Progression of World Records seems to be screeching to a holt.

'not to mention no one ever breaks 1:43 anymore, let alone 1:41 low'

Way back in the days or yore:

2008 sub 1:43

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=2008/sex=M/all=n/legal=A/disc=800/detail.html

& some WR's

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=W/all=y/legal=A/disc=5000/detail.html

Ummmm Ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'not to mention no one ever breaks 1:43 anymore, let alone 1:41 low'

Way back in the days or yore:

2008 sub 1:43

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=2008/sex=M/all=n/legal=A/disc=800/detail.html

drivel

3 guys ran 1'42 last year

try again

Holt Uncensored?

Short people got no reason to live.

Read again:

In response to 'in response to 'no one ever breaks 1:43 anymore'

2008 sub 1:43

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=2008/sex=M/all=n/legal=A/disc=800/detail.html

I added the 2008 so am aware it was a 'full' year ago. 2009 season not done yet.

Are you still smarting from the 'kennster will have to be in nigh on pb shape to break him & a mere 7'28/7'29 won't do it'

Look mate, at least you don't keep changing you user name. I predicted Vessey would go sub 2 last night but was wrong. Just admit your prediction was wrong about Lagat!

As time goes by expect world records to become increasingly rare. When you compete for a world record, you're competing not just against the people on the track, but everyone who has ever lived before. There have been 100 billion humans who have lived and died versus 6 billion alive today and this ratio will continue to grow. Setting a world record means being better than an ever increasing pool of people who have ever lived. Statistically, the odds just get worse and worse for setting world records.

Swimmming world records continue to improve because the actual stroke techniques continue to change, the suits are faster, swimmers are staying in the sport, and it (probably most importantly) is benefiting from the second "baby boom" that has added both particpants and the probability of finding an outlier (the same thing has benefited US high school running but the difference is great US high school swimmers are world class, where as US high school runners are, well,not)

Running however, on the men's side got its big kick from the increased participation and access to the sport from the african countries in the 90's and continuing on. I would argue that in terms of general trends, world records and the depth of performances are population driven. The twist is that increases in certain dempgraphics (you can argue culture, genetics, or whatever you want but the reason is not hugely important) is apt to drive a spike in world records/all time performances. Kenya, Ethiopia,and to a lessor extent many other african countries have seen a steady rise in economic status & information flow about the sport allow more people to see running as a viable career alternative.

For women however, drugs have always played a greater part in driving world records and I think improved testing has had the greatest impact on them. Remove your favorite suspicious performances and I believe you see a similar world record trend as you do for the men.

If the african nations see a big jump in participation rates for women as they have seen for men, I would expect a steady march forward in performances to resume.

That is so cute ...

racetraining wrote:

I believe that most every track world record is dirty, esp Mens 1500m and Mile and womens 100m to 10,000m with the one exception being the 5000m.

All the more reason to put the focus on great races and not on the times it takes to run those races.

Records do not have to be set for a race to have meaning. Plus, the combination of races has to be meaningful. Not just the person(s) who might split the gold bars if they win ALL of their races. It has to go down- prize money/grand prix points have to go deeper to create drama in the secondary positions. The same with Road Racing and the Marathon Majors series.

RE: Progression of World Records seems to be screeching to a smallwooded area someimes refered to as a corpse of trees?.

There would be a natural diminishing return over time plus better drug testing is halting some of the outlier performances from the past which made the curve look steeper than it should have.

yeah like 7:20 3000 that record is nuts

tigerox wrote:

There would be a natural diminishing return over time plus better drug testing is halting some of the outlier performances from the past which made the curve look steeper than it should have.

Ventolin -

An object's moment of inertia can be thought of as the difficulty one has in rotating it around an axis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia

This is the reason why world class distance runners dont have huge calves and cankles (think about swinging a bat with all the weight at the end away from you versus all the weight at the grip, which is harder?).

Long legs are certainly advantageous - within reason. Beyond a certain point (which I am not sure how to find) it becomes more of a burden, however.

Read the above article and feel free to weigh in - without understanding this it is unlikely you can make any sort of informed observation on this topic.

Once you read this you will find that even if a 5-10 person were 'stretched' with NO mass increase etc, he would STILL need more power to retain the same turnover.

Look at Bekele, he's like 3'8" and he can run a 50 second last lap at the end of a 10,000 meter

The women's 800 and 1500 records don't count for anything. Those women were juiced to the max. Jelimo has the "real" WR from last year; 1:54.

statistician wrote:

As time goes by expect world records to become increasingly rare. When you compete for a world record, you're competing not just against the people on the track, but everyone who has ever lived before. There have been 100 billion humans who have lived and died versus 6 billion alive today and this ratio will continue to grow. Setting a world record means being better than an ever increasing pool of people who have ever lived. Statistically, the odds just get worse and worse for setting world records.

These poorly made statements form no sense for your argument. First off, no, an athlete does NOT complete against the whole world when setting a world record. Not everyone care enough if at all to set a world record in let's say the 5000m. Also, who cares about 100 billion people being born? Do you seriously think that people ran or even cared about track events such as the 10,000 meters in 1487 or 1723, etc? Come on man, please. Try again cause you fail.

Statistician was careless about the start date (and numerator and denominator), but his point is still a very good one.

racetraining wrote:

Times are going to slip backwards for a while due to better drug testing.

I believe that most every track world record is dirty, esp Mens 1500m and Mile and womens 100m to 10,000m with the one exception being the 5000m.

Once again a 13 min 5000m for the men will be about as fast as they go. We will see a few in the 12:50\'s but it could be a long wait till we see another sub 12:50

The women\'s records are dirty, but Dibaba\'s ludicrous 14:11 is clean?! LOL! Look at that woman and you can see the CERA leaking out of her eyeballs. That record is a joke like the rest of them.