How fast do you think the ancient olympians were?

Their races were not by a time or clock, but to just win.

They didn't have the artificial ingredianets we ingest everyday. They drank and ate all natural foods. They ran with leather slippers or flip flops. Their terrain was much rougher than today.

They were probably heavier due to more muscles for fighting and carrying heavy weapons. Therefore, the person itself would probably be competitive. But, in comparison to today, many of them would not be able to endure the pace of the modern day elite runner.

what about the beginning of the modern day runners? surely they could break 5 in the mile, maybe 4:40 for the best, and that would have been a world record in the late 19th century...

here are the results from the 1900 Olympics.

Says the WR for the 800 at the time was 1:53.

1500 was won in 4:06 for a new WR.

I don't see any reason why the ancient greeks would have been any slower, do you?

Humans are so superior nowadays to humans in ancient times. In the year 400, you would have difficulty finding someone that could break 20 in the 100.

Yeah, even in 2400 years or so, human physiology has evolved a bit.

5er wrote:

here are the results from the 1900 Olympics.

Says the WR for the 800 at the time was 1:53.

1500 was won in 4:06 for a new WR.

I don't see any reason why the ancient greeks would have been any slower, do you?

Alot of it was training. Guys would run 20 miles a week tops, that was bigtime training for the 1500 man

I would think that the best would be somewhere between a national high school champion's and a professional runner's ability.

Think about it. Basically you have guys with no cars and eating healthy. These are men that LIVED fitness. Not just an hour or two everyday. Essentially, they lived like the African runners, probably with a more-rounded fitness. Maybe a faster version of Lukas Verzbikas or however you spell his name.

Think of the origin of the marathon. That was those guys.

suckas yo suckas wrote:

I would think that the best would be somewhere between a national high school champion's and a professional runner's ability.

Think about it. Basically you have guys with no cars and eating healthy. These are men that LIVED fitness. Not just an hour or two everyday. Essentially, they lived like the African runners, probably with a more-rounded fitness. Maybe a faster version of Lukas Verzbikas or however you spell his name.

Think of the origin of the marathon. That was those guys.

The one assumption everyone is making is that people actually wanted to or had motivation to see how fast they could be at a given distance.

you forget that the man who ran the first marathon finished his 26.2 miles and then promptly died

In racing, isn't trying to outrun your opponents one of the most fundamental and beginning tactics?

yeah and if you read history he had 50 and 100 plus runs under his belt already....he fought in the battle and when vicotry was in hand ran 2 hrs to tell athens.....yeah you try that

Why don't you guys research where that 26.2 distance actually originated.

Anyways, I would be seriously impressed if anyone could accurately estimate their abilities - by any method.

The first event was a straight line sprint the length of the stadium in Olympia, Greece. I don't know if you can still do it today, but 30 years ago, I went into the stadium and ran it. It's a little longer than 200 meters. The distances were slightly different at other stadiums in other nation states. I don't think there was a standard distance.

I would say that at one point during the entire existence of the ancient Olympic games, one would have been a contender for a gold medal at a modern Olympic games. I mean if you just do some Googling, you'll find that athletes were trained from a very young age and intense training programs were used. I wouldn't be surprised if there were many champions in the history of the ancient Olympic games who could break 20 in the 200m.

For more information on the training of the ancient Olympians, check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Isn9m_8_o

Larry Bird stinks wrote:

Humans are so superior nowadays to humans in ancient times. In the year 400, you would have difficulty finding someone that could break 20 in the 100.

Contrary to that opinion, I imagine they may be faster, as back in 400AD, humans were actually quadrupeds, and the extra set of legs would have helped them run faster, likely at similar speeds of modern day gazelles.

Research something? Where do you think you are? People on this site don't need to have any facts to back up their babbling.

turkey leg wrote:

Why don't you guys research where that 26.2 distance actually originated.

Anyways, I would be seriously impressed if anyone could accurately estimate their abilities - by any method.

also sport in the early 1900's was an activity pretty much only very rich people had the luxury of participating in.

one of the reasons i heard that roger bannister only trained on his lunch break by doing 10 x 1/4 with a 200 jog in between 4 days a week and 1 day a week 3 x 1 and a half miles wiles with a 400-800 jog between each is because at that time (1954) it was considered bad sportsmanship to train more than 30 minutes up to an hour 4-5 days a week, though there were rumors bannister got in some night runs to help his base.

so basically the superior training has produced superior times over the years and in 100 - 200 years the letsrun posters will probably say why did it take so long to do things like break 1:40 for the 800, or 2 hours for the marathon and the answer will still be advanced training hass improved times.

just to add on, if anyone ask's what that advanced training will be, i dont have a clue except i think the training will be more mind boggling than the records that will be broken.

HOW has this article not been posted yet???

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59D0BR20091014

It is entitled "Modern Man a Wimp, Says Anthropologist".