I would pay to be able to see an old-school world championships on a cinder track. I'd like to see what all the world's top athletes can achieve on one.
I would pay to be able to see an old-school world championships on a cinder track. I'd like to see what all the world's top athletes can achieve on one.
Well they could smoke u2 stud!
stats matter wrote:
All kids used to be active from sun up to sun down. Playing an organized sport like soccer while sitting in front of a screen for 5 hours per day can't compare to all of the VO2 max that kids were building years ago. The percentage of kids who are not overweight is much smaller today which means the pool of healthy kids competing at their max potential is tiny as compared to the 1960s. 3 high school runners broke 4 minutes 3 years in a row during the 1960s and then we went 30 years without threatening it again because that is when kids started shifting away from being physically active.
If that's the only explanation, then that must have been an extremely rapid shift in lifestyle.
Also, what shifted things back to where it has recently become almost routine to have HS sub-4's? Because it's not like kids in general have suddenly become more physically active.
"I based my ramblings on TED talks."
Moving on...
Wow, that's a fascinating observation. So does this mean that Bannister was not really the first sub 4? - an over-excited timer could have easily stopped his watch early. The history books will have to be rewritten and put Landy as the first sub 4 as his effort was over 2 seconds under the barrier which should be beyond the margin of error of hand timing.
Bannister ran 3:59.4 that day, so I thinks he's safe, but I looked at some photos of his first sub-4 finish and as his torso is crossing the line, I can see two timers looking down, as if looking at the watch. A third guy with a clipboard (not a timer) looks like he got hit in the eye or something....... I don't know if there are other pics with different angles, or other pics before and after the pic I'm studying, and I also don't know if a pic a millisecond(s) before the one I'm studying would show them looking up at the torso. I also don't know if there were other timers present. If there were multiple timers, then the greater accuracy of the hand time, because they would be averaged and an outlier might be tossed. I can also assume the timers here were experienced and knew the exact rules, such as start at gun smoke, not sound, and stop at torso crossing, etc.
I tried to upload some Bannister finishing pics here but cant seem to get them to paste. Maybe some one else can do this. try this
So the question here is, With those two timers looking down, does this show an anticipation error? Did Bannister run 3:59.5, or 3:59.6? No, not really, he ran 3:59.4, because possible human error was a given, unknown, and acceptable. But, if there was human error, I'm guessing it more often than not benefited a runners time.
I guess the pic uploaded, but my screen didn't show it had.
BSPenn wrote:
"In 1954, Sir Roger Bannister became the first man to run under four minutes in the mile.
Actually he became the second after Big Hawk Chief.
There have been various improvements over time, which make it difficult to truly judge times between eras. This is also why we should eventually see some of the "unbeatable track WRs" eventually fall.
At each Olympics Mondo has attempted to make the track "the fastest ever", claiming to have made a breakthrough in the Beijing games track design and improving the track ever since.
Shoes in the early 90s had steel spikes, which were upgraded to ceramic, and then carbon fibre.
If you were to go even further, you could even compare the weight of their shorts, shirt and socks.
Bogus? No. Times aren't fake. Not as impressive as Bannister? Perhaps. I suppose we should all push for barefoot and naked mile attempts on grass from this point forward.
info again wrote:
Wow, that's a fascinating observation. So does this mean that Bannister was not really the first sub 4? - an over-excited timer could have easily stopped his watch early. The history books will have to be rewritten and put Landy as the first sub 4 as his effort was over 2 seconds under the barrier which should be beyond the margin of error of hand timing.
Bannister ran 3:59.4 that day, so I thinks he's safe, but I looked at some photos of his first sub-4 finish and as his torso is crossing the line, I can see two timers looking down, as if looking at the watch. A third guy with a clipboard (not a timer) looks like he got hit in the eye or something....... I don't know if there are other pics with different angles, or other pics before and after the pic I'm studying, and I also don't know if a pic a millisecond(s) before the one I'm studying would show them looking up at the torso. I also don't know if there were other timers present. If there were multiple timers, then the greater accuracy of the hand time, because they would be averaged and an outlier might be tossed. I can also assume the timers here were experienced and knew the exact rules, such as start at gun smoke, not sound, and stop at torso crossing, etc.
I tried to upload some Bannister finishing pics here but cant seem to get them to paste. Maybe some one else can do this. try this
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/ec66cdeeb96433f91608fb4c4598a1bbef1feedf/c=0-0-1859-1398/local/-/media/2018/03/04/DetroitNews/DetroitNews/636557802813439135-AP18063561276046.jpg?width=540&height=405&fit=cropSo the question here is, With those two timers looking down, does this show an anticipation error? Did Bannister run 3:59.5, or 3:59.6? No, not really, he ran 3:59.4, because possible human error was a given, unknown, and acceptable. But, if there was human error, I'm guessing it more often than not benefited a runners time.
The timer may be looking down, but notice that a judge behind the timer is staring straight at the line and he has his hands on the timer's shoulders. I assume he's indicating something to the head timer by doing that.
Running on tracks is for wusses. Do it like our ancestors, barefoot, across a rock strewn field, with a lion chasing you. Probably do a sub-3 in those conditions.
Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:
How did you arrive at your 1.5% figure?
It is from a TED talk that David Epstein did. Epstein asked some sport scientists to give an idea, but I am not sure how it was peer reviewed either. Sounds like more of a back of the envelope calculation.
Hicham El Guerrouj had entered the chat
coach d. wrote:
Ryun's 3:55.3 in HS was on a synthetic surface in '65, not a cinder track in '66.
Yes, it was in 1965 and on a new synthetic surface - a Grasstex asphalt composite track. Not as fast as new modern tracks, and it was awkward and unwelcome to the racers at the time. They all preferred the cinders they were used to. It was an unusually hard surface by most accounts, but I'm sure helped the racers during their kicks.
Remember though that Ryun ran a 3:39.0 1500m a year before in 1964 on a very torn up cinder track. That is probably a better performance actually.
Han Solo wrote:
Instead of invalidating the runs of the today's runners, you could just as easily say that the guys from the 60s could have run 1.5% faster than they did.
I agree. We should be happy that technology has allowed us to witness faster times and celebrate legendary runners by converting their times.
Ryun's world record of 3:51.1 would have equaled about 3:47.4, and that was leading from the gun without rabbits. His high school 3:55.3 would have equaled about 3:51.8.
No high schooler worth their salt (except maybe Ingebrigtsen, who's likely doping) genuinely thinks they were on the same level as Ryun. Running faster than the greats does not mean you would have beaten the greats in their time. Everyone with a reasonably-sized head knows this.
cbenson4 wrote:
Han Solo wrote:
Instead of invalidating the runs of the today's runners, you could just as easily say that the guys from the 60s could have run 1.5% faster than they did.
I agree. We should be happy that technology has allowed us to witness faster times and celebrate legendary runners by converting their times.
Ryun's world record of 3:51.1 would have equaled about 3:47.4, and that was leading from the gun without rabbits. His high school 3:55.3 would have equaled about 3:51.8.
No high schooler worth their salt (except maybe Ingebrigtsen, who's likely doping) genuinely thinks they were on the same level as Ryun. Running faster than the greats does not mean you would have beaten the greats in their time. Everyone with a reasonably-sized head knows this.
Jacob is the least likely to be doping. He’s had world class training and coaching since he was 9 years old as well as a fantastic training group.
cbenson4 wrote:
Han Solo wrote:
Instead of invalidating the runs of the today's runners, you could just as easily say that the guys from the 60s could have run 1.5% faster than they did.
I agree. We should be happy that technology has allowed us to witness faster times and celebrate legendary runners by converting their times.
Ryun's world record of 3:51.1 would have equaled about 3:47.4, and that was leading from the gun without rabbits. His high school 3:55.3 would have equaled about 3:51.8.
No high schooler worth their salt (except maybe Ingebrigtsen, who's likely doping) genuinely thinks they were on the same level as Ryun. Running faster than the greats does not mean you would have beaten the greats in their time. Everyone with a reasonably-sized head knows this.
I would still take webb over Ryun in a actual race. because of his range. I don't see how Ryun would be able to break webb
Jakob would smoke any American high schooler.
I agree with you. But, I saw an interesting article about why there was a dearth of sub4s. The idea was that because there were fewer kids born during this time. Apparently, running a sub4 is rare in any population, so to produce more sub4s, you need a larger younger population. The larger number of children of the 60s resulted from the post-WWII baby boomers. I know this is murky, I don't have the article at hand. The boom from the boomer's kids produced more children and enough kids to produce sub4 milers. Pretty weird, right? Statistically, it makes sense. Thanks for reading my post, too.
Thank you to everyone who took the time to read my post and comment (positive and negative.)
