My question is, what are they running from?
2 Likes
1 Like
Made better by a lot of science (what to eat, how to train, what devices to train on) over those 70 years, IMO.
Not sure why the previous couple of millennia didnât focus so much energy and time and resources on this extremely critical facet of life: athletics and the watching of others be athletic.
Competitive sports have been around for millennia. Professional athletes existed in both Roman and Aztec civilizations, probably others too. (Roman charioteers and Aztec ball players)
The science has come a long way, certainly.
I guess the Aztecs arenât millennia old, but Romans are.
Itâs an unanswerable question but are world records for the whole of human history, or just since the 19th century? There may have been some super quick hunter gatherers but then when they started farming it went out of fashion.
Athletics were the off-season training for war.
I never heard of someone making a faster Kessel Run than Han Solo did a long time ago.
Given the science and (equally important) technology that goes into breaking world records, I think itâs safe to assume that todayâs records are faster than anyone prior to the 19th century.
Also theyâre only based on performance in certain competitions.
If you run 100 m in 9.57 seconds in your back yard, Usain Bolt will still be the world record holder at 9.58 seconds.
Heck, even if your kid runs the 100 m in 9.57 seconds at the high school state championship, I still donât think it counts. Although that would certainly garner the attention of the national coaches who will want to get your kid into international competitions.
I think someone or lots of ones would check the distance, then the timers.
Yeah, thatâs why I think it can only be at a certain high level competition to even count. What if the starting blocks were out of position by 7 centimeters or the clock started half a second too late? They have to have a high degree of confidence thatâs not the case, hence only certain contests.
In swimming, the second, third, and fourth legs of the relay do not have precise enough start times to count towards world/Olympic records⌠even at the Olympics or World Championships. But the first leg of a swimming relay DOES, so it counts.
Itâs not the precision, itâs that the 2nd + legs can tell when they will start by watching the incoming swimmer. You donât get a similar cue for normal starts.
1 Like
Interestingly, when they do time trials for other sports, such as cycling or downhill skiing, they give a 3 or 5 second countdown. There is a gate or someone holding the competitor during the countdown. This way one can time the start as close to zero as possible.
If they did the countdown for track or swimming sprint events (without the gate/holding but keep disqualification for false start), that would probably give the competitors a 0.15 second advantage. Strictly speaking, you would still be running 100m in the time shown, it would just not include reaction time.
2 Likes
This is similar to 40yd dash times at the NFL combine. The clock begins when the player moves his hand, as opposed to a gun.
1 Like
Speaking of precision and swimming, there are more ties in swimming than in track because swim times are scored to the nearest hundredth instead of the nearest thousandth. This because they determined that the precision requirements on pools allows lane lengths to differ by enough to make a difference in timing of over one thousandth of a second from one lane to another.
2 Likes
I wonder if the precision in the placement of the starting blocks in track is really materially more precise.
You can put the starting block wherever you want. You just need to be physically behind the big white line.
1 Like
concrete curing is the cause from what I recall at prior olympics
1 Like
Dude, they do curling on ice, not concrete.
1 Like
Youâre saying that without any concrete evidence.
2 Likes
My argument has crumbled like cheap concrete