The Four Minute Mile: Why Roger Bannister Doesn't Get My Full Respect

I remember the first time I heard of Roger Bannister. It was years ago, 8th or 9th grade, and I was watching some documentary on basketball on TV and on the bottom of the screen facts would scroll across. One of these facts said: "On May 6, 1954, Roger Bannister became the first man to run a mile." I thought, "What? That can't be right... even I can run a mile." Then the screen continued "...in under four minutes." At that point, I thought "WHOA! WOAH! WHOA! SERIOUSLY!?"

As I grew older, I also grew more and more into running. Not only the science of it, but the history. I learned more of the great milers: El Guerrouj, Aouita, Ovett, Coe, Ryun, and Keino. Guys who had set world records, won Olympics medals, done great things. But I had never known that much about Bannister. I only knew that he had run a 3:59.4 (ON CINDER?!) back in the 50's, and that was pretty much it. I found an old video of it online. It was of poor quality, but from the start I saw that the whole thing was sort of staged and almost seemed unspectacular.

At the end of sophomore year, my coach let me borrow a newly purchased copy of Neal Bascomb's The Perfect Mile. I loved the book and its description, how it told the stories of three of the world's greatest milers: Landy, Bannister, Santee. The book was written beautifully and thoroughly, even giving much of the historical background. I came away from this book knowing that Roger Bannister was amazing, having run a four-minute mile while going through medical school. I knew John Landy was a hard worker, a good front runner, but I thought Bannister seemed to work pretty hard, too.

It is with these misconceptions that I opened up my copy of The Four-Minute Mile, an autobiography by Roger Bannister written in 1955, only a year after his great feat. I guess I had always known about the idea of amateurism. The idea of being a Renaissance man. Good at everything, yet effortless in all of his endeavors. Exercise and sport were not to be taken too seriously. Until reading the autobiography, however, I never fully understood the extent at which some people understood it. Bannister, as he says, would sometimes talk to other runners during races, acting positive and effortless in an effort to break their spirits (I hate guys like that, the ones that talk during races). Of it he says, "Sometimes I think it is a pity that it is not possible to improve the situation in track races by appropriate comments between the runners. There is a happy social atmosphere about cross-country running not found on the track (80)."

I guess I soon found out how seriously Bannister took amateurism. His training regimen was fairly light compared to these days, and it seemed that he only broke 50 miles a week once during his training. His greatest fear at many points was of overtraining, of burn out, and so he always, always took things easy.

Of running a 4:24.6 mile at the age of eighteen, and also noting that Roger Dunkley ran a 4:12.8 at the same age he says, "I am not so sure tha training of the intensity reuquired to produce such a remarkable time is wise at that age (44)."

It seemed that at many times, he would become tired of training to much and take extended breaks. As these breaks ended he still might race anyways. Running "off of his best" he would be disappointed, but then rationalize it as being okay cause he hadn't been training. Of running a 4:14.2 he first says "I felt very humbled (74)," but then goes on to say " The amazing discovery of the afernoon twas that I had taken no exercise for two months and could still run a mile three seconds slower than my best time." Seriously, if thats not natural talent, then what is?!?!?!?

At some point, he stepped up his training in preparation for Helsinki. He was "running about 5-10 miles a session, and was running about five days a week (107)," usually doing fartleks. After the Helsinki disappointment, he again stepped up his training, now with the addition of a 10x440 workout with 2 minutes recovery.

I guess what gets to me the most about Bannister wasn't that he didn't work (because he certainly did), but he was afraid of finding his limit. Constantly worried about burning himself out for later in life, he just didn't want to push the mileage or intensity. I mean, I guess he still found an upper limit in his 10x440 workout when him and the other guys ceased to progress, but I don't think that staleness was caused by too much training, I think it was caused by too much of the same training. It's like the principle of diminishing return. You don't go out each season and just run the same workout again and again until you get fast, you have to force your body to make adaptations.

When Bannister finally met John Landy in Empire Games, he finally had to chance to see that his training was totally inadequate. Of John Landy he said:

On one occasion he ran a 4 minute 13 second mile just to warm up, and followed it with a 3/4 mile in 2 minutes 59 seconds. He apeared to have an insatiable appetite for interval running. Before I arrived he had run ten quarter-miles each in 58 seconds, with a 1 1/2 minute recovery interval in between each... It was incomparably superior to the best I had ever done - ten quarters in 60 seconds each with a full two minutes' interval in between each. He ran twice as many 220-yard dashes as I could manage, and in an average time several seconds faster. Until this time I had no first hand experience of the 'hard work' school of training. It made my own preparation seem mot inadquate. When I felt depressed, however, I reminded myself that my training had been good enough to run a four-minute mile when conditions were far from ideal, and was content to leave it at that.

To me, this just screams "Oh, I was able to get away with much less training because I was so much more talented!!!"

But in the end, in our sport, in running, there are no awards for "hardest worker" in the race, no "'gutsiest" award, no "I ran the most miles and spent the most time," award. It all comes down to who runs the fastest. That's who gets the glory.

Respect, however, is a different issue. I don't just respect the guys who run the fastest. I mean, I knew a lot of guys in high school that could run 4:25, 4:30 for 1600, or 1:56 for 800. Some of these guys, however, I just had no respect for. These were the guys that didn't care about running. They'd play soccer during cross country season, football during track season. I'd hear stories about them skipping practices, missing meets. They'd be the ones at the check in area whining about how much their calves hurt, about how much they hated running. Then they'd go out there an run a 4:26 and win by 80 meters. Sure, they were faster than me, but there was no respect.

I guess that's why Prefontaine is so well respected. Looking at his times, he's not even anything special anymore. Guys destory his PR's these days so easily. But in a sense, it's what he did and how he ran that earned people's respect. Clearly, there's something more to respect than just the times and speed. [but as an aside, I don't give Prefontaine that much respect either]

So I acknowledge that what Bannister did was great. 3:59.4 on May 6th, and then defeating John Landy at the Empire Games. He was also in medical school, pursing his desire to become a doctor, something that seems almost impossibly difficult. But in the end I feel that his success came not out of work, but talent. Furthermore, it disturbs me to see his how content he became after that 1954 season. I guess I have always respected the guys the most that have tried to get the most out of themselves. El G set his world record in 1999, but he didn't retire until years later, when he had secured his gold medals. It disturbs me to see Bannister simply walk away from athletics. He ran the time at a young age, and I certainly believe he could have run sub 3:55 with a few more years. But instead, he was satisfied. He moved on with life. I guess it's a great example of how there's more to life than running, but to know that he took his running so casually, so nonchalantly, disturbs me so much.

So, Mr. Bannister, I give you credit. You ran well, ran moderately hard, and worked hard in school, but I still find your efforts less than inspiring.

John Landy rocks.

p.s. none of this is to say I am better than roger bannister. in fact, i will unlikely ever be as good as he is. he is a legend among men, but among the list of great middle distance and distance runners, i rank him very low.