Comments on: roger bannister beats lance armstrong on sport feat list

By: warren

warren — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:22:54 +0000

Bannister’s achievement had a lot to do with how he got there. Nobody did the kind of physiology experiements that he preformed on himself. Nobody else used rabbits before he did. Or for a while afterwards.

In fact, it took quite some time for anyone to run a 4:00 mile the way he did. The next 3 sub-4:00 miles all came in real competition – Landy (who was next) broke Bannister’s record in the very first race in which he felt threatened on the last lap (by Bannister’s pacer, Chataway). The next two who broke 4:00 were Bannister and Landy, the first time they met.

Nowadays, the world’s top athletes meet regularly. Back then, years would go by without direct competition.

And yes, people thought that breaking the 4:00 mile was physiologically impossible, and that it could cause death. Bannister’s scientific approach to the problem helped disprove this.

Also, I wouldn’t rank Armstrong at the top of the list. We don’t even know, and never will, if he’s the top cyclist of all time. The big thing he has done that none of the other greats did is to forego all the other big races, and to focus on France. Could Indurain or Merckx have won 7 or more if they’d aimed to only peak once a year? Take away TdF overall wins, and Armstrong’s numbers suddenly pale against Merckx’s. Different approaches, different philosophies, hard to compare.

For my money, Bob Beamon’s world record would top the list. He broke the long jump world record by nearly 2 feet. His world record stood for over 2 decades, and his olympic record still stands. I doubt anyone on the planet has any idea how he did it, but in terms of exceding the standard, nothing in our time has ever come close.

By: Eric Holmlund

Eric Holmlund — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:40:29 +0000

I would have to say its ridiculous. How about Daniel Komen who ran the 2-mile in 7:58.61 in 1997? His first mile was 3:59.2 and his second was 3:59.4. If running a sub 4-minute mile is the greatest achievement, then how could running BACK TO BACK sub-4 minute miles not be a GREATER achievement? Yet HE’s not even on the list!!

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:44:39 +0000

Thanks Thomas. Good points. I guess what is great about these kinds of lists is that they can be SO subjective and FUN to debate. Again, I DO think Bannister’s accomplishment was pretty amazing – I’m just saying if it was MY list, he would not have been on top. That said, pretty much everyone on the Forbes list were amazing athletes and all deserve to be on there.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:35:34 +0000

Oh I don’t know. The “experts” at the time predicted that the first man to break the 4 minutes mile will be going home in a body bag as the exertion would be too much for the human body to bear. Of course they were way off, but it still took Bannister to come up with the counter-proof, and that alone deserves a high mark.
Plus, Bannister’s record marked something of a beginning for running. Armstrong’s 7 TdF wins, incredible as they are, cannot claim anything like that.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 03:15:31 +0000

yeah, my bad. Very bad!

I was thinking they run at about a 4.5 minute-mile pace but it is more like 4:45. Not meaning to slag the accomplishment but even with my screw up, the four minute mile doesn’t seem as awesome when today’s marathoners are doing 26.2 at a 4:45 pace.

However, I can’t run even ONE mile at EITHER of those paces so what the hell do I know?!

My main opinion still stands. I don’t think it’s the greatest of all accomplisments in the sports world.

By: Adeel

Adeel — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:05:52 +0000

Whoa, no one runs 26 miles close to 4-minute pace; more like 3 miles at close to 4-minute pace. Let’s not denigrate a 4-minute mile, although one of my coaches ran a sub-4 mile.

Bannister’s might have been a significant mark, but it’s certainly not the greatest athletic accomplishment. Even for it’s time, 3:59.4 wasn’t very fast.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:31:42 +0000

Yeah, I know that but it was SO fleeting ya know? As Adeel said, like six weeks later the record was broken. And now, world class marathoners run 26 miles close to a ~~4 minute~~ 4:45 pace. I think the barrier was sort of the beginning of the modern age of running. I give him marks – big marks but, to me, it’s not in the same class as other records.

But we ARE allowed to disagree. Even if you ARE wrong.

By: Jon in Michigan

Jon in Michigan — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:05:17 +0000

I don’t know. Wasn’t there alot of talk that the 4-minute mile could never be broken? Him being the first to “break the barrier” seems like a significant event. Kinda like breaking the sound barrier in flight, lots of faster stuff since then, but the first one is always tops.

And for some reason, I never feel like the basketball players that make millions of dollars a year are *real* athletes. Michael Jordan? Pfft.

I’m glad to see Mark Spitz and Nadia up there.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:05:08 +0000

Yeah. I am thinking this is a “riding off into the sunset” kind of thing. “Thanks for the memories, Roger”.

By: Adeel

Adeel — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:56:47 +0000

I think listing Bannister’s sub-4 mile is a very odd choice; he broke the existing record by about a second and only held the record for about six weeks. He would not have received this honour if he ran a 3:55 mile.