Science will produce - and is the producing - the biggest changes in the sport. That of course includes training, technique and equipment. It is producing advances in virtually every area of life. But the science isn't confined to that which is approved of or is permitted, but it is still present - because it does what the other scientific advances cannot do. That is what will drive further progress in the sport - as it is doing. But there are many who follow the sport who haven't caught up with the science. They live in a sporting world that long ago disappeared at the elite and professional levels.
This post was edited 47 seconds after it was posted.
Jim Ryun broke 4 minutes at 17 years 1 month in 1964.
Sam Ruthe broke 4 minutes at 15 years 11 months in 2025.
At that rate, it will be another 104 years before a boy of 13 years and 11 months breaks 4 minutes. So the year 2129.
You do know that human biology has not evolved between Ryun and Ruthe - and it isn't evolving now?
Now tell us about the mile time for 17 year olds in 1900 and how much homo sapien evolution occurred in the intervening 60 years that rationalises Ryun's time?
Jim Ryun broke 4 minutes at 17 years 1 month in 1964.
Sam Ruthe broke 4 minutes at 15 years 11 months in 2025.
At that rate, it will be another 104 years before a boy of 13 years and 11 months breaks 4 minutes. So the year 2129.
You do know that human biology has not evolved between Ryun and Ruthe - and it isn't evolving now?
so mid-distance running is the only sport event immune from improvement over time?
do you not recognise the strong genetics sam ruthe has?
the irony is that the only times which have not been improved on in running in the last 35 to 40 years are those drug-led women's records from 100 to 800m. oh and men's 1500m in last 27 years or whatever it is.
You do know that human biology has not evolved between Ryun and Ruthe - and it isn't evolving now?
Now tell us about the mile time for 17 year olds in 1900 and how much homo sapien evolution occurred in the intervening 60 years that rationalises Ryun's time?
No one was seriously racing track in 1900. You mistake biological evolution for improvements in training, nutrition and equipment. There were huge improvements in much of these - especially training and tracks and shoes - in the half century before Ryun.
You do know that human biology has not evolved between Ryun and Ruthe - and it isn't evolving now?
so mid-distance running is the only sport event immune from improvement over time?
do you not recognise the strong genetics sam ruthe has?
the irony is that the only times which have not been improved on in running in the last 35 to 40 years are those drug-led women's records from 100 to 800m. oh and men's 1500m in last 27 years or whatever it is.
The sport has improved since the '60's because of refinements in training knowledge and improvements in shoes and tracks. But as doping has become prevalent in the sport since the '70's that, too, is an important factor.
All great athletes over the generations have had great genetics. Ruthe is simply part of that line. But physiologically the human species has not evolved in that time. We are better fed and better trained. The improvements have come from learning how to make better use of what we have.
Records have continued to fall into the present era, notwithstanding the efforts played by antidoping to reduce doping in the sport. Only a few records from previous decades still stand. They will go. Doping continues.
Now tell us about the mile time for 17 year olds in 1900 and how much homo sapien evolution occurred in the intervening 60 years that rationalises Ryun's time?
No one was seriously racing track in 1900. You mistake biological evolution for improvements in training, nutrition and equipment. There were huge improvements in much of these - especially training and tracks and shoes - in the half century before Ryun.
People were racing track seriously well before 1900. It was different than now as are many things people were doing in 1900 and before. But records were kept and because of betting there was some serious money made and lost which usually insured that people took it seriously.
Now tell us about the mile time for 17 year olds in 1900 and how much homo sapien evolution occurred in the intervening 60 years that rationalises Ryun's time?
No one was seriously racing track in 1900. You mistake biological evolution for improvements in training, nutrition and equipment. There were huge improvements in much of these - especially training and tracks and shoes - in the half century before Ryun.
People were racing track seriously well before 1900. It was different than now as are many things people were doing in 1900 and before. But records were kept and because of betting there was some serious money made and lost which usually insured that people took it seriously.
Betting didn't make it a serious sport. All you have to do is see the performances in the first modern Olympics and early 20th century to see how "seriously" people were racing track.
Check the times in the early modern Olympics (Athens, Paris and London) and get back to me.
Check the training methods, gear, nutrition and scientific knowledge in the early modern Olympics (Athens, Paris and London) and get back to me.
That's confirms my point. Modern track was a sport in its relative infancy, without significant knowledge of training and technique and run on the crudest of tracks. It was amateur in every sense. The best runners were no faster than runners today who have just passed puberty.
Check the training methods, gear, nutrition and scientific knowledge in the early modern Olympics (Athens, Paris and London) and get back to me.
That's confirms my point. Modern track was a sport in its relative infancy, without significant knowledge of training and technique and run on the crudest of tracks. It was amateur in every sense. The best runners were no faster than runners today who have just passed puberty.
No, it doesn't confirm your point. You said "No one was seriously racing track in 1900." They were racing seriously, but conditions and knowledge were subpar.
No wonder a 15 year old with great genetics and training can be faster than the athletes from that era.
That's confirms my point. Modern track was a sport in its relative infancy, without significant knowledge of training and technique and run on the crudest of tracks. It was amateur in every sense. The best runners were no faster than runners today who have just passed puberty.
No, it doesn't confirm your point. You said "No one was seriously racing track in 1900." They were racing seriously, but conditions and knowledge were subpar.
No wonder a 15 year old with great genetics and training can be faster than the athletes from that era.
Local runners and recreational sportsmen compete to win. If that's what you mean is "serious" sport you are on another planet. In the early 20th century there was nothing about how athletes engaged in sport that was in any way equivalent to today. That is why their performances aren't comparable. The human species has not evolved since 1900, when the last phase of biological evolution of homo sapiens sapiens occurred thousands of years ago. We aren't any different from Charles Dickens or even Shakespeare and certainly no smarter.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
People were racing track seriously well before 1900. It was different than now as are many things people were doing in 1900 and before. But records were kept and because of betting there was some serious money made and lost which usually insured that people took it seriously.
Betting didn't make it a serious sport. All you have to do is see the performances in the first modern Olympics and early 20th century to see how "seriously" people were racing track.
If you look at performances from those Olympics you'll find a lot of sports that aren't contested anymore. Sports in general were not taken as seriously in the 19th and early 20th centuries as they are now and training methods were pretty primitve compared to now. In the ealry 20th century there was a guy who lived in western Connecticut who ran the Boston Marathon every year, can't recall his name, but he placed among the leaders. His training was to leave home a couple weeks before the race and walk to Boston. That doesn't mean he wasn't serious when he raced. Evidently quite a bit was made in 1880 when Walter George became the first person to run a mile under 4:20 and a bigger one a few years later when he got to 4:12 and yes, he was quite serious about his races. He made his living from them in the later part of his career.