cbenson4 wrote:
I personally believe that 3:45 is the limit for a man without PEDs. I also believe Jim Ryun could have run that fast if he were a runner in his prime today.
If there were an absolute human limit, there is no way any past or present athlete is anywhere close to it.
blitzplay wrote:
The human limit is a paradox. There has to be a limit but if someone runs a time that is considered to be the limit. What's to say another runner can't run a hundredth of a second faster.
The probability that someone actually runs the limit is (practically) zero. Too many factors are involved. The human being with all the best properties definitely never even will be born.
But still your point is understandable. But this is just not true. You can extrapolate your argument and you will get the point when some athlete runs the distance in 0 seconds.
But at the moment surely we are far away from the limit (which never actually will be reached). But we are even far from the time that actually might be reached. Why should we have reached the limit now? Why not in 1964? Or in 1974? ... Or in 2004? Because the record stays since 15 years now? No argument.
The limit might be somewhere around 3:30 (+-few seconds).
John Brodie wrote:
I reckon a freaky american basketball player type will take up running and run a sub 3 mile.
When you are 3ft taller than your opponents you really only have to work on getting your 20ft stride going.
On the flip side, I don't see any midget breaking the 5min mile barrier anytime soon.
It's kind of sad how unintelligible this is.
4:01. No one will ever break 4:00.
Someone has already run a 3:30 downhill, or something like that. I think it was Mike Boit of Kenya.
It is an interesting discussion. Looking through a darwinian perspective, if someday we reach to a point where running a middle distance very fast generates a natural advantage, then human beings will run much faster than 3:43. Otherwise breaking 3:40 should be as hard as breaking 2h for the marathon.
rfmaioral wrote:
Someone has already run a 3:30 downhill, or something like that. I think it was Mike Boit of Kenya.
It is an interesting discussion. Looking through a darwinian perspective, if someday we reach to a point where running a middle distance very fast generates a natural advantage, then human beings will run much faster than 3:43. Otherwise breaking 3:40 should be as hard as breaking 2h for the marathon.
The opposite is happening.
People that would have been weeded out by natural selection are now surviving and passing on their genes.
fan of US distance running wrote:
rfmaioral wrote:Someone has already run a 3:30 downhill, or something like that. I think it was Mike Boit of Kenya.
It is an interesting discussion. Looking through a darwinian perspective, if someday we reach to a point where running a middle distance very fast generates a natural advantage, then human beings will run much faster than 3:43. Otherwise breaking 3:40 should be as hard as breaking 2h for the marathon.
The opposite is happening.
People that would have been weeded out by natural selection are now surviving and passing on their genes.
Is this post for real?
How should they have been weeded out by natural selection? If they reproduce. They are part of natural selection.
Bad Wigins wrote:There is still plenty of 1500 record-chasing, 3:27's and 3:28's, equivalent to 3:45's and 3:46's.
Still plenty of record chasing in the 1500?
In the ten seasons since Guerrouj retired, there have only been two 1500m races won in faster than 3:29, with only one individual running faster than 3:28 since 2004.
In those ten seasons, there have been three where no one broke 3:30, including one year where no one ran faster than 3:31.
Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon — that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Spoon boy: There is no spoon.
Neo: There is no spoon?
Spoon boy: Then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.
I feel 1/186,000 of a second is likely closer to the correct answer. It's said that matter is "frozen" light. Well, if you can penetrate the veil and "unfreeze", then 1/186,000 of a second sounds about right.
There is a point at which world records will totally stall out. And then there will be a point in which they are so utterly obliterated by so many that the records will no longer be kept, as we will have evolved.
Sunshiner wrote:
Still plenty of record chasing in the 1500?
In the ten seasons since Guerrouj retired, there have only been two 1500m races won in faster than 3:29, with only one individual running faster than 3:28 since 2004.
there have been zero mile races won in faster than 3:46, let alone faster than 3:45. Only Webb has been within 4 seconds. That's like 1 sub 3:30 in the last 10 years by comparison.
Overall there have been 17 sub 3:30's by many different milers, including several run with a legitimate shot at the WR (Kiprop, Lagat). There have been many more 3:30's and 3:31's where they sent the rabbit out at WR-potential pace and blew up.
Nobody has even remotely considered setting a pace for 3:43. The few big miles are mostly early season. They target sub 3:50 and are happy if they get there. It's not a big deal and it shouldn't be. The mile is, once again, a has-been event.
Kiprop had it to 300m out last year. Yes, the record is in jeopardy.
If you read what previous WR holders have said about their record runs, very few of them reckon they ran close to the perfect race when they set the record. So no previous record holder has considered that his time was anywhere near the ultimate.
Previous greats like Elliott and Pirie spoke about a 3:40 mile as being very achievable in their lifetime. Percy Cerutty argued that with correct technique and training a mile well below 3:40 was possible.
I can,just about accept the argument that there has to be an ultimate level - but I don't think we are anywhere near it at the moment. Perhaps we are waiting for another great coach (Lydiard, Cerutty, Igloi, Gerschler for example)and another great talent (Elliott?) to come along and give the event the kick up the backside it currently needs?
There IS another possibility wrote:
1/186,000th of a second
this. since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light
oscar the grouch wrote:
that article had a good example, that no one will ever run as fast as Usain Bolt's 100m WR 16 times in a row. therefore it has to be slower than 2 minutes, 36 seconds.
How is that a good example? It is an assumption with absolutely nothing to back it up. (Regardless of how likely this is to be true.)