Thanks for the link. I must be confused or something. Mike DiNatale's father built the indoor track and it was wooden, symmetrical banking with a nice polyurethane surface. It was either Tartan or Borden or it could have been an early Beynon surface, but I don't remember if he was already in business back then. The track was fast at that time, as you indicated. Was it tuned? I don't know how, as I did see how it was constructed, both via the plans and when the inside lane rotted because there were no air vents to let out humidity from the track, so they had to replace the first two lanes. If their track was tuned, so was the old BU track, which I and a few of my team members but up, took down and repaired for 16 years. We set a record one year in putting up that old monstrosity in 8.5 hours, all done by our team. When I first got to BU, B&G took a month to make repairs and two weeks to set it up. I became pretty good at carpentry as there were always dead spots to fix. David Callum, who clerked our meets for many years worked with me during his senior year, helping me put in new 2x4's where the old ones had snapped. We had to repair about half of the boards.
I also know that the term "tuned" track was used for the outdoor facility at Harvard where they used fiberglass panels under the Mondo surface to provide "bounce".
What can I say. I certainly can be wrong.
Not wrong so much as focused on the next iteration. That said I am sure, like all tech, it only got better with the outdoor track. And then BU and the new NB track! And more around the USA and world. I had read that after the indoor track went in injuries dropped something like 25-35%. That I may be remembering incorrectly. But similar now with the new shoes. Some may call it shoe doping, but having had some un-fun injuries in my day, sounds like a positive on both counts to me, not just faster times.
I would agree that running on a 220y or 200m track would result in fewer injuries, compared to what was previously available, 160y banked boards, initially 1x4 planks and then the plywood 160y tracks by Highfill. Or some 220y flat floors, like Princeton and Tufts. No one complained back when the 200m banked tracks took over with times coming down thereafter. So, let's enjoy the ride as the mystique of the 4 min mile is no more.
I think it is safe to say that breaking 4 is no longer a big deal compared to a generation or more ago. I would say that now breaking 3:55 might be the barrier which holds meaning for collegians but it just doesn’t have the same resonance with the average Joe.
To get a resonance with Sally public, the opinion formers could call it in rap manner, "to the three, five, five.! To the top of the line!" (Like ppl do with weed and 420)
Or could can use Will Shatner's version of Captain Kirk, from TOS season 1 (laconic-ish, but anthemic in manner and speak), "gentleman. we. Need. To get thru. Three.five.five. Maximum warp!"
A few years ago Tefera and Manangoi ran 3:31 as 19 year olds before super spikes were available...yet here we are freaking out about spikes ruining the sport because a bunch of college guys broke 4.
A few years ago Tefera and Manangoi ran 3:31 as 19 year olds before super spikes were available...yet here we are freaking out about spikes ruining the sport because a bunch of college guys broke 4.
Time to start hosting World's at BU lolHUGE credits to Dr. Geoffery Burns. Please check out his amazing write-ups on these below:https://www.geoffreyburns.co...
Nope. Consider how many Americans have broken 4:00 since it was first done in 1958.
It's about 600, a little more maybe.
How many people have run the mile?
Even people whose only experience is the dreaded Gym Class Mile can understand the specialness of a Sub 4.
You just lost the argument. You actually made my case. 52 in one meet? Your mind cannot grasp the fluidity of the situation. It is no longer special. I am not arguing it was not special in the past. So if 600 people had run under 2:10 in the marathon in history and then 52 did at one race, you would start to see how it is not so special anymore.
I'm not arguing, maybe you are, but I'm making a point:
You just lost the argument. You actually made my case. 52 in one meet? Your mind cannot grasp the fluidity of the situation. It is no longer special. I am not arguing it was not special in the past. So if 600 people had run under 2:10 in the marathon in history and then 52 did at one race, you would start to see how it is not so special anymore.
I'm not arguing, maybe you are, but I'm making a point:
It is still rare to break 4:00.
Maybe you can't grasp large numbers.
You can't grasp large numbers either. Looking at the general population breaking 5, 6, 7 is rare.
Rarity not the point. The shoes and tracks give a measurable advantage. It's not the same accomplishment. Why not give them wheels?
Props to our former intern Karl Winter of Syracuse, but can we give a special shout out to MIT's Ryan Wilson. How in the world does someone go from 4:06.02 pb ot 3:55.29? And now he doesn't have a 1500 pb better than 4:06. He was in heat #6.
Matthew Beaudet (Saint-Laurent Select) - 3:57.22 - Heat 3
James Donahue (Virginia) - 3:57.44 - Heat 6
Rob Napolitano (NYAC) - 3:57.59 - Heat 2
Gavin Gaynor (UNAT-NC State) - 3:57.76 -Heat 3
Viktor Idhammar (Virginia Tech) - 3:57.76 - Heat 5
Vivien Henz (Harvard) - 3:57.87 - Heat 2
Zachary Michon (PRTC) - 3:58.00 - Heat 5
Sean Dolan (Villanova) - 3:58.02 - Heat 2
Brett Gardner (NC State) - 3:58.15 - Heat 7
Rhys Hammond (Cornell) - 3:58.24 - Heat 3
Alex Ostberg (Unattached) - 3:58.33 - Heat 4
Charlie Dannatt (Simon Fraser) - 3:58.54 - Heat 2
Mac Franks (North Florida) - 3:58.56 - Heat 5
Antonio Lopez Segura (Virginia Tech) - 3:58.59 - Heat 3
Luke Julian (Colo. Sch. of Mines) - 3:58.62 - Heat 5
DJ Principe (Providence) - 3:58.62 - Heat 6
Alexander Rizzo, Navy, 3:58.75
Nathan Mountain, Virginia, 3:59.01
Jacob Gillum, Unattached, 3:59.10
Brandon Hontz, Penn State, 3:59.13
Foster Malleck, Boston University, 3:59.18
Karl Winter, Syracuse, 3:59.25
Sean Maison, Air Force, 3:59.33
Nicholas Bendtsen, Princeton, 3:59.47
Jack Salisbury, Unattached, 3:59.51
Jack Pinho, BAA, 3:59.54
Lucas Bons, BYU, 3:59.68
Alec Purnell, Guelph, 3:59.72
Matthew Rizzo, Georgetown, 3:59.79
Daniel SchafferOn ZAP Endurance 3:59.95
I remember being in college in 2006 running 4:01 and that was a big deal got some headline status for it today it would barely get me top 60 at Boston. It has to be the shoe technology. I am thinking if I ran 4:01 in 2006 I am no joke thinking today I would have been 3:55-3:57!
Challenge to any pro who doesn't think their sub 4 comes from shoes - take you're super shoes and toss them in the trash. Every pro does this and times will slow overnight. Sub 4 will be sub 4 again.
But of course this won't happen because everyone wants a trophy.
I remember being in college in 2006 running 4:01 and that was a big deal got some headline status for it today it would barely get me top 60 at Boston. It has to be the shoe technology. I am thinking if I ran 4:01 in 2006 I am no joke thinking today I would have been 3:55-3:57!
Well, do you think your 4:01 was on the fastest track (BU, a 300m oversized track etc.) with perfect pacing? Not only do the spikes help, these races are just being engineered perfectly for time-trialing.
Not only do the spikes help, these races are just being engineered perfectly for time-trialing.
Here are the percentages of 4 minute miles at BU. Do you really think engineering can explain the 3x increase in 4 minute miles, especially when the field is almost 20% bigger than ever before?
Not only do the spikes help, these races are just being engineered perfectly for time-trialing.
Here are the percentages of 4 minute miles at BU. Do you really think engineering can explain the 3x increase in 4 minute miles, especially when the field is almost 20% bigger than ever before?
I do not think so Pepe..I actually think there would be a slight drop off..BUT..I am a believer and apparently in the minority especially of older folks on here, that guys are clearly better..today...II have tons of examples.. of guys that were really good HS'ers and are progressing normally..not at all out of what most would allow for. Here in one thought..Jim Ryun broke 4 over 57 years ago..we now have over 100M people more...better everything..everything..shouldn't we be having 3-5 kids a year breaking 4? By now? I do not think that an unreasonable premise at all. Add in much faster..especially Indoor tracks and this gets at least more frequent..the fast running that is.John Walker ran 3:52.x at Sunkist 40+ Years ago..11 lapper, shouldn't guys be running fast and more of them?
Yes, it's the same in any sport. Technology, training and nutrition have all improved at the top levels.
Do the reverse exercise with times at the Stanford meets…More pros and college teams are coming to BU to hit marks. In my college days, the first heat was often local D1 schools’ guys (Providence, BU, Northeastern) and sub-elites. Now, South Carolina, Virginia etc show up with all their guys.