5 ms·
"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
by 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 agoThe 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.
- raverbashing 10y ago> We can't know if training or talent accounts for the > 2 seconds difference Training, nutrition and knowledge of physiology accounts for a lot of this time. Don't think about Bolt, think about the slowest person running in that race (Trayvon Brommel USA 10.08s according to Google, Bolt was 0.25s faster) Another thing to try: search for bodybuilders and "strong man" pictures of the beginning of the 20th century. Then search for "Arnold's generation" then see what bodybuilders look like today. Those guys from the beginning of the century look like (or even worse than) your dedicated amateur gym goer today To be fair Thomas Burke probably needed a day job
- fahadkhan 10y agoI might be missing something here. But Strong Men and Body Builders are distinctly different events.
- Steko 10y ago> see what bodybuilders look like today That's quite a bit more than training, nutrition and knowledge of physiology. > Those guys from the beginning of the century look like (or even worse than) your dedicated amateur gym goer today Afaik "strong man" =/= bodybuilder so just as most weightlifters don't look like bodybuilders the "strongmen" of yore didn't necessarily look like bodybuilders either.
- raverbashing 10y ago> Afaik "strong man" =/= bodybuilder Yes, I wrongly assumed there weren't "exclusive" bodybuilders on 1920 but it seems there are But you can look at both for comparison
- Steko 10y agoAgain it's not a very useful to compare a (not purely athletic) competition in it's infancy a century ago with a sprint which people have been doing for thousands of years. And again the analogy is poor because modern bodybuilders look radically different for multiple reasons that go beyond simply training, nutrition and knowledge.
- oselhn 10y agoQuality of musical instrument is huge factor too. I play trombone and I improved significantly only by buying new instrument without changing my practice routine. It is just "cheap" amateur instrument.
- TheLarch 10y agoThanks for pointing that out. I read a Beethoven bio recently and it kept talking about "the quality of musicians available at the time," meaning they were quite inferior. I guess what you're saying is part of that observation.