Did Bannister really break four?

If a video captured the starting pistol (the smoke not the sound) and the finish line from the side (to allow checking when the torso crossed the line) then the time could be verified subsequently. I suppose many videos are of the runners starting the race and not the starting pistol.

A discrepancy of 0.6 seconds seems very unlikely unless the timekeepers were very inexperienced, but I don't know if it can be ruled out (it's probably just very unlikely).

Cheeto Benito wrote:

If a video captured the starting pistol (the smoke not the sound) and the finish line from the side (to allow checking when the torso crossed the line) then the time could be verified subsequently. I suppose many videos are of the runners starting the race and not the starting pistol.

A discrepancy of 0.6 seconds seems very unlikely unless the timekeepers were very inexperienced, but I don't know if it can be ruled out (it's probably just very unlikely).

This was a well orchestrated event. It can be ruled out

Four minute mile wrote:

How accurate was hand timing? In the photos of Bannister breaking the 4 minute mile, you see a couple of guys with stopwatches. I'm sure each of their times were different by at least a few hundreds or even tenths of a second. Did they go with the fastest one or average? Human reaction time is around 0.25 seconds, did they add that in too?

Human reaction time at the finish for the guy with the sting would have made the time .25 slower then. Think about it.

Yodasays wrote:

Four minute mile wrote:

How accurate was hand timing? In the photos of Bannister breaking the 4 minute mile, you see a couple of guys with stopwatches. I'm sure each of their times were different by at least a few hundreds or even tenths of a second. Did they go with the fastest one or average? Human reaction time is around 0.25 seconds, did they add that in too?

Human reaction time at the finish for the guy with the sting would have made the time .25 slower then. Think about it.

I want to throw up! What a pile of nonsense being posted...as usual. Please delete this thread...

Cheeto Benito wrote:

If a video captured the starting pistol (the smoke not the sound) and the finish line from the side (to allow checking when the torso crossed the line) then the time could be verified subsequently. I suppose many videos are of the runners starting the race and not the starting pistol.

A discrepancy of 0.6 seconds seems very unlikely unless the timekeepers were very inexperienced, but I don't know if it can be ruled out (it's probably just very unlikely).

Hell, even an inexperienced timer couldn't be that bad. Again, think about sprint times. If hand timing had an error of 0.6 seconds, you'd have all kinds of bizarre things happening in 100m results. You could end up with sprints where the third place guy set a world record and the first finisher recorded the slowest time in the field, all just because of error in the timing.

otter wrote:

Cheeto Benito wrote:

If a video captured the starting pistol (the smoke not the sound) and the finish line from the side (to allow checking when the torso crossed the line) then the time could be verified subsequently. I suppose many videos are of the runners starting the race and not the starting pistol.

A discrepancy of 0.6 seconds seems very unlikely unless the timekeepers were very inexperienced, but I don't know if it can be ruled out (it's probably just very unlikely).

This was a well orchestrated event. It can be ruled out

What I meant is unless there is some reason for a maximum discrepancy it just seems incredibly unlikely rather than impossible. The discrepancy was apparently over 0.4 seconds in the 1952 Olympic 100m final.

0.6 seconds would be pretty bad, but is anyone so consistent they could never be that out no matter how many races they timed?

Maybe the probability is 0.01% or 0.0001%

Don't you think that happens sometimes?

Anyway here is an idea of the accuracy in the 1950s in major events:

In 1952 the Omega Time Recorder was the first to use a quartz clock and print out results, earning the company a prestigious Cross of Merit from the Olympic Committee. Clocks were added to slit cameras for automatic time-stamping, accurate to the 100th of a second.[11] Despite these improvements, the overall system was similar to that used in London in 1948 (the Racend Omega Timer).[12] The average difference between the FAT and manual times for the men's 100 meters was 0.24 seconds, although this ranged from 0.05 seconds to 0.45 seconds. The average difference for the six runners in the 100 meter final was 0.41 seconds, much higher than the average.[13] (the average difference in the women's 100 meters competition was also 0.24 but only 0.22 in the final). In the men's 200 meters, the average difference was 0.21 seconds, and in the men's 400 meters the average difference was 0.16 seconds.

In 1956 the average difference between the FAT and manual times for the men's 100 meters was 0.19 seconds, ranging from -0.05 to 0.34 seconds.[14] In the men's 200 meters, the average difference was 0.16 seconds, and in the men's 400 meters the average difference was 0.11 seconds.

11.^ Perry, Lacy (2004-08-24). "HowStuffWorks "How Olympic Timing Works"". Entertainment.howstuffworks.com. Retrieved 2013-06-10.

12.Jump up ^

dead link]

13.Jump up ^ "Athletics at the 1952 Helsinki Summer Games: Men's 100 metres | Olympics at". Sports-reference.com. Archived from the original on 2013-06-16. Retrieved 2013-06-10.

14.Jump up ^ "Athletics at the 1956 Melbourne Summer Games: Men's 100 metres | Olympics at". Sports-reference.com. Archived from the original on 2013-06-16. Retrieved 2013-06-10.

HRE wrote:

Ron Clarke really thought that Landy was the first to break 4:00 legitimately for the reason you mention, i.e, Bannister had pacers and Landy did not. It was a gray area. It was not uncommon for runners to "help" a prospective record holder get his time even though pace making was forbidden.

GRAY AREA: Actually, John Landy was paced for the first 600 meters of his first (and second overall) sub-4 and WR.