?

See the thread '18th century Distance Running'.

I am glad to see that Mel Watman has some sense in this matter.

The original article by Radford, who should know better, is nonsense.

[kuha]

Re: pre-Bannister, even pre-Victorian sub-4s?

Yes, as we've suggested on the other thread, this is nonsense on stilts. If this is true, then pigs have been flying for eons.

[basehead617]

Re: pre-Bannister, even pre-Victorian sub-4s?

wait, how come only now i finally see the search feature? i am blind as a bat appaerntly.. sorry for starting this thread again, consider it closed.