NZRUN All Time List - Men's Mile

Andrew I think that the most successful era was probably 1970-1977.
Up until 1970 only six NZers had broken 4 mins for the mile. Then from 1970-1977 a further 7 runners broke four minutes. (Quax, Tayler, Walker, Dixon, Polhill, Robertson, and I'm counting Kevin Ross as well 3:59.9H at Wellington 26-1-1972.) Added to this was 1970 CW silver 1500m. 1972 Olympic Bronze 1500m (and a 9th). 1974 CW silver 1500m (and a fourth). 1976 Olympic Gold.

In the last 5 years we have had 8 new sub 4 minute milers, an olympic silver and a commonwealth bronze in the mens "metric mile".
The next best 5 years stretch of new sub 4 milers appears to be 1980-1985 with 6, and 1971-1976 with 5.

David, stats are useless if they're wrong and if you have no verification - unfortunately for old stuff it's hard to verify their accuracy sometimes. Here's the best I can find:

Feb 8th 2008 was the BU Valentine Invite where Kim Smith set the NZ Indoor record of 4:24 and Lucy VD was 4:46:
http://www.bu.edu/track/2008/Indoor%20Track/Valentine/Val_women_Friday_2008.htm
According to the IAAF Nick's indoor Mile progression was:
2008 3:55.93 Fayetteville, AR 15/02/2008
2005 3:58.07 Ann Arbor, MI 19/02/2005
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=nzl/athcode=186911/index.html
Although, I'm not sure how much you can trust the IAAF stats when the listed 2005 result was not run in Ann Arbour (It was in South Bend), was not run in 2005 (It was 2003), not on Feb 19th (It was 8th Feb) and the time was 3:58.15, not .07:
2003 Meyo Invite Review: http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-track/recaps/020803aaa.html
2003 Run Michigan Review of Meyo Invite: http://www.runmichigan.com/news/03/notredametf_020803.shtml
2003 Meyo Invite Race video: http://www.nzrun.com/speaker/400-Nick-Willis/video/630451-2008-Tyson-Inv-Mens-Mile-Willis-355

2008 I was 24yo! it was at the Meyo invitational in South Bend, Indiana (Notre Dame), first week of February, 2003. not sure the specifics sorry.

I ran 3.58something (not 3.55) before turning 20, but it was on a 320m indoor track with no wind! I was able to lead most of the way, with no concerns for the wind. So many college kids are running fast times on these indoor tracks these days, and not getting anywhere near the times when the outdoor season arrives. A lot of that has to do with over-training and over-racing, being in a windless environment every weekend during the season, means there are no missed opportunities if you're having a good day.

I definitely think both Oakley and Moynihan have the goods to have a crack at a sub 4 before turning 20yo. The key is having good weather, and good pacing. Lets set something up next year for them! Just put in a good cross country season boys, and you'll be ready to fly next year.

No predictions!!! Just checking to see if anyone knew who the youngest sub 4 miler is as there's a good crop of 15 - 17 year age middle distance guys coming through at the moment and some of the 800m and 1500 times show potential.

Hi all, does any one know the age in years & days of the youngest NZ'r to run a sub 4min mile?
Cheers Tony

Another future potential candidate for the list. Great run.

Husky Classic, Seattle – 11 February 2012
Michael Banks mile 4m 00.91s (2)

Spoke with Kevin at Newtown Park this morning. He had no comment on whether his time should or shouldn't be on an all-time list other than to say that they are just lists and that people who compile them can use whatever discretion or criteria they like to make them up. Always an interesting man to talk to, and not one who will make a song and dance about being included on a list, even if privately he thinks he deserves his spot - dc

Yeh, physeder you are right. The problem that this caused though was one of logistics. Three runners meant 9 timekeepers and 9 watches. Six runners, of course, meant 18 timekeepers and 18 watches. This was the reason why many earlier Olympic finalists had NTL (No Time Listed) beside their names. It was impossible to get that many people around the finish line to record an accurate time.
Hence, and I suspect that this may be Kevin Ross's case, one watch per runner, because officials just didn't have the manpower to have 9 timekeepers and 9 watches for the first three runners.

If memory serves me correctly the minimum number of watches on a hand time had to be three for Time to be accepted as legit.

couldn't agree more p_cog,... JGW didn't fall short by any criteria...what I am finding though is that it is the criteria that falls a little short. Just pointing out, that according to the criteria associated with this list, that JGW may not have been the first to 100 four minute miles...and that according to the criteria for making the above list, 18 of JGW's first 100 sub four miles would have been disallowed... In saying that I don't know how many of Steve Scott's miles would have been disallowed either...so maybe it would have evened itself out... I just think that a performance list is just that...it's not a record, it's a compilation of times, and so perhaps should not be subjected to the same rigid criteria as for a record application. My personal opinion is that perhaps Kevin Ross's 3:59.9 should be cut a little slack, because that is the time that the watch recorded.

just another small correction too guys, as Phseder will also soon point out ....it's Tayler with an E.

dc unfortunately one watch does make a time, which is why we are having this discussion.
Heidenstrom also included this time in his lists from 1992 onwards.

Another point regarding lists...
"just as those who run sub-4 indoors would call themselves a sub-4 runner, despite not meeting the requirements for most lists which only include outdoor times."
I presume we are all agreed that John Walker was the first person to run 100 four minute miles...yes?
Well 16 of those times were run indoors. One of those times 3:58.3 run on 14-1-1980 at Mt Smart was a training run, with only one watch. One of those times (3:55.5) was during his 2000m WR, again only one watch.
According to your criteria dc Walker is about 18 short.
I also note that Rod Dixons 2:08.59 Marathon seems to have been rehabilitated onto all time marathon lists, despite the course being short.
I think that maybe Kevin Ross deserves the same consideration...it is after all not a record, it's a list.

David, the reason there is debate over a performance like Kevin's is because one watch does not maketh a time when considering records and All-Time lists. Anyway, the time was not originally included in Peter Heidenstrom's All-Time list for a technical reason, but it had something to do with a lack of sufficient evidence that there were three watches which agreed with each other. At the time more effort should have been made to make sure all steps were taken to ensure the time was verified as official, something which I am not aware ever happened.
I think something that needs to be understood is that this list does not stop Kevin and those who know him from referring to him as a sub-4 miler, just as those who run sub-4 indoors would call themselves a sub-4 runner, despite not meeting the requirements for most lists which only include outdoor times.
I have often referred to Kevin as a sub-4 miler, but years ago when Jacko and I were involved in this debate about whether or not Kevin's time was verified I was convinced that it wasn't a performance that should be included in all-time lists. If someone else has a different view they are entitled to create their own list and include Kevin.

Another point to consider: An athlete may achieve a performance which betters a record, but fails to meet the requirements for the record due to a delay in lodging the record application or other similar technical stuff-up. This does not invalidate the result, but means that it will not be recorded as the record - I think this is a similar situation as the sub-4 lists and the requirements for inclusion. - dc