Saw the link on the front page about the first 4-minute mile in 1770. What does everyone think?
I think it is possible to be true. I mean, people didn't sit on their asses back then, and if you were athletic, it was probably cuase you were always moving about.
I dunno. Curious to see what the posters think.
People wore heavier clothing back then, improper running shoes and probably ran on grass surfaces (or like in Chariots of Fire ran inside a compound with 90 degree turns). I highly doubt anyone ran sub 4:30 much less 4:00 back then. The story that someone had beaten Bannister couple years prior to him running sub-4 is far more probable. But if you think that way, who's to say some guy in Russia didn't run 3:59 in 1942 while trying to escape the Nazis?
To say Bannister was the first to break 4:00 minutes is nothing but superficial, in reality, there is NO way to truly know who broke it first unless we kept track of every single person's(on the planet) mile times.
-Soup
If it is true, it was definitely a downhill mile.
SoupNazi wrote:
People wore heavier clothing back then, improper running shoes and probably ran on grass surfaces (or like in Chariots of Fire ran inside a compound with 90 degree turns).
The article said they ran naked.
The article said they ran naked.[/quote]
I know I always feel faster when I run naked
Mtn Dew is right- all the running was involved with betting back then according to the article. Wouldnt some clever person say "i can run a mile in 4:00" and then put in some provision about who sets up the course- i can see someone running a 4:00 mile down a big hill to win lots of money.
Also the other thing is the measurement problem- that guy kind of brushes it off but i think that would be a big problem. If youre measuring with a length of chain that is accurate within a centimeter and you have to use that 100-800 times over depending on how long the chain is that is a significant error.
what about population numbers too? How many people were running in England at that time- its just so unlikely.
i think it is quite possible. i have always had a theory that some native american ran a miles distance in less than four minutes chasing down a deer or somthing in the 1400's.
Calvert County wrote:
Saw the link on the front page about the first 4-minute mile in 1770. What does everyone think?
I think it is possible to be true. I mean, people didn't sit on their asses back then, and if you were athletic, it was probably cuase you were always moving about.
I dunno. Curious to see what the posters think.
Bogus. I suspect that time was probably run on the short track at Stanford.
-Brent
wags wrote:
i think it is quite possible. i have always had a theory that some native american ran a miles distance in less than four minutes chasing down a deer or somthing in the 1400's.
I doubt that too. If you are chasing something down you're not going to pace yourself, you're going to run all out. There's no way they sprinted a mile under 4:00.
no way. thats all i got. no way.
Interesting reads on the front page regarding runners from the 18th century. I was curious as to what others' thoughts were as well. While I believe that runners from that era put up performances that exceed what we give them credit for, I find it unlikely that someone ran sub 4 back then. While a legitimate sub 4 mile from pre-1800 would surprise me a great deal, I would not be overly surprised to hear someone ran 4:15. I had a few thoughts when reading the articles.
1. Training regimens. One of the arguments against fast performances in the 18th century is the developments that have been made in the area of training techniques. However, Bannister didn't appear to have what many would consider advanced training techniques. Nor do the Kenyans at a young age. It is not until they are older and get into a training camp that they get more structure, which is after they have already spent years building up their aerobic base. And it was in the less structured and less scientifically-focused 1970s that the US had some of its greatest success in distance running.
The training is a huge question. Were these guys running 60+ miles a week from a young age to and from school each day? Or did their training consist of challenging others to races and then hammering out 4 to 5 mile runs 5 times a week for a couple weeks leading up to the race?
2. Lifestyle. The lifestyle of people living in England in the 18th century was probably much better suited toward distance running. More manual labor, more walking, etc. The switch to amateurism is interesting because the people who promoted it were probably more likely to be aristocrats who led a less physically demanding lifestyle and didn't have the incentive of going after money. Essentially stripping away two of the primary drivers of the earlier runners.
3. Courses. I believe this is a big one. Downhill courses and straight-aways with a tailwind definitely would have had a significant impact.
Unfortunately, there probably won't ever be a sufficient amount of information to verify or refute the claims. But it is interesting to think about. And who knows what one could find if you went really far back. There might have been some good Australopithecus ultra-marathoners a few million years ago. Primitive humans who were small in stature, spreading throughout the world and forced to cover vast distances to find food. Could be a winning combination.
As late as the 1780's, there was no uniformity for measurement anywhere in the world. The US finally set a standard at the end of the 18th Century.
One man's mile could be another man's 3/4 of a mile. I highly doubt that anyone was running nearly 4 minutes (or even remotely close) at that point in time.
Brent wrote:
Calvert County wrote:Saw the link on the front page about the first 4-minute mile in 1770. What does everyone think?
I think it is possible to be true. I mean, people didn't sit on their asses back then, and if you were athletic, it was probably cuase you were always moving about.
I dunno. Curious to see what the posters think.
Bogus. I suspect that time was probably run on the short track at Stanford.
-Brent
One thing to consider is that the avg height and weight of a man at the time was significantly less that that of todays red meat consuming male. Couple that fact with a life full of grinding physical exertion on a daily basis and it becomes more plausible (not likely) that a man could cover a mile in the four minute range. The marathon times, on the other hand, are rediculous. Don't buy into them for a moment.
How could you buy into one and not the other?
I think it is not only possible, but probable. The life style during the 1700s was very similar to many of the African countries that are now dominating the world of distance running. To get someplace you have to do it a foot. For most people they spent their day doing manual labor and there diet was much better than most people today (no processed food). The runners back then also ran for money and by the conversions of the payouts to today?s money it looks like they could have made quite a bit of doe. This is the same motivation of most of the runners in Kenya and Ethiopia.
You point out that the clothes were heavier back then. The article mentions that they competed naked. You say that they wore improper shoes. Many of the top Kenyans don't own a pair of running shoes until they can get accepted into one of the Kenyan running camps. To get into a camp you have to be pretty fast and they got their without shoes, why couldn't someone train barefoot back in the 1700s. The article also mentions that they raced on roads (probably packed dirt and strait) not grass or square tracks.
It was the French who standardized measurment as part of their great rational republic following the French revolution. We owe the metric system to them.
That said, there were finely tuned standards of measurement, local though they may have been, lo those many years ago. When you have property laws, which they did have, you have property boundary disputes. And when you have property boundary disputes, you have two parties VERY interested in standards of measurement. This is why the profession of surveyor, which is what George Washington was before becoming a big-time national striver, was very remunerative in those days.
The best argument the article makes for the plausibility of these times is their internal consistency when compared to performance charts of the modern era. The consistency suggests a correlation across two variables. If the miles were short, then the correlation should grow increasinly weak as the distances go up. But this does not happen.
So the argument can't simply be denied.
More interesting to me than silly discussions about who ran the first four minute mile was the part of the story about how the creation of an "amateur sport" excluded or hindered the most talented runners of the day. The national organizations in charge of olympics selection still play the same games with athletes. Only once we move toward the full professionalization of the sport and forget about nationalism will athletics have a chance to emerge fully from the dark shadows of "amateurism."
[quote]caveat emptor wrote:
It was the French who standardized measurment as part of their great rational republic following the French revolution. We owe the metric system to them.
[quote]
The French Revolution (and the standardization of measurement) occurred roughly 20 years AFTER the supposed first sub-4 mile.
It all comes down to the belief...are humans getting stronger and faster and becoming superhumans, or are we deteorating and solely living longer lives due to drugs and medicine?
That doesn't vitiate the fact that performances correlate across two variables. I merely added that in as a factoid for all you kiddies out there. And here is another. Ben Franklin took it upon himself to place mile markers on the Post Road between Boston and New York. This was in the 1760s. He devised a mechanical odometer for his wagon and set off to drive a stake at each mile. Guess what? The few stone markers that remain are exactly a mile apart. Just because it happened long ago doesn't mean there weren't smart people around. And in case you doubt me...see http://www.samnet.net/esso/Fmm.htm