I've heard it's impossible to break 3, which seems obvious. But what would the fastest time be? 3:20s? Feel free to add context, etc.
I've heard it's impossible to break 3, which seems obvious. But what would the fastest time be? 3:20s? Feel free to add context, etc.
Foreman22 wrote:
I've heard it's impossible to break 3, which seems obvious. But what would the fastest time be? 3:20s? Feel free to add context, etc.
Definitely sub 3:30, probably not sub 3:20, you are right. I would estimate closer to 3:20 than to 3:30.
Right now?? ...about 3:43.13.
Foreman22 wrote:
I've heard it's impossible to break 3, which seems obvious. But what would the fastest time be? 3:20s? Feel free to add context, etc.
I think 40 1:40 and 3:40 are pretty much the absolute fastest you can go for 400 800 mile
Fastest 400m: 43
Fastest 800m: > 1:30 surely. Say, 1:35 or so
Fastest mile: >3:10
I cannot even see 3:20.
We will never know wrote:
Foreman22 wrote:
I've heard it's impossible to break 3, which seems obvious. But what would the fastest time be? 3:20s? Feel free to add context, etc.
Definitely sub 3:30, probably not sub 3:20, you are right. I would estimate closer to 3:20 than to 3:30.
Im pretty sure the OP meant running and not riding a bike. 3:30 is ridiculous
Steve Scott ran a 3:31 downhill road mile with a drop of 200 feet. I don't know how steep a drop could be and still maintain top speed but I feel that one of today's best could get under 3:20 in a downhill mile.
Creepy old man wrote:
Steve Scott ran a 3:31 downhill road mile with a drop of 200 feet. I don't know how steep a drop could be and still maintain top speed but I feel that one of today's best could get under 3:20 in a downhill mile.
Interesting! I didn't think about elevation changes
Foreman22 wrote:
I've heard it's impossible to break 3, which seems obvious. But what would the fastest time be? 3:20s? Feel free to add context, etc.
I think it will be around 3:36, going 1:48, 54 a 400…..thats 27 a 200 and 13.5 per 100…….
I know thats 1600m splits, so keep that pace for that extra 9 meters, 3:38?
Still not a “sprint” but close, i think once you hit 12 per 100 your “sprinting”
Who knows? Probably eventually closer to 16.1 x 10 seconds which is 2:41.
Think in another 100 years the improvements in shoes, tracks, training aids, and diet and environmental factors that will take place. Even with stringent anti-doping rules against things like gene therapy, this kind of stuff will inevitably improve athletic performance over a century.
If you mean what is the limit a human today could run if the most talented on Earth and with optimal training and environment from birth etc, then probably 3:35 - 3:40 without peds.
Creepy old man wrote:
Steve Scott ran a 3:31 downhill road mile with a drop of 200 feet. I don't know how steep a drop could be and still maintain top speed but I feel that one of today's best could get under 3:20 in a downhill mile.
What about with a gale force wind behind them all the way?
1) 12 seconds to come off the WR for a female to break 4 minutes. I think this will eventually be doable - decades though. I think at the relative rates of progression, some lady may edge under the 4-minute some day, but in the next 20 years, I think about 4:07-08 is closer to reality.
2) Can the men knock another 12 seconds out of the WR, and approach 3:30-31? I don't think so. It's been well over 20 years since H el G. I can't find any evidence of as long a delay in any reduction in the mile WR this century.
I think in normal circumstances on a oval TT, about 3:35 is definitely a possibility, considering the likelihood of an increased number going sub-3:28 in the 1500m in the western world, and the (to me anyway) increase again in athletes doubling or attempting multiple events (like 1500m / 5k / 10k / half) which surely could help someone with 3:27 speed add endurance. A few Olympic cycles of this and that mile could edge towards 3:40 and with a few generations, under it that
3) In current climes, even were a 'Breaking 3:40' event I don't think there are any WR contenders necessarily.
But supposing some of the leading 1500m men were suddenly in consistent sub 3:30 shape (i.e. a season of 3:30 or under, I think they could go about 3:41.XX on a flat mile long straight, with pacers and no restrictions on footwear
Number 33 wrote:
If you mean what is the limit a human today could run if the most talented on Earth and with optimal training and environment from birth etc, then probably 3:35 - 3:40 without peds.
Sub 3:47 mile = peds
1500-3000-5000 wrote:
Number 33 wrote:
If you mean what is the limit a human today could run if the most talented on Earth and with optimal training and environment from birth etc, then probably 3:35 - 3:40 without peds.
Sub 3:47 mile = peds
Bull. No reason to believe Crammy was on peds when he ran 3:46 slowing down at the end in an imperfectly paced real race (with Coe). Mondo tracks and super shoes that would have been potentially 3:42.
Number 336 wrote:
1500-3000-5000 wrote:
Sub 3:47 mile = peds
Bull. No reason to believe Crammy was on peds when he ran 3:46 slowing down at the end in an imperfectly paced real race (with Coe). Mondo tracks and super shoes that would have been potentially 3:42.
Sub 3:45 = peds
Women will eventually catch men. They are behind due to years of not being able to participate.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
We will never know wrote:
Definitely sub 3:30, probably not sub 3:20, you are right. I would estimate closer to 3:20 than to 3:30.
Im pretty sure the OP meant running and not riding a bike. 3:30 is ridiculous
I said definitely UNDER 3:30. You and most of the other posters here have not understood the question from the OP.
women go wrote:
Women will eventually catch men. They are behind due to years of not being able to participate.
And that's the only reason that women ran slower than men right now, correct?
We will never know wrote:
women go wrote:
Women will eventually catch men. They are behind due to years of not being able to participate.
And that's the only reason that women ran slower than men right now, correct?
Yes, just watch a mixed relay. The men should be worried...NOT!