5 ms·

Animations and factoids like this are somewhat deceiving. They imply a message that human runners have improved constantly since 1896 without taking into accoun

by qwerki 10y ago

Animations and factoids like this are somewhat deceiving. They imply a message that human runners have improved constantly since 1896 without taking into account the fact that in this period the running surface has continually improved, running shoes have gone through significant incremental improvements, starting blocks have been added and timing equipment have become more accurate. As an example, everyone heralds Jim Hines for breaking 10 seconds in 1968 but not many acknowledge the fact that the Mexico 1968 was the first Olympic Games to use the Tartan track surface in athletics instead of what was essentially hardened sand.

sndean 10y ago
> everyone heralds Jim Hines for breaking 10 seconds in 1968 but not many acknowledge the fact that the Mexico 1968 was the first Olympic Games to use the Tartan track surface Also, Mexico City's thin air: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/05/running-on-thin-air/ http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/05/running-on-thin-air... Bob Beamon set his insane long jump record there as well. Edit: But looking at the all-time list [1], Jim Hines' run is still pretty impressive, surrounded by times run some ~50 years later. [1] http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm
jonmc12 10y ago
Was wondering why the 1896 time of 12s was so slow - found this pic of the race - https://www.olympic.org/news/speed-merchant-burke-shines-in-the-sprint https://www.olympic.org/news/speed-merchant-burke-shines-in-.... Running surface, shoes, starting blocks.. exactly. Today there are 8th graders that can run faster than 12s 100M.
- ghaff 10y ago
  I also like the "interesting" experimentation with starting technique.
- mehwoot 10y ago
  The 1896 olympics were very amateur, both in facilities and level of competition, even compared to 4 years later. Many top athletes did not compete.
antognini 10y ago
I recently learned that in the early part of the 20th century the runners would dig their own holes to start out of. Sometimes they were even given trowels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starting_blocks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starting_blocks I wasn't sure if I could believe Wikipedia because it sounded a little crazy, but it's at least in a couple of books, too: https://books.google.com/books?id=Mn7mCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=track+and+field+100+m+sprint+trowel&source=bl&ots=OQUEzhVt8m&sig=xgIrss_iozXOUu-bEmWMSed2z_E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNvqeAkMrOAhXHeCYKHV2-DP0Q6AEISjAH#v=onepage&q=track%20and%20field%20100%20m%20sprint%20trowel&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=Mn7mCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&lpg=... https://books.google.com/books?id=k0rCTsicBa8C&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=track+and+field+100+m+sprint+trowel&source=bl&ots=3tmmsSvwPE&sig=08pgFbSN4R-Qc5gi911U00kH-ho&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNvqeAkMrOAhXHeCYKHV2-DP0Q6AEIVDAJ#v=onepage&q=track%20and%20field%20100%20m%20sprint%20trowel&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=k0rCTsicBa8C&pg=PA145&lpg=...
- lobe 10y ago
  I still remember doing this in high school. Well, not me, but those who were in the most competitive races would dig up the dirt a bit and use those holes, everyone in the less competitive races would just start upright.
kazinator 10y ago
The animation is deceiving simply because it doesn't show acceleration. Those starting blocks you mention will have a big impact on the initial acceleration, but ultimately, the data isn't there; we don't know what meter splits any of those medalists ran. Regarding running shoes though, there really are no "running shoes" to speak of in sprinting. I doubt that changes in sprinting spikes have made any difference in many decades. There are only so many ways to make a toe spike plate with a negligible heel, sewn up into a room slipper. I'm going to google for images and surrounding info about historic sprinting spikes now. [...] Hmm, one obvious difference is that the pre-1960's spikes were looong due to the track surfaces before tartan. Those nails look like what is used for cross-country today, wow. They would not even be allowed on a modern track.
- taneq 10y ago
  Yeah, it would be great to see something showing split times, so you could see which sprinters are quick off the mark and which ones just have a blisteringly high top end.
- tvural 10y ago
  Maybe the improvements in the weight of the shoe matter, not just the spikes. Reducing the weight is more than a matter of shaping the shoe - I think most improvements now come from using new materials. The weight is added at an extremity and has to be lifted every time you pull your foot up. I know this makes a noticeable difference for long distances, but I'm not sure about sprints, where you take a much smaller number of much more powerful steps.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > The animation is deceiving simply because it doesn't show acceleration. Those starting blocks you mention will have a big impact on the initial acceleration, but ultimately, the data isn't there; we don't know what meter splits any of those medalists ran. For any Olympic races held after the availability of video recording, you could get a reasonable approximation of split times, with careful review of the video and timer. Not with the same degree of precision as the race timers themselves, but with enough precision to compare acceleration.
- 10y ago
TheLarch 10y ago
"They imply a message that human runners have improved constantly since 1896" But they have! World population increased from one billion to 7.4. Also I imagine that the proportion of people who have the opportunity to train for the Olympics has increased. Already you'd expect a vastly improved pool of talent. Additionally though diet and training techniques have improved steadily. Do you really think Bolt couldn't beat Thomas Burke (12s 100m 1896)? The same effect is apparent among classical musicians. I can't figure out how to Google this, but my understanding is that pieces once considered nearly impossible to play are routinely played at music schools now.
- Xcelerate 10y ago
  > my understanding is that pieces once considered nearly impossible to play are routinely played at music schools now. Yeah, but there's a few Alkan pieces I have yet to see a proper rendition of. Liszt even stated that Alkan "had the finest technique of any pianist" known to him, so I imagine he could in fact play them correctly.
- onion2k 10y ago
  The question is whether or not Thomas Burke would have been able to beat Usain Bolt if he'd had access to modern training, diet, technology, etc. We can't know if training or talent accounts for the > 2 seconds difference. It seems reasonable to assume it'd at least be a closer race than the times imply though.
  - mkagenius 10y ago
    > We can't know if training or talent accounts for the > 2 seconds difference. I am sure if I train I would reduce my timing from 17s to 15s.
    - onion2k 10y ago
      If I trained I could reduce my time from 10 to 9. Sadly that's in minutes though.
    - 10y ago
dnackoul 10y ago
Finally, my first Hacker News comment! In addition to equipment and rules changes, training and nutritional techniques have evolved quite a bit over the last century. NFL players, for example, used to smoke cigarettes at half time. All things equal, the modern athletes probably are better. This is a really great topic and we have some relevant experience on our team. I'll see if I can rope one of them into giving a deeper answer or putting up a blog post.
- mattnumbe 10y ago
  Your post makes me think of that old picture of guys smoking during the Tour De France.
- Someone 10y ago
  Here are two changes that I would like to see discussed: - timing method (hand-clocked times apparently were a tiny bit faster) - elasticity of the running surface (if you wonder why they added lanes to the track but kept six sprinters in each race: you go faster on an inelastic surface, but running on it is less comfortable, to the extent that doing a 5k run is too painful. So, the innermost lane is softer)
  - scruple 10y ago
    Timing and timing source accuracy was the first place my mind went to after seeing the animation. I believe that when I ran cross-country and track, decades ago, that the timings were tracked by hand, even at regional and state competitions (in my experience and to my knowledge).
- z3t4 10y ago
  Also there were not so much money involved, you couldn't make a living as an athlete. It was mostly for upper class who had enough free time to train.
njharman 10y ago
As a species we are inseparable from our technology. They go hand in hand. One does not improve without the other.
sschueller 10y ago
This video shows and compares some of what has changed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jas9ff0hdFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jas9ff0hdFI reply
denzil_correa 10y ago
> They imply a message that human runners have improved constantly since 1896 without taking into account the fact that in this period the running surface has continually improved, running shoes have gone through significant incremental improvements, starting blocks have been added and timing equipment have become more accurate. This is the single most problem of comparing sportsmen across eras - you just can not do it. There are so many variables to model that it leaves with more questions than answers.
DominikR 10y ago
Yes, the material got better, but my opinion is that these are not the main factor for these kinds of improvements in the last century. Athletes competing today at that level basically have a staff of trainers, physicians and nutritionists that help them train better, perfect their movement and eat better. They also in most cases pursue this as a full time career which wasn't so in the old days. As a result the physique of athletes today is very different than those of athletes a 100 years ago. There are also disciplines where material improvements are too insignificant to explain the kind of improved performances we saw in the last decades. Take for example weight lifting. It's hard to argue that better shoes could have been the main contributor to the massive improvements in the last decades.
- goatlover 10y ago
  Drugs, then.

by qwerki 10y ago

sndean 10y ago

> everyone heralds Jim Hines for breaking 10 seconds in 1968 but not many acknowledge the fact that the Mexico 1968 was the first Olympic Games to use the Tartan track surface Also, Mexico City's thin air: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/05/running-on-thin-air/ http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/05/running-on-thin-air... Bob Beamon set his insane long jump record there as well. Edit: But looking at the all-time list [1], Jim Hines' run is still pretty impressive, surrounded by times run some ~50 years later. [1] http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm

jonmc12 10y ago

Was wondering why the 1896 time of 12s was so slow - found this pic of the race - https://www.olympic.org/news/speed-merchant-burke-shines-in-the-sprint https://www.olympic.org/news/speed-merchant-burke-shines-in-.... Running surface, shoes, starting blocks.. exactly. Today there are 8th graders that can run faster than 12s 100M.

ghaff 10y ago
I also like the "interesting" experimentation with starting technique.
mehwoot 10y ago
The 1896 olympics were very amateur, both in facilities and level of competition, even compared to 4 years later. Many top athletes did not compete.

antognini 10y ago

I recently learned that in the early part of the 20th century the runners would dig their own holes to start out of. Sometimes they were even given trowels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starting_blocks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starting_blocks I wasn't sure if I could believe Wikipedia because it sounded a little crazy, but it's at least in a couple of books, too: https://books.google.com/books?id=Mn7mCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=track+and+field+100+m+sprint+trowel&source=bl&ots=OQUEzhVt8m&sig=xgIrss_iozXOUu-bEmWMSed2z_E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNvqeAkMrOAhXHeCYKHV2-DP0Q6AEISjAH#v=onepage&q=track%20and%20field%20100%20m%20sprint%20trowel&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=Mn7mCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&lpg=... https://books.google.com/books?id=k0rCTsicBa8C&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=track+and+field+100+m+sprint+trowel&source=bl&ots=3tmmsSvwPE&sig=08pgFbSN4R-Qc5gi911U00kH-ho&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNvqeAkMrOAhXHeCYKHV2-DP0Q6AEIVDAJ#v=onepage&q=track%20and%20field%20100%20m%20sprint%20trowel&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=k0rCTsicBa8C&pg=PA145&lpg=...

lobe 10y ago
I still remember doing this in high school. Well, not me, but those who were in the most competitive races would dig up the dirt a bit and use those holes, everyone in the less competitive races would just start upright.

kazinator 10y ago

The animation is deceiving simply because it doesn't show acceleration. Those starting blocks you mention will have a big impact on the initial acceleration, but ultimately, the data isn't there; we don't know what meter splits any of those medalists ran. Regarding running shoes though, there really are no "running shoes" to speak of in sprinting. I doubt that changes in sprinting spikes have made any difference in many decades. There are only so many ways to make a toe spike plate with a negligible heel, sewn up into a room slipper. I'm going to google for images and surrounding info about historic sprinting spikes now. [...] Hmm, one obvious difference is that the pre-1960's spikes were looong due to the track surfaces before tartan. Those nails look like what is used for cross-country today, wow. They would not even be allowed on a modern track.

taneq 10y ago
Yeah, it would be great to see something showing split times, so you could see which sprinters are quick off the mark and which ones just have a blisteringly high top end.
tvural 10y ago
Maybe the improvements in the weight of the shoe matter, not just the spikes. Reducing the weight is more than a matter of shaping the shoe - I think most improvements now come from using new materials. The weight is added at an extremity and has to be lifted every time you pull your foot up. I know this makes a noticeable difference for long distances, but I'm not sure about sprints, where you take a much smaller number of much more powerful steps.
JoshTriplett 10y ago
> The animation is deceiving simply because it doesn't show acceleration. Those starting blocks you mention will have a big impact on the initial acceleration, but ultimately, the data isn't there; we don't know what meter splits any of those medalists ran. For any Olympic races held after the availability of video recording, you could get a reasonable approximation of split times, with careful review of the video and timer. Not with the same degree of precision as the race timers themselves, but with enough precision to compare acceleration.
10y ago

TheLarch 10y ago

"They imply a message that human runners have improved constantly since 1896" But they have! World population increased from one billion to 7.4. Also I imagine that the proportion of people who have the opportunity to train for the Olympics has increased. Already you'd expect a vastly improved pool of talent. Additionally though diet and training techniques have improved steadily. Do you really think Bolt couldn't beat Thomas Burke (12s 100m 1896)? The same effect is apparent among classical musicians. I can't figure out how to Google this, but my understanding is that pieces once considered nearly impossible to play are routinely played at music schools now.

Xcelerate 10y ago
> my understanding is that pieces once considered nearly impossible to play are routinely played at music schools now. Yeah, but there's a few Alkan pieces I have yet to see a proper rendition of. Liszt even stated that Alkan "had the finest technique of any pianist" known to him, so I imagine he could in fact play them correctly.
onion2k 10y ago
The question is whether or not Thomas Burke would have been able to beat Usain Bolt if he'd had access to modern training, diet, technology, etc. We can't know if training or talent accounts for the > 2 seconds difference. It seems reasonable to assume it'd at least be a closer race than the times imply though.
- mkagenius 10y ago
  > We can't know if training or talent accounts for the > 2 seconds difference. I am sure if I train I would reduce my timing from 17s to 15s.
  - onion2k 10y ago
    If I trained I could reduce my time from 10 to 9. Sadly that's in minutes though.
  - 10y ago

dnackoul 10y ago

Finally, my first Hacker News comment! In addition to equipment and rules changes, training and nutritional techniques have evolved quite a bit over the last century. NFL players, for example, used to smoke cigarettes at half time. All things equal, the modern athletes probably are better. This is a really great topic and we have some relevant experience on our team. I'll see if I can rope one of them into giving a deeper answer or putting up a blog post.

mattnumbe 10y ago
Your post makes me think of that old picture of guys smoking during the Tour De France.
Someone 10y ago
Here are two changes that I would like to see discussed: - timing method (hand-clocked times apparently were a tiny bit faster) - elasticity of the running surface (if you wonder why they added lanes to the track but kept six sprinters in each race: you go faster on an inelastic surface, but running on it is less comfortable, to the extent that doing a 5k run is too painful. So, the innermost lane is softer)
- scruple 10y ago
  Timing and timing source accuracy was the first place my mind went to after seeing the animation. I believe that when I ran cross-country and track, decades ago, that the timings were tracked by hand, even at regional and state competitions (in my experience and to my knowledge).
z3t4 10y ago
Also there were not so much money involved, you couldn't make a living as an athlete. It was mostly for upper class who had enough free time to train.

njharman 10y ago

As a species we are inseparable from our technology. They go hand in hand. One does not improve without the other.

sschueller 10y ago

This video shows and compares some of what has changed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jas9ff0hdFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jas9ff0hdFI reply

denzil_correa 10y ago

> They imply a message that human runners have improved constantly since 1896 without taking into account the fact that in this period the running surface has continually improved, running shoes have gone through significant incremental improvements, starting blocks have been added and timing equipment have become more accurate. This is the single most problem of comparing sportsmen across eras - you just can not do it. There are so many variables to model that it leaves with more questions than answers.

DominikR 10y ago

Yes, the material got better, but my opinion is that these are not the main factor for these kinds of improvements in the last century. Athletes competing today at that level basically have a staff of trainers, physicians and nutritionists that help them train better, perfect their movement and eat better. They also in most cases pursue this as a full time career which wasn't so in the old days. As a result the physique of athletes today is very different than those of athletes a 100 years ago. There are also disciplines where material improvements are too insignificant to explain the kind of improved performances we saw in the last decades. Take for example weight lifting. It's hard to argue that better shoes could have been the main contributor to the massive improvements in the last decades.

goatlover 10y ago
Drugs, then.