True world record for any race besides the 100m and 110 H

The records are "true" in that they are set under the applicable standards.

Just as there are no random numbers, there are no exact results as long as it is a human doing the measuring.

I know, we'll have everyone do an individual time-run. Each competitor runs in lane 27 and is tim....

You want a record for a road mile, petition the USATF, IAAF, NASCAR, PETA, or someone who cares.

Of course, any records run in a straight line would have to be carefully controlled for winds--tail, head, or quartering--and the route would have to be absolutely flat.

We're just fine with times run on oval tracks. To say that you have run a mile on the track has never meant that you've run PRECISELY a mile (and what does "precise" mean, anyway?); it means that you have run NO LESS than a mile.

jmoyala wrote:

Really getting picky - BUT - all times for distances beyond the 100 and 110 straight races are not exact results. A racer has to run a shade longer than the given distance as he/she will run in the middle or outer edge of a lane in some races where the line is the measured distance, right. When one gets to mid and long distance races, I am willing to bet that everyone runs more than the noted distance, changing lanes and running on the outside shoulder of a competitor. Sure, it is only a fraction more but that micro distance could change a world record. I'm I way off? FAT timing has it down to 100ths. Example. Would the true world record for the mile be a straight run - Like the 5th Av. mile? Thoughts!

Who runs perfectly straight even in a straightaway? I'm guessing you have bigger things to worry about ...

"Picky" doesn't even begin to describe this. Surely there must be something else for you to fret about?

old tymer wrote:...

We're just fine with times run on oval tracks. To say that you have run a mile on the track has never meant that you've run PRECISELY a mile (and what does "precise" mean, anyway?); it means that you have run NO LESS than a mile.

You're confusing "accuracy" and "precision."

You could inaccurately measure a mile as 5284.5 feet.

If you remeasured it five times and always got between 5284.4 and 5284.6 feet, you would somewhat precise, but not accurate.

Accuracy means relative to a known (accepted) standard.

Precision is the relative consistency of repetition (even if off by 17 rods).

And stuff like that, maybe.

I saw "true world record" and thought this was going to be about drugs.

Several records that featured rabbits (like the 10,000) or solo records (like the one hour) probably had the record setter running as close as can be to the exact distance.

jmoyala wrote:

A racer has to run a shade longer than the given distance as he/she will run in the middle or outer edge of a lane in some races where the line is the measured distance, right.

IAAF Rule 160.2 regarding track measurements: "The measurement shall be taken 30cm outward from the kerb or, where no kerb exists, 20cm from the line marking the inside of the track."

An efficient 200m or 400m runner will run close to the inside of the lane, and since he will lean into the turn, it's quite likely that the runner's centre of gravity will actually travel less than the race distance. Running extra distance is sometimes unavoidable in longer races, but most record-setting races these days are staged affairs where the record-breaker quickly gets to the inside lane and rarely has to move out.