It's always fascinating how the improvements over time at some distances are more consistent than others. We all know how disgusting the womens' 1980s era records are for 100M through 800M. As someone who competed during that era (at 400M), if you had asked me then which of the records would most likely be under assault 35 years later, I probably would have said the 800M, merely because there's more "real estate" on the track for improvement. I wouldn't have guessed 200M. Why are the 400M and 800M still so unapproachable?
(Let's not let this discussion devolve into the a cliche back and forth about who was a doper, blah blah blah. Plenty of spilled ink on that topic over the years. I'm just interested in the very narrow topic of why the 200M and why now?)
amuses me when anyone mentions the steroid era of the 80s.the doping is far worse now than it was in the 80s,a lot more widespread and everybody is doing it.women and men these days are vastly more muscled ,theyre much faster and theres a lot more of them.
amuses me when anyone mentions the steroid era of the 80s.the doping is far worse now than it was in the 80s,a lot more widespread and everybody is doing it.women and men these days are vastly more muscled ,theyre much faster and theres a lot more of them.
you're mad! people permanently damaged their health and altered their bodies in previous eras of doping.
amuses me when anyone mentions the steroid era of the 80s.the doping is far worse now than it was in the 80s,a lot more widespread and everybody is doing it.women and men these days are vastly more muscled ,theyre much faster and theres a lot more of them.
Respectfully disagree. As someone who was "around a lot of needles" back in the day - although admittedly only on the men's side - I firmly believe that the 80s, in comparisonto today, had: 1) more widespread use, 2) monumentally less testing, 3) broad based state sponsored programs in the Eastern Bloc, and 4) more outward masculine features among female Eastern Bloc athletes (way beyond "more muscled"). Again, I respectfully disagree.
Different eras, different types of doping. You didn’t have the cream and the clear back then. Gene therapy was in a Michael Chrichton novel only. EPO was being isolated in a lab. Insulin was just for diabetics.
There were no TRT or aging clinics. Andro was readily available.
Your colleagues may or may not have been able to dope with impunity, but what they had was insignificant by comparison to today, far less widespread, and much more dangerous.
My apologies. I ignored my own request by responding to the reply (by jeff tallon) regarding doping in the two eras. My mistake.
So let's stick to the topic: why is the 200M under assault now but the 400M and 800M still feel out of reach?
Just a hypothesis - maybe the 200 wasn't viewed as a glamour event like the 100 or 400 were and are and that record is relatively "weak" compared to the others you mention? Many sprinters I've known over the years ran the 200 as just a throwaway after they were done with the 100, and we know how rare the 200-400 double is. But now, we seem to be seeing a wave of athletes who recognize their best event is or could be the 200, and are specifically focusing on it. In the past few years, sub-20 performances on the men's side has gone from a "WOW" type event to expected. USAs alone had 5 guys in the final go sub-20. And only Kerley and Bednarek were in the 100 final. It seems like it used to be 6 of the same guys in the two finals. Could the same sort of thing be happening on the women's side? Yes, I know Jackson and Fraser-Pryce both medaled in both 100 and 200. But Jackson was a 400 woman before who stepped down, and is blazing the 200 as a result.
youre obviously not looking at todays competitors compared to yesteryears.the east germans were petite and femenine compared to todays juicers,and vastly less muscled.i have eyes.theres nothing subtle about todays doping.its now worse than it ever was.these days they all look like mutants who have walked out of a laboratory.
amuses me when anyone mentions the steroid era of the 80s.the doping is far worse now than it was in the 80s,a lot more widespread and everybody is doing it.women and men these days are vastly more muscled ,theyre much faster and theres a lot more of them.
you're mad! people permanently damaged their health and altered their bodies in previous eras of doping.
Doping now is much more subtle.
Arguing about which era is more doped is like wrestling fans arguing which era is more fake. Only difference is wrestling fans are in on the joke and play along instead of arguing.
Difference between 70s-80s dope and now dope is sophistication. The science advanced to get similar results without destroying teeth or creating hulk-women. And at the end of the day, results are similar - women's 400 and 800 WR's still untouched.
youre obviously not looking at todays competitors compared to yesteryears.the east germans were petite and femenine compared to todays juicers,and vastly less muscled.i have eyes.theres nothing subtle about todays doping.its now worse than it ever was.these days they all look like mutants who have walked out of a laboratory.
Does she look petite and feminine to you compared to today's top 400 m runners:
youre obviously not looking at todays competitors compared to yesteryears.the east germans were petite and femenine compared to todays juicers,and vastly less muscled.i have eyes.theres nothing subtle about todays doping.its now worse than it ever was.these days they all look like mutants who have walked out of a laboratory.
We all know how disgusting the womens' 1980s era records are for 100M through 800M.
Actually, when just looking at the WR, the one outsider may distort the view. I used your question to update my list of top-5s:
100 m women, 1 of the top-5 from the 80s: 10.49 Griffith-Joiner (questionable, next best 10.61) 10.54 Thompson-Herah 10.60 Fraser-Pryce 10.64 Jeter 10.65 Jones – doped
200 m women, 1 of the top-5 from the 80s: 21.34 Griffith-Joiner 21.45 Jackson 21.53 Thompson-Herah 21.61 Thomas (2 – 3 whereabouts failures in 12 months) 21.62 Jones – doped
400 m women, 3 of the top-5 from the 80s: 47.60 Koch 47.99 Kratochvilova 48.14 Naser (3 whereabout failures in 12 months, banned) 48.25 Perec 48.27 Brzygina
800 m women, 3 of the top-5 from the 80s: 1:53.28 Kratochvilova 1:53.43 Ozilarenko 1:54.01 Jelimo 1:54.25 Semenya 1:54.44 Quirot
1500 and above: no 80s times appear in the top-5, for whatever reason.
Couple of points: the 400 and 800 each have 3 athletes from the 80s in the top-5, the 100 and 200 only 1 (who wasn't from the dirty east, as we all know).
In the 100, the next best from the 80s is on position 12 with a 10.76 (also an American). Then comes on position 16 a 10.78 (also an American). The top Eastern European lady from the 80s is Marlies Göhr (GDR), position 25 with a 10.81, over 0.2 seconds slower than today’s top sprinters. In the 200, we have Marita Koch and Heike Dressler, both (GDR) with a 21.71 on position 9.
So the female athletes of the 80s would today be much more competitive over 400 and 800 m than over 100 and 200 m (not to mention 1500 up).
Just a hypothesis - maybe the 200 wasn't viewed as a glamour event like the 100 or 400 were and are and that record is relatively "weak" compared to the others you mention?
400 is a "glamour event"? Not in the US right now. The best 400m talent are all racing in other events -- McLaughlin, Muhammad, Wilson, Little, Mu, Steiner, and so forth.
youre obviously not looking at todays competitors compared to yesteryears.the east germans were petite and femenine compared to todays juicers,and vastly less muscled.i have eyes.theres nothing subtle about todays doping.its now worse than it ever was.these days they all look like mutants who have walked out of a laboratory.
Or perhaps it is a case that as training has evolved and many sprinters realize the benefits of weight training and hit the gym to get stronger and thus develop a more muscular physicality
