Genetic freak + best training + best coaching + correct diet + technology advances + DOPING > Genetic freak + best training + best coaching +correct diet + technology advances WITHOUT DOPING.
(When all else is equal, the small percent gained from doping is crucial).
To hold a record, representing the extreme right tail of a distribution of tens and even hundreds of thousands of performers, all pursuing great personal and financial reward, requires doing everything possible (including doping) to separate from the field (both current and historical).
So, we could say "All records result from doping" and end the thread.
But the question was essentially WHICH record could be clean, not whether any are clean.
I pick the pole vault.
WHY?
You have a tiny fraction of the competitors as the other events, most of those started later in life (high school), very few have great coaching, entire parts of the world ignore the event altogether or are very poor at it. So, right off the bat you could argue that the record is "soft" compared to other records.
Then you have a guy who:
Has a dad that vaulted over 19 feet, and a mother who was a heptathlete and volleyball player.
First messed around with vaulting at age three.
Has a brother who also represented Sweden at the World Youth Championships.
Holds the age-group records from age seven to twelve and held the record for 13 (since broken). At age ten he was better than the records for eleven and twelve year olds as well.
Won the World Youth Champions (2015) at age 15.
Cleared 18' in high school, setting an age 16 record.
One year later cleared 18'10.5 to set the World Indoor Junior Record.
In 2018 he improved to 19'1.5" then 19'3.5" then 19'10.
It took another two years to reach 20'3". Since then he has added little increments here and there.
Conclusion:
If I was looking for a record to bet on as clean, I would take the one in which there is a relatively small field of competitors who are properly trained, have access to great coaching, have the best equipment, etc., and the record holder started very young and has a progression that appears as normal as we could expect for a World Record Holder,
I don't disagree that Duplantis could have had every advantage, including outstanding talent, but at a world level I'm not inclined to believe the event is "softer" than any other field event, like the triple jump, hammer, or discus or javelin. The events draw those who are best suited to them. The standard in all is very demanding at international level. I used to enjoy watching Isinbayeva in the women's pole vault. She was a fantastic athlete and performer. I don't think she was successful because her event was "soft".
I would generally define "soft" in this way:
The more people there are pursuing excellence in something (anything) the farther the right tail pushes out. When the population size reaches the millions, we can be assured that the best ever is very good, and adding some people to the population might not challenge the extreme right tail. And that becomes more true when there is great reward available to people who are in the third standard deviation and beyond.
No matter what the world record is for running a marathon while juggling three balls, it is relatively softer than the record for just running a marathon because so few people try to do it. If we offered $10 million to break that record, it would be gone quickly because the incentive would radically grow the population and push the right tail out.
I think that pole vaulting has a smaller population of serious participants than most other track events, and certainly all of them that are running events.
I don't disagree that Duplantis could have had every advantage, including outstanding talent, but at a world level I'm not inclined to believe the event is "softer" than any other field event, like the triple jump, hammer, or discus or javelin. The events draw those who are best suited to them. The standard in all is very demanding at international level. I used to enjoy watching Isinbayeva in the women's pole vault. She was a fantastic athlete and performer. I don't think she was successful because her event was "soft".
I would generally define "soft" in this way:
The more people there are pursuing excellence in something (anything) the farther the right tail pushes out. When the population size reaches the millions, we can be assured that the best ever is very good, and adding some people to the population might not challenge the extreme right tail. And that becomes more true when there is great reward available to people who are in the third standard deviation and beyond.
No matter what the world record is for running a marathon while juggling three balls, it is relatively softer than the record for just running a marathon because so few people try to do it. If we offered $10 million to break that record, it would be gone quickly because the incentive would radically grow the population and push the right tail out.
I think that pole vaulting has a smaller population of serious participants than most other track events, and certainly all of them that are running events.
Your argument is simply numbers: fewer means "softer". It isn't necessarily the case. Running isn't a skill event so anyone can do it but those with the most speed or stamina are the best. They are of course few in number as most people are by definition average. However, for an event like the pole-vault the average athlete like a hobby jogger wouldn't participate; the "entry" skill and athleticism level is high. So unlike running it attracts those who have some inherent talent for the event. If you look at any international competition you will see that the level of those performers is extraordinary. It wouldn't necessarily be higher if it attracted the "hobby-jogger" equivalent who couldn't get over 2m. Think of it a bit like studying nuclear physics; it doesn't draw many - because it is pretty demanding intellectually - but the best are as smart as those found anywhere. Pole-vaulting requires more athleticism than running. Most runners wouldn't be able to do it. I couldn't imagine Farah or Ingebrigtsen getting off the ground.
Jonathan Edwards (name?) - WR for the triple jump.
Sprinters are all doped to the gills.
And distance runners? Years ago (circa 1992) I was sitting on a couch next to Bill Rodgers watching an Olympic distance event on TV, and he said (referring to the starting field) "They're all doping" or words to that effect. I don't think much has changed since then.
The more people there are pursuing excellence in something (anything) the farther the right tail pushes out. When the population size reaches the millions, we can be assured that the best ever is very good, and adding some people to the population might not challenge the extreme right tail. And that becomes more true when there is great reward available to people who are in the third standard deviation and beyond.
No matter what the world record is for running a marathon while juggling three balls, it is relatively softer than the record for just running a marathon because so few people try to do it. If we offered $10 million to break that record, it would be gone quickly because the incentive would radically grow the population and push the right tail out.
I think that pole vaulting has a smaller population of serious participants than most other track events, and certainly all of them that are running events.
Your argument is simply numbers: fewer means "softer". It isn't necessarily the case. Running isn't a skill event so anyone can do it but those with the most speed or stamina are the best. They are of course few in number as most people are by definition average. However, for an event like the pole-vault the average athlete like a hobby jogger wouldn't participate; the "entry" skill and athleticism level is high. So unlike running it attracts those who have some inherent talent for the event. If you look at any international competition you will see that the level of those performers is extraordinary. It wouldn't necessarily be higher if it attracted the "hobby-jogger" equivalent who couldn't get over 2m. Think of it a bit like studying nuclear physics; it doesn't draw many - because it is pretty demanding intellectually - but the best are as smart as those found anywhere. Pole-vaulting requires more athleticism than running. Most runners wouldn't be able to do it. I couldn't imagine Farah or Ingebrigtsen getting off the ground.
The population of trained vaulters could be much larger, and not by having the equivalent of hobby joggers try it.
If we could survey every gymnast who competes in the floor exercise, combining adequate speed, strength and coordination to be amazing pole vaulters, what percent do you think ever even tried it? Let alone tried it for a full season under the watchful eye of an experienced, high-caliber coach?
How many fast, strong, coordinated Nigerians or Jamaicans have tried pole vaulting?
It is possible that even if we grew the population of trained pole vaulters by ten fold that Mondo Duplantis would still be the record holder. But it is doubtful. That kind of increase of the population size would likely yield at least one person who could push the record 1/4 inch higher, if all those new people had ten years to develop their skills.
I do not know that adding to the number of people in the world who try sprinting (an already fantastically huge number, year after year) would find anyone who can break Bolt's 100 meters record.
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.
Your argument is simply numbers: fewer means "softer". It isn't necessarily the case. Running isn't a skill event so anyone can do it but those with the most speed or stamina are the best. They are of course few in number as most people are by definition average. However, for an event like the pole-vault the average athlete like a hobby jogger wouldn't participate; the "entry" skill and athleticism level is high. So unlike running it attracts those who have some inherent talent for the event. If you look at any international competition you will see that the level of those performers is extraordinary. It wouldn't necessarily be higher if it attracted the "hobby-jogger" equivalent who couldn't get over 2m. Think of it a bit like studying nuclear physics; it doesn't draw many - because it is pretty demanding intellectually - but the best are as smart as those found anywhere. Pole-vaulting requires more athleticism than running. Most runners wouldn't be able to do it. I couldn't imagine Farah or Ingebrigtsen getting off the ground.
The population of trained vaulters could be much larger, and not by having the equivalent of hobby joggers try it.
If we could survey every gymnast who competes in the floor exercise, combining adequate speed, strength and coordination to be amazing pole vaulters, what percent do you think ever even tried it? Let alone tried it for a full season under the watchful eye of an experienced, high-caliber coach?
How many fast, strong, coordinated Nigerians or Jamaicans have tried pole vaulting?
It is possible that even if we grew the population of trained pole vaulters by ten fold that Mondo Duplantis would still be the record holder. But it is doubtful. That kind of increase of the population size would likely yield at least one person who could push the record 1/4 inch higher, if all those new people had ten years to develop their skills.
I do not know that adding to the number of people in the world who try sprinting (an already fantastically huge number, year after year) would find anyone who can break Bolt's 100 meters record.
No one breaks Bolt's records because they are by a supremely talented athlete who is also doped. Increasing the numbers who try sprinting won't change that. That will also apply to pole-vaulters. Human capacity occurs within a given range and it doesn't simply increase because of increased participation. We can only run so fast or jump so high - and so on.
Your argument that adding to the number of participants in a given sport could raise the standard doesn't necessarily follow. For example, if you observe the distribution of intelligence in a population it will be the same in a village as it will be in a city - it is not that the level will be higher but that the numbers at each level will be greater. At certain point, more doesn't mean better - and that can apply to any sport or activity.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
The population of trained vaulters could be much larger, and not by having the equivalent of hobby joggers try it.
If we could survey every gymnast who competes in the floor exercise, combining adequate speed, strength and coordination to be amazing pole vaulters, what percent do you think ever even tried it? Let alone tried it for a full season under the watchful eye of an experienced, high-caliber coach?
How many fast, strong, coordinated Nigerians or Jamaicans have tried pole vaulting?
It is possible that even if we grew the population of trained pole vaulters by ten fold that Mondo Duplantis would still be the record holder. But it is doubtful. That kind of increase of the population size would likely yield at least one person who could push the record 1/4 inch higher, if all those new people had ten years to develop their skills.
I do not know that adding to the number of people in the world who try sprinting (an already fantastically huge number, year after year) would find anyone who can break Bolt's 100 meters record.
No one breaks Bolt's records because they are by a supremely talented athlete who is also doped. Increasing the numbers who try sprinting won't change that. That will also apply to pole-vaulters. Human capacity occurs within a given range and it doesn't simply increase because of increased participation. We can only run so fast or jump so high - and so on.
Your argument that adding to the number of participants in a given sport could raise the standard doesn't necessarily follow. For example, if you observe the distribution of intelligence in a population it will be the same in a village as it will be in a city - it is not that the level will be higher but that the numbers at each level will be greater. At certain point, more doesn't mean better - and that can apply to any sport or activity.
It is possible that we have a sufficient population size to have identified the greatest pole vaulter in the world. But it is also possible that we do not.
In your example, a village of 100 people is far less likely to have someone with a 170 IQ (.0002 of people) than New York City. Setting a World Record in track is like having an IQ that is way, way "off the charts." The more people you have trying, the more likely you will find someone truly exceptional.
I am saying that pole vaulting, with far fewer participants, is like the village. Mondo is the King of a village.
100 meter running is like New York City. The village might not have anyone who can break 11 seconds. The city will have several people who can run 10.2 and faster.
Bolt is the King of a much bigger population, and we agree that being THAT King most likely requires dope.
I’m doubting if you got the balance of what I wrote earlier. I know this world and I’ve got a much better than average read on which athletes are genuine and which are not.
You’re asking why wouldn’t all of them train with Russians or other unsavoury characters and cheat their way to the top? For one, the ABP is effective and athletes in general, and especially those that have been around for some time, are being held more accountable than they were in the past.
For another, most athletes want to do this the right way. It boggles my mind that you think that a professional athlete is, by definition, a dishonest and deceitful person. To be some are, and I’ve known more than a few. Few things in sport are worse than seeing a deserving athlete left off the podium because a fraud finished ahead of them.
Fortunately, most at the top levels of our sport are not of that mindset and have no desire to go against the rules. I’ve known too many too well to think otherwise.
I don't think a professional athlete is a "dishonest and deceitful person". I think however they are incredibly ambitious and their sport is their life. For them doping is no longer cheating but using every opportunity they have to succeed. Theirs is a completely different world from what the fans imagine it is. You may think you know them well enough to believe they wouldn't dope but we often find that those we think we know have a part of their nature they conceal well and we never know about it until one day it emerges or they get caught. Dopers don't wear a sign on their forehead.
Some nations cheat more easily than others because of their cultures (Kenya comes to mind) and because antidoping is weak. But even where there is more rigorous antidoping athletes have learned how to beat the ABP. David Howman concedes that doping is always ahead of antidoping.
Doping is a huge business - it is estimated at being well over a billion dollars world-wide - because sport is big business. There are huge amounts of money at stake in pro sport.
When I watch professional sport now it is inconceivable that athletes could perform day-in and day-out at the level they do without help of some kind. It isn't "training, nutrition and shoes" that do it.
You are calling them “deceitful and dishonest.” You’re claiming that they lie on every anti-doping form they’re made to fill out and lie whenever they’re asked about the subject. It’s as if you imagine that professional athletics is a massive secret club and that once an athlete reaches a certain age, they’re let in on the secret and they all comply and leave all integrity and honour behind them. It’s simply not the case.
Over the weekend, I was speaking with a pair of athletes, both of whom I’ve known well for some time and are also top-50 in the world. The name of this American who just demolished her 800m PB by several seconds came up in conversation and both remarked how dodgy they find the whole thing and what a sinking feeling that performance gave them both. Do you suppose their comments on her were an act given that they were speaking with me and that soon as we parted ways they could then openly discuss their doping programme in peace?
There's no reason for me to believe that you MUST be doped to hold that record.
With a realistic combination of speed, strength, and coordination, and a lifetime of training under the watchful eye of experts, great results could be expected.
I believe that there are probably a lot of people on this planet who could go over 20' if they started in the event young enough (I'm thinking of all the guys who compete at the highest levels of gymnastics). And there are virtually untapped parts of the world for this event, so if you brought pole vaulting to the masses (in countries like Nigeria, for example), you would find a lot of great vaulters 8171.
Why in the world would you pick Aries Merritt 12.80 110m High Hurdles as the most likely to be clean?
He smashed the previous world record by 0.07 seconds, his second best that year was 12.92 (still real good but 0.12 slower) and he never ran sub 13.00 in any year before or since his record year.
That really doesn't say much. 110 and 100h requires a level of mechanics that most events don't need, and it is immensely difficult to stay consistent in the event over a long period of time.
You can make huge leaps in the 110 that you never really touch again - it's actually quite common. Remember Holloway's 12.81? Allen 12.84? Those are just the ones at the top. Many men who run under 13 will never do it again.
The high hurdles aren't like the 10k where you can just take EPO and HGH to stay on top. The hurdles are really, really hard - and honestly, 12.80 is probably the weakest men's record in the books right now. It just hasn't seen a prodigy of the same level as the other events have.
The population of trained vaulters could be much larger, and not by having the equivalent of hobby joggers try it.
If we could survey every gymnast who competes in the floor exercise, combining adequate speed, strength and coordination to be amazing pole vaulters, what percent do you think ever even tried it? Let alone tried it for a full season under the watchful eye of an experienced, high-caliber coach?
How many fast, strong, coordinated Nigerians or Jamaicans have tried pole vaulting?
It is possible that even if we grew the population of trained pole vaulters by ten fold that Mondo Duplantis would still be the record holder. But it is doubtful. That kind of increase of the population size would likely yield at least one person who could push the record 1/4 inch higher, if all those new people had ten years to develop their skills.
I do not know that adding to the number of people in the world who try sprinting (an already fantastically huge number, year after year) would find anyone who can break Bolt's 100 meters record.
No one breaks Bolt's records because they are by a supremely talented athlete who is also doped. Increasing the numbers who try sprinting won't change that. That will also apply to pole-vaulters. Human capacity occurs within a given range and it doesn't simply increase because of increased participation. We can only run so fast or jump so high - and so on.
Your argument that adding to the number of participants in a given sport could raise the standard doesn't necessarily follow. For example, if you observe the distribution of intelligence in a population it will be the same in a village as it will be in a city - it is not that the level will be higher but that the numbers at each level will be greater. At certain point, more doesn't mean better - and that can apply to any sport or activity.
For sure Bolt's records can be broken. Only if he has had some strong "advantage" which is not there anymore in near future (maybe some doping he used which is now detectable or something like that) might make this close to impossible.
Besides that, if Bolt could have run 9.58 and 19.19 - so can others. Since the conditions in his record runs were not perfect, others for sure can brake his records. Will it happen in near future? Nobody can know this.
If we have two comparable groups (relative to the point in questíon) for sure the bigger of the two is more likely to include the biggest, smallest, fastest, strongest, intelligent and so on person. Or your point is, that it's almost for certain that in both groups the biggest, smallest, fastest, strongest, intelligent and so on are equal? Definitely not true for most subjects. Pretty sure that the tallest Russian is taller than the tallest Estonian. If not, than it's just an exception.
There is absolutely no benefit to have someone like you in an discussion, any simple point has to be explained. And even than, you will not accept that 2 + 2 = 4.
21st century WRs only. Please try to put the fan inside you aside when rating a WR from an athlete you like.
I would go with one that requires a lot of technique and is not too impressive.
I hesitate between :
the 110h : the top guys have unimpressive 100/200 PRs. Very technical. The performance isn't the most oustanding.
3000sc (shaheen one) : 3000/5000 PR possibly clean (tough the 5k would be the clean WR imo). Quite a lot of room for being improved.
Decathlon : easier to be good at everything than the best ever in 1 discipline without PEDs I think. Also the technical and training aspect is the most complex of all. But is it possible without any help for recovery at least?
I don't know all the women WRs so I might be missing one there.
No one breaks Bolt's records because they are by a supremely talented athlete who is also doped. Increasing the numbers who try sprinting won't change that. That will also apply to pole-vaulters. Human capacity occurs within a given range and it doesn't simply increase because of increased participation. We can only run so fast or jump so high - and so on.
Your argument that adding to the number of participants in a given sport could raise the standard doesn't necessarily follow. For example, if you observe the distribution of intelligence in a population it will be the same in a village as it will be in a city - it is not that the level will be higher but that the numbers at each level will be greater. At certain point, more doesn't mean better - and that can apply to any sport or activity.
For sure Bolt's records can be broken. Only if he has had some strong "advantage" which is not there anymore in near future (maybe some doping he used which is now detectable or something like that) might make this close to impossible.
Besides that, if Bolt could have run 9.58 and 19.19 - so can others. Since the conditions in his record runs were not perfect, others for sure can brake his records. Will it happen in near future? Nobody can know this.
If we have two comparable groups (relative to the point in questíon) for sure the bigger of the two is more likely to include the biggest, smallest, fastest, strongest, intelligent and so on person. Or your point is, that it's almost for certain that in both groups the biggest, smallest, fastest, strongest, intelligent and so on are equal? Definitely not true for most subjects. Pretty sure that the tallest Russian is taller than the tallest Estonian. If not, than it's just an exception.
There is absolutely no benefit to have someone like you in an discussion, any simple point has to be explained. And even than, you will not accept that 2 + 2 = 4.
For someone that you say brings no benefit to a discussion you have all spent a considerable amount of time and effort debating my points. But then none of it is really as simple as 2+2=4, or there would be no discussion. Or except to one who cannot grasp an opinion that isn't their own.
I don't think a professional athlete is a "dishonest and deceitful person". I think however they are incredibly ambitious and their sport is their life. For them doping is no longer cheating but using every opportunity they have to succeed. Theirs is a completely different world from what the fans imagine it is. You may think you know them well enough to believe they wouldn't dope but we often find that those we think we know have a part of their nature they conceal well and we never know about it until one day it emerges or they get caught. Dopers don't wear a sign on their forehead.
Some nations cheat more easily than others because of their cultures (Kenya comes to mind) and because antidoping is weak. But even where there is more rigorous antidoping athletes have learned how to beat the ABP. David Howman concedes that doping is always ahead of antidoping.
Doping is a huge business - it is estimated at being well over a billion dollars world-wide - because sport is big business. There are huge amounts of money at stake in pro sport.
When I watch professional sport now it is inconceivable that athletes could perform day-in and day-out at the level they do without help of some kind. It isn't "training, nutrition and shoes" that do it.
You are calling them “deceitful and dishonest.” You’re claiming that they lie on every anti-doping form they’re made to fill out and lie whenever they’re asked about the subject. It’s as if you imagine that professional athletics is a massive secret club and that once an athlete reaches a certain age, they’re let in on the secret and they all comply and leave all integrity and honour behind them. It’s simply not the case.
Over the weekend, I was speaking with a pair of athletes, both of whom I’ve known well for some time and are also top-50 in the world. The name of this American who just demolished her 800m PB by several seconds came up in conversation and both remarked how dodgy they find the whole thing and what a sinking feeling that performance gave them both. Do you suppose their comments on her were an act given that they were speaking with me and that soon as we parted ways they could then openly discuss their doping programme in peace?
In Russia it was claimed by whistleblowers that "99%" of their elite and pro athletes doped. We see a stream of doping violations coming from Kenya. No antidoping expert says doping is confined to those countries. In fact the accepted view is that doping is present at the top level in all sports and all countries. While only 1% of tests return a positive confidential athlete surveys have indicated that at the championship level doping could be as high on average as 1 in 2 athletes. Official estimates are that doping is far greater than the numbers caught. That clearly enables the conclusion that many more athletes do not answer the antidoping forms truthfully than those who do. Your friends may be amongst the exception.
No one breaks Bolt's records because they are by a supremely talented athlete who is also doped. Increasing the numbers who try sprinting won't change that. That will also apply to pole-vaulters. Human capacity occurs within a given range and it doesn't simply increase because of increased participation. We can only run so fast or jump so high - and so on.
Your argument that adding to the number of participants in a given sport could raise the standard doesn't necessarily follow. For example, if you observe the distribution of intelligence in a population it will be the same in a village as it will be in a city - it is not that the level will be higher but that the numbers at each level will be greater. At certain point, more doesn't mean better - and that can apply to any sport or activity.
It is possible that we have a sufficient population size to have identified the greatest pole vaulter in the world. But it is also possible that we do not.
In your example, a village of 100 people is far less likely to have someone with a 170 IQ (.0002 of people) than New York City. Setting a World Record in track is like having an IQ that is way, way "off the charts." The more people you have trying, the more likely you will find someone truly exceptional.
I am saying that pole vaulting, with far fewer participants, is like the village. Mondo is the King of a village.
100 meter running is like New York City. The village might not have anyone who can break 11 seconds. The city will have several people who can run 10.2 and faster.
Bolt is the King of a much bigger population, and we agree that being THAT King most likely requires dope.
Snell came from a "village" of only 3 million people - yet in addition to being the best in his tiny country he was by far the greatest in his era. Elliott's "village" was only somewhat larger and yet he, too, was easily the best of his time. Smaller populations don't preclude outstanding talent.
You could also make the argument that if everybody who could possibly compete in a sport chose to do so we might encounter more outstanding talents. That might be true, but it isn't how sport works. Those who participate do so because they want to or were given the opportunity. That applies to every sport. It may also be the case that although we might see more top talents from a larger pool they wouldn't necessarily be better than the best that have emerged. With more pole-vaulters there might be more Duplantis's but they wouldn't necessarily be better.
Athletes dope to win in their sport; they don't engage in a calculus to work out whether or not they need to because someone suggests statistically their sport may be "soft". I also doubt that Duplantis considers his event is "soft".
There's no reason for me to believe that you MUST be doped to hold that record.
I thought about the pole Vault but the performance is so good... Bubka was already such a dominant athlete and Duplantis goes much higher. It's true he doesn't look superhuman but still...
His poles are quite different from the ones SB used. Technology has improved quite a bit in this area; he can hold the pole much higher as a result--and they give superior energy return.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.