Not sure what you mean by "back in the day" but if you mean dirt/cinder, even if slightly short, they were definitely slower, which would more than make up for any small measurement errors. And what you didn't ask is how do we know they were not longer as well? In any event, old times should be deemed accurate.
In Berkeley, Calif., King Jr. High's track was short back in the day. I ran a "1600" there in 5:09 my freshman year of high school (1984). Probably was closer to 1570 meters.
There was an article in Track & Field News in the late 90s where someone went to some of the tracks used for major meets in Europe (Oslo, Rome, Berlin, etc.) and measured them with a calibrated wheel. Every track was short to a small degree. I see no reason why that wouldn't still be true with modern tracks.
Also, the track where the Chinese women ran a bunch of WRs in the mid-90s was torn out immediately after that meet. They knew the track was short and didn't want anyone to check it.
There was never an article in TFN about the tracks you mention, nor was any Chinese track torn up after WRs were set on them.
All this talk of not having fast shoes, not having fast tracks, not having bicarb. Am I to actually believe tracks were all measured 100% accurately back in the day?
You literally are a MORON!!!
If you can't see how technology in athletics has evolved in the past 40-50 years you're just not intelligent. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that shoe, nutrition, tracks, training programs, and even apparel improvements have significantly improved the performances of today. By how much, who knows, but there's no doubt it has. That being said, if someone from the 70's, 80's, etc...is trying to compare the past with the present while making excuses that they "would've or could've" been faster or won more had they had access to today's technology, the fact of the matter is they didn't and should just shut up and accept the times they did run.
All this talk of not having fast shoes, not having fast tracks, not having bicarb. Am I to actually believe tracks were all measured 100% accurately back in the day?
We went to the moon in 1968 - you don't think we measured tracks accurately in that same era? Or are you a moon landing denier like my great-grandma was?
All this talk of not having fast shoes, not having fast tracks, not having bicarb. Am I to actually believe tracks were all measured 100% accurately back in the day?
We went to the moon in 1968 - you don't think we measured tracks accurately in that same era? Or are you a moon landing denier like my great-grandma was?
The question isn't "was it possible to measure a track accurately back then", it's "were people actually accurately measuring tracks when building them then". Those are different questions. It's not like they were consulting NASA engineers for every high school track construction
The question isn't "was it possible to measure a track accurately back then", it's "were people actually accurately measuring tracks when building them then". Those are different questions. It's not like they were consulting NASA engineers for every high school track construction
True. But it's shown that people have a bias towards seeing earlier generations as not being as smart or sophisticated as us. They literally have a name for for this bias: Chronological snobbery. That's all I think this thread is.
399.05m measurement by a usatf measurement officer… a track used at a popular event; I’ve tried to communicate it here but I was banned. This is an event where the winning time was 3:50, last summer. I’ve been using this handle since August… I have the paperwork to prove it. This is a modern constructed track.
The question isn't "was it possible to measure a track accurately back then", it's "were people actually accurately measuring tracks when building them then". Those are different questions. It's not like they were consulting NASA engineers for every high school track construction
True. But it's shown that people have a bias towards seeing earlier generations as not being as smart or sophisticated as us. They literally have a name for for this bias: Chronological snobbery. That's all I think this thread is.
There’s also a thing called “the Flynn effect” that explains that people actually did get smarter with each generation, at least until around 2001.
tell me where you took the measurement from because it is not from the inside of lane one
or did you not know that.
the offical way to measure a track is more toward the center of lane one (look it up to find the exact spot)
I didn’t measure SH!t .. USATF measured the track at 399.05. I have the documents the USATF official filed .. I also have the documents from the manufacturer that ..of course surveyed the track just a tad over 400 m. Learn to read. I came across this story of the short track .. I’m just the messenger.
All this talk of not having fast shoes, not having fast tracks, not having bicarb. Am I to actually believe tracks were all measured 100% accurately back in the day?
Even if that were the case, what you are overlooking is the huge number of races run at the Imperial distances. For example if my PR for the 880 was 2:00, that means I ran 1:58 for the 800! I do not remember the conversions for the other distances but you always had to subtract to compare yardage races to metered races.