Old indoor tracks vs. new indoor tracks

I doubt there is any way to quantify the differences between the old 11 lap wood tracks to the new 200 meter banked tracks or the oversized 300 meter tracks.

I can give you some personal point of view.

1. The wooden 11 lap to the mile tracks prominent in the 50's and 60's had different makeups, some being faster than others. For instance, the Millrose track in Madison Square Garden was faster than the Boston Garden track and about the same as the Toronto track. Those tracks were made with Canadian spruce or pine and were 1x4 "slats".

2. The 11 lap synthetic tracks (the most prominent being the "New" Garden track was actually pretty slow, as the surface was quite soft, so running on it was actually a bit harder due to have to push off more.

3. The 11 lap "plywood" tracks that came along in the early 70's were quite fast, as long as they were not slippery. If I am not mistaken that is one that Coghlan ran his record on. Some were quite slippery (the one in East Rutherford used for the USA Indoor Champs - the new Cleveland Indoor track).

4. There are also differences with the 200 banked tracks. The Mondo banked tracks are built on a steel support system, making the track quite "tight", so fast for sprints, not so good for distance events (in my opinion).

5. The Boston U track is built on a wood base and has a polyurethane top (Originally Rekortan and now Beynon surface) and has a very nice "true" bounce (again in my opinion). The banking is also different as the bank rises to maximum very quickly (before the middle of the turn) and also comes off the bank earlier on the other side of the turn.

6. Height or elevation of the bank also comes into play. Most 11 lap to the mile tracks in the old days were at the same elevation. With the new 200 meter banked tracks, banking varies from those with variable banks (Penn State), the Mondo banks and Boston University. Reggie Lewis has the least banking of any 200 meter banked track that I know of. This was done as the thinking was that high school athletes could not negotiate the higher banks.

300 Meter flat floor indoor tracks are a completely different animal and have their own peculiarities (Notre Dame, Iowa St,, Spire, WA State)

So, no matter what, you are going to be dealing with apples and oranges. Throw in the fact that today's top athletes are pros, while those in the 50's and 60's and even 70's were mostly amateurs in the pure sense of the word.

Hope this gives you a better view of the history of indoor tracks.

As a side note, being an old guy, I would have loved to have indoor track stay with the 11 laps to the mile venue in the arenas, since the large crowds (many well over 10,000 and up to 20,000mper meet) were fantastic compared to what athletes see in today's world of track and field. But such is life. Many more indoor venues, larger tracks, faster times and smaller crowds. So it is.

Not all outdoor tracks are the same, no matter what Ventolin, who hasn't run on any big stage tracks, says. Top flight athletes often talk about certain tracks on the circuit being faster than others, as do commentators. Not all mondo tracks are equally as fast, same with older synthetic, same with dirt tracks. The IAAF may well have set maximum limits of return on tracks, but that doesn't mean every track since the 70's was built at that limit.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the average new 'mondo' track is faster than the old synthetic ones from the 70's and 80's, just as they were faster than the old dirt ones. To claim all synthetic and mondo tracks are equally as fast is utter nonsense. They are it all the same materials for a start.

Likewise with indoor tracks. The modern mondo ones are going to be faster than the old wooden ones, particularly in the longer distances. Running 15 laps on an old wooden track is going to be a lot slower than a modern mondo one.

eh ???

what "big stage tracks" you run on ???!!!

& elite athletes seem to set pbs on all different diamond league tracks

a stadium owner woud be a fool to have asked for a "slow" track

you think they were fools ???

not according to iaaf energy rules of maximum 65% return

superflous comment

the nonsense is believing they deliberately built tracks faster than iaaf rules which have been in place for decades

err...

they can make them of any synthetic materials providing energy return in-vivo is no more than 65%

depends entirely upon energy return of those boards

if upto 65%, they woud be no slower than modern indoor tracks

the main reason ole american wooden indoor tracks were "slow" was because many were 10 or 12 laps to the mile

Pete Schuder wrote:

As a side note, being an old guy, I would have loved to have indoor track stay with the 11 laps to the mile venue in the arenas, since the large crowds (many well over 10,000 and up to 20,000mper meet) were fantastic compared to what athletes see in today's world of track and field. But such is life.

I was in the Brendan Byrne Arena the night Coghlan broke 3:50 on the boards. The roar in that packed building was just deafening -- a sound I will NEVER forget.