How would Bannister have fared today?
Just how good would Sir Roger Bannister have been had he been transposed from the cinder track of postwar Iffley Road to a synthetic surface in a state-of-the art stadium?
One leading sports scientist, who has worked with Olympic champions including Dame Jessica Ennis-Hill and Sir Steve Redgrave, believes that he could have been as much as ten seconds quicker.
Steve Ingham, now performance scientist at Supporting Champions, said that there were a number of areas where Bannister would have benefited in modern times.
The first difference between 1954 and now is that Bannister ran on cinders whereas modern athletes compete on a faster synthetic Tartan or Mondo track.
‘‘Cinders would give you less rebound than if you were running on a Tartan track,’’ Ingham said.
‘‘Tartan tracks are designed to be unforgiving but they give you more energy return. It is hard to quantify but that could equate to several seconds over the mile.’’
Bannister was a man of science as well as speed and already knew that there was an advantage in having light shoes. ‘‘The stiffness of the shoe is important with regards to how much return you get on impact with the ground,’’ Ingham said.
‘‘The weight is also important. Modern shoes are like tissues, and you are probably looking at a reasonable estimate of one or two seconds.’’
Bannister’s methods were a mix of the Corinthian amateur – beans on toast – and his own science tests – he studied the acidity of his blood.
Ingham says that efficiency and engine size are physiological keys for milers and a better aerobic capacity, or VO2 max (the rate of oxygen consumption) would have helped Bannister.
‘‘Today we would expect someone like him to have a VO2 max above 70 ml/kg per minute.
He was training part-time as he did his medical studies, but modern methods might have focused on improving recovery between sessions and the quantity that he needed. That could have led to several seconds’ improvement.’’
Bannister was only 25 when he broke the four-minute mile barrier with his time of 3min 59.4sec and he took 0.6 seconds off that mark three months later. Then he retired. ‘‘That improvement may have been simple maturation so he could have gone quicker again,’’ Ingham said. ‘‘Just looking at these four factors and we could be talking of between a five and tensecond difference.’’
Time-travelling guesswork, perhaps, but take ten seconds off Bannister’s best and, not only would he have been a trailblazer in 1954, but he would also have been faster than anyone in the past three years.