Neither bias or a mental block is stopping Kipyegon or any other woman from breaking 4:00. It;s physiology. Prior to Kipyegon, were people writing, "Is bias or a mental block preventing women from breaking 3:50 for 1500?" No they weren't. But she was the first to do it.
The idea that 4:00 is a mental block is laughable.
The idea that we can objectively quantify how much of a mental block some athletic challenge is versus a physiological one is laughable.
It only becomes a mental block when you are close to it. I think one might consider whether Landy, who ran numerous races in 4:02, only to break the world-record soon after Bannister first broke 4:00 (although to be fair he possible didn't have the competition until he came to Europe). Still it's an illustration of someone getting 'stuck' quite close to the goal, not 7 seconds away.
So far, no women has ever seriously gone into a mile race believing that she's going to go out in 1:58.xx and break 2:00.
Did I say it always worked? It's far more common. People were surprised to see it not work in Paris.
The last time it worked was probably Filbert Bayi in the Commonwealth Games in '74. Most championship 1500 titles are decided by who is the strongest finisher, not by a runner who has dropped the field by leading virtually all the way. Very very few runners have that kind of supremacy over their competition at that level.
On the women’s side, there was Paula Ivan in the 1988 Olympics and Hassan on the Doha WC.
Never happen. Men need 1:52 800 speed minimum to run sub-4. Not even female 800 specialists can run that fast, let alone Kipyegon, who's very likely doping.
If you read the article, which everyone here clearly did not, you will find that the study claims that Kipyegon would need pacers to accompany her the entire way, in an exhibition-style event, which would not be eligible for record purposes. So, a wavelight + tight phalanx of pacers (probably male) running exactly 59.6 per 400m for 1550m, who alternate out at 800m, on a dead-calm evening in an enclosed stadium in perfect conditions. She might be able to do it...but would she even want to?
There is legitimately 0% chance that adding another pacer (Or multiple) for an extra 800m is dropping 7 seconds off your mile time. Have people lost their mind
At various points in history, scientists have offered “proof” that humans were incapable of running times that have since been surpassed, so it’s interesting to see the opposite. There are some very obvious counterpoints though (for example, pacemakers and breaking the wind are wayyy more consequential over 26.2 miles on the roads vs 1 on the track, even accounting for the obvious distance discrepancy).
There is legitimately 0% chance that adding another pacer (Or multiple) for an extra 800m is dropping 7 seconds off your mile time. Have people lost their mind
At various points in history, scientists have offered “proof” that humans were incapable of running times that have since been surpassed, so it’s interesting to see the opposite.
But that's not what the post you responded to said. He didn't say women can't run sub 4. He said that having more pacers won't reduce your time by 7 seconds.
The so called "scientists" are very stupid to make such a ridiculous argument. A runner could have 10 pacers in front of them reducing wind resistance and it still wouldn't help anywhere close to 7 seconds.
At various points in history, scientists have offered “proof” that humans were incapable of running times that have since been surpassed, so it’s interesting to see the opposite.
But that's not what the post you responded to said. He didn't say women can't run sub 4. He said that having more pacers won't reduce your time by 7 seconds.
The so called "scientists" are very stupid to make such a ridiculous argument. A runner could have 10 pacers in front of them reducing wind resistance and it still wouldn't help anywhere close to 7 seconds.
And if she ran behind multiple pacers the entire way, it wouldn’t count as a 4:00 mile any more than running downhill would. In the men’s marathon, no one has broken 2:00.
But that's not what the post you responded to said. He didn't say women can't run sub 4. He said that having more pacers won't reduce your time by 7 seconds.
The so called "scientists" are very stupid to make such a ridiculous argument. A runner could have 10 pacers in front of them reducing wind resistance and it still wouldn't help anywhere close to 7 seconds.
And if she ran behind multiple pacers the entire way, it wouldn’t count as a 4:00 mile any more than running downhill would. In the men’s marathon, no one has broken 2:00.
Of course it wouldn't be a real record. It would still be interesting to watch if it were actually possible, but more pacers won't make a sub 4 mile for a woman possible. These scientists are just making that up based on no facts whatsoever.
they're starting to do all these things suggested in theory on the boards blogs
like drafting in the sub 2 hour marathon
forget about woman / man
if you have 4 taller guys like motram wheating etc and run them 2 wide x 2,
then one guy can slip into the slip stream
and that drafting will be double triple effective compared to the very lousy technique of Jacob in the WR, but not the field that typically follows Jacob in like the OG, where they get a nice free ride.
so ya, it is goofy, but you will get a couple of seconds a lap off this hack. of course not done to perfection, less.
now, to get usable numbers on this, don't refer to "scientists" who come out with a 10 hour study and moronic results.
you would go to aerodynamics, wind tunnel, auto, motorcycle, advanced computer modeling with groups that have 100,000 hours modeling, with provable and effective results.
that said
in practice it's feasible to have 2 pacers of size going to 800m and then have an agreement that of say 3 top guys they share the work from there, by accident or by design, and orchestrated properly, that would take a couple of seconds off a mile.
of course the times are artificial, a front run 331 is worth 327 following Jacob.