Run-Down Forums

[Frank Sellors]

I know, it's all been said before but I'd still like to hear some other views on the topic " Who is the Greatest Miler of All-time".
Please give reasons for your choice.

Frank Sellors ( England )

[Dan]

Well, that's a topic that's always good to start some healthy debate! It's tough to count out the guy (assuming, of course, you're talking about men) with the fastest times, which currently would be Hicham el Guerrouj. Previously, I was leaning toward Noureddine Morceli. Actually, I think I'd still give Morceli the nod until we've seen how long el G can maintain this level.

That said, my choice would probably be Herb Elliott, simply because his competitive record has never been matched and probably never will be. Undefeated lifetime in the mile/1500m is nothing to scoff at, even if he did retire early.

Anyone else care to chime in?

Dan

[Frank Sellors]

I once ran against Herb - kind of - at the 1962 English X-Country Championships.
A good way of picking the greatest miler might be to start by thinking in decades; for example, who was the greatest miler of the 60s ? If my life depended on picking a winner out of Elliot, Snell and Ryun, I'd pick the Ryun of 1967 everytime.
Ryun's failure to win an Olympic title has gone against him but neither Elliot nor Snell would have beaten Keino at altitude.
Infact, up to the emergence of Morceli, I'd say Ryun, at his best, would have given any miler( Coe, Cram etc.) big trouble.

Frank

[Dan]

Oh sure, make it a game of knowledge from before I was born. Ryun's a tough one to count out, but I'm a big believer in the competitive spirit. That's why I was confident Donovan Bailey would beat Michael Johnson in the 150m fiasco/showdown and I fully expect to see him back in the mix in Sydney. When someone simply knows how to win, and do it when it counts, they seem to rise to challenges consistently. And since Elliot never lost, one can only assume he wouldn't have...

Dan

[Frank Sellors]

I'm still going with Ryun.If the 1968 Olympics had been non-altitude, Ryun would have beaten Keino and he would have then probably retired with a fabulous record. Alternatively, had the 1960 Olympics been held at altitude and Elliot had faced Keino( as he was in 1968) he would have lost. Remember, to beat Keino he would have to have run a second faster than he ever ran and at altitude.
Nobody is unbeatable- given time: Mike Tyson thought he was unbeatable - he wasn't. Elliot would have had major trouble with Snell, and Ryun would have been far too fast and far too strong for Herb.
Frank

[Dan]

Bringing back an old conversation...

Remember, to beat Keino he would have to have run a second faster than he ever ran and at altitude.

If my life depended on picking a winner out of Elliot, Snell and Ryun, I'd pick the Ryun of 1967 everytime.

In that case, why not throw the Keino of 1968 into the list for consideration? Basically, it comes down to the more recent runner winning every time in such a comparison.

From The Running Network:

Jim Ryan held the 1500 and mile world records going into the Mexico City Olympics and was the odds-on favorite to win. He was told that if he ran 3:40 he would take home the gold medal because, after conversion for altitude, that would be faster than his then current 1500 world record of 3:33.1. Ryan ran 3:37.89. He lost to Keino by almost three seconds. Keino's time becomes more impressive when the altitude conversion is taken into account. The winning time of 3:34.91, according to the NCAA conversion guidelines, would convert to 3:26.28, a time that was surpassed just last year. This feat is more impressive when one realizes Keino led the last 1200 meters and that the race was also his sixth race in eight days. He had raced the 10,000 final, two rounds of the 5000 (he won the silver medal) and then the three rounds of the 1500. This impressiveness starts to border on the ridiculous when it is mentioned that Keino suffered from a bladder infection during these eight days.

[Guest]

wwwwwwwwwwwwwooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww
i just started running and i can do
a mile in just under *twenty* minutes (on the treadmill - with breaks)
but i'm faster at the end of twenty minutes
than i was at the beginning
what does that mean?

[Dan]

It could mean lots of things. Importantly, especially for a beginning runner, is that you're not overdoing it early.

Dan

p.s. It's best not to compare yourself to the Kip Keino's of the sport if you can help it.

[Guest]

Hi Dan:

I worked it out. That means Kip Keino was running
20 mph.

(...whilst I trudge along at 4-5 mph at best ).

Take care!

[Guest]

(whilst I trudge along at 4-5 mph at best ...)

[Dan]

I think you're giving him a little too much credit... 20 mph would be 3 minute miles, which would be nearly 400m world record pace. A little over 15 mph sounds closer.

If you want to think about something scary, consider the world record pace for the 5k (3.1 miles) and 10k (6.25 miles) -- 61 and 63 seconds per 400m, respectivelly!!!

Dan

[Guest]

Hi Dan:

Awe...envy...

It makes you want to get out there and try harder.
Thank you for the inspiration.

[Guest]

Steve Scott first or second > 100 sub four miles

[Dan]

I'm not positive, but didn't Scott do it first and Marcus O'Sullivan ran the most?

Dan

[Guest]

no doubt about it in my head: ROGER BANNISTER.
he was, and is the God in the mile. before he broke 4, the entire running population thought it was physically impossible to run a mile under 4 minutes. once bannister did it, the record starting falling like flies. but it was his initial sub-4 performance that earned him the "Greatest Miler of All-Time" accolade.

[Anonymously Posted by: 'Steve Hackworth']