4 ms·
Nope, horses are still faster than the fastest human marathon runners, see http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6465 http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6465
by blaze33 11y ago
Nope, horses are still faster than the fastest human marathon runners, see http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6465 http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6465
- meric 11y agoThe humans were within 20% difference of horse times, and these weren't the top human marathon runners. I'd think the use of "competitive" could be loosely allowed.
- beeboop 11y agoIt's really a matter of how long, in time, the race is. Someone in your link even mentions this. The 24 hour record for humans around 180 miles, whereas for horses it's about 100 miles. Pretty huge difference there.
- blaze33 11y agoHa, good point, maybe the horse cannot run for 24h non-stop when that would be possible for a human. Nevertheless if a horse can cover 100 miles in ~6 hours, he still has 18 hours for the remaining 80 miles, so allowing him to rest (which is also pretty common in some human ultra-trails) I'm pretty sure the horse could still beat the human record of 180 miles in 24 hours.