Watershed Times

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

When Roger Bannister broke the 4 minute mile in what the 50's it was
thought a physiological limit. Now how many runners can go under four
minutes for the mile? I think it's hundreds per year.

So what's doable but damned hard for other cycling benchmarks --

Could it be said that today the 5:00 pursuit is the physiological
equivalent of the 4:00 mile?
Is there an equivalent watershed for 40km ITT? 52 minutes?
flying 200 in under 10.5 seconds?

However the one minute barrier for the standing one kilometer has been
broken by what, just two guys?

-Rick

"Benchmarks" like your examples just demonstrate that people like round
numbers. Why not the 3:47 mile (way to go, Steve Cram! The world will
forever remember you!)

Notably, the current mile record was set in 1999, which suggests a real
plateau. Who will be first to break the 3:43 mile? Note that this record
has now stood longer than Gunder Hagg's 4:01.3, which stood nearly 9
years before Bannister went sub-4. This long record, right at that
tempting round number, is surely part of the fundamental mystique of the
4-minute mile, especially as it came after a 3-year period where Hagg
and Arne Andersson shared six new mile records. The record fell nearly 5
seconds in that burst.

Apparently the nasty euros are more interested in the 1500m these days,
which is too bad since the mile has such a nice history and a long
sequence of records. The tyranny of round numbers cuts both for and
against the miler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_for_the_mile_run

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

Notably, the current mile record was set in 1999, which suggests a real
plateau.

Plot?

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Notably, the current mile record was set in 1999, which suggests a real
plateau.

Plot?

BTW, the trend in mile record split times is kind of interesting:
there's been a change over time from positive to negative splits.
Whether that has implications for TT pacing, I don't know. There
haven't been many TT's on loop courses, though the 2003 World TT
course is one.

[email hidden] schreef:

Quoted message said:

haven't been many TT's on loop courses

How about track cycling, too short?
In speedskating the splits on the 400m track are positive for 1000
(1:10) and 1500 m (1:45) but often negative for 5 (6:10) and 10 km
(12:50). It is my impression that negative splits come from men more
often than women.

--
E. Dronkert

On Jun 30, 10:21 am, Ewoud Dronkert <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] schreef:

Quoted message said:

haven't been many TT's on loop courses

How about track cycling, too short?
In speedskating the splits on the 400m track are positive for 1000
(1:10) and 1500 m (1:45) but often negative for 5 (6:10) and 10 km
(12:50). It is my impression that negative splits come from men more
often than women.

Well, I just don't have much data on track cycling splits.

It's interesting that you've observed a difference between men and
women -- I've never looked at sex differentials. I do suspect that
there's a trend toward negative splitting, but that's just an
impression based on an extremely limited sample (i.e., published
splits from record-setting times) and it's not always wise to
generalize from what are, by definition, outlier cases.

rechungREMOVETHIS said:

It's interesting that you've observed a difference between men and
women -- I've never looked at sex differentials.

I enjoy being a sex differential connoisseur.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Notably, the current mile record was set in 1999, which suggests a real
plateau.

Plot?

BTW, the trend in mile record split times is kind of interesting:
there's been a change over time from positive to negative splits.
Whether that has implications for TT pacing, I don't know. There
haven't been many TT's on loop courses, though the 2003 World TT
course is one.

Sorry, a little confirmation here. Is a negative split where you run
the latter split faster?

Greg
--
http://ticketmastersucks.org

G.T. schreef:

Quoted message said:

Is a negative split where you run the latter split faster?

Yes. The latter lap, that is.

--
E. Dronkert

Donald Munro said:

rechungREMOVETHIS said:

It's interesting that you've observed a difference between men and
women -- I've never looked at sex differentials.

I enjoy being a sex differential connoisseur.

How do you lube up a sex differential? Do you have a link to a web
site with a pictorial tutorial?

R

RicodJour said:

How do you lube up a sex differential?

Depends on whether you prefer wet or dry lube.

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Notably, the current mile record was set in 1999, which suggests a real
plateau.

Plot?

Dumbasses,

Data from http://www.apulanta.fi/matti/yu/wrprogr_Men.html
Chung Chart here:
http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/running.wrprog.png
(WR time as a fraction normalized to the WR set closest
to 1970, for the 400m to 10000m distances).

Since 1981, new mile records have come infrequently and
been more than a minuscule improvement, which suggests
part of the issue is people not running the mile that often.
On the other hand, the 1500m record is from 1998 as well
(also El-Guerrouj) and in fact the number of new records
since 1999 is small. The current age of the mile record
doesn't yet compare to the 15 and 20 year gaps in the 800m
and 400m records.

The distance events of 1500m and longer (excepting the
mile) saw steady and sharp improvements in the mid-1990s,
which have not continued since 1998/1999 or so.
Possible reasons for this phenomenon are left as an
exercise for the reader.

Ben
RBR Visualization Engineering

On Jul 1, 11:52 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Jun 30, 4:26 am, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Notably, the current mile record was set in 1999, which suggests a real
plateau.

Quoted message said:

Plot?

Dumbasses,

Data fromhttp://www.apulanta.fi/matti/yu/wrprogr_Men.html
Chung Chart here:
http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/running.wrprog.png

Hmmm. I think in order to evaluate any putative plateau, one should
extend a line from the date the last record was set up to today, sort
of like this:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/milerecords.png

Quoted message said:

Since 1981, new mile records have come infrequently and
been more than a minuscule improvement, which suggests
part of the issue is people not running the mile that often.
On the other hand, the 1500m record is from 1998 as well
(also El-Guerrouj) and in fact the number of new records
since 1999 is small.

And on a completely unrelated matter, the IAAF only started testing for
EPO around 2001. They didn't even test for haemocrit levels in the
nineties.

[email hidden] schreef:

Quoted message said:

The distance events of 1500m and longer (excepting the
mile) saw steady and sharp improvements in the mid-1990s,

Yeah, the first feature that stood out.

--
E. Dronkert

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

On Jul 1, 11:52 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Jun 30, 4:26 am, Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Notably, the current mile record was set in 1999, which suggests a real
> plateau.

Quoted message said:

Plot?

Dumbasses,

Data fromhttp://www.apulanta.fi/matti/yu/wrprogr_Men.html
Chung Chart here:
http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/running.wrprog.png

Hmmm. I think in order to evaluate any putative plateau, one should
extend a line from the date the last record was set up to today, sort
of like this:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/milerecords.png

The devil's staircase.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

The devil's staircase.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/bringemon4.png

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

The devil's staircase.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/bringemon4.png

Ain't nothing Dude

The Brits lost 58,000 killed and wounded on the First Day of the Somme
91 years ago almost to the Day

And going on 1.2 Million was the total casualty list for all
combattants in that Fiasco which was just One Engagement in what was
the Biggest Family Fight the World has ever seen.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/somme.htm

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
Nearly all Labour MPs thought Britain was improved by its mix of
races, cultures and religions, and that it was a better place to live
than it was 20 years ago. Meanwhile, only half of Conservative MPs
agreed with the first statement, just 41 per cent with the second.

The most fundamental reason why your vote should be with the BNP

Davey Crockett said:

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

The devil's staircase.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/bringemon4.png

Ain't nothing Dude

The Brits lost 58,000 killed and wounded on the First Day of the Somme
91 years ago almost to the Day

And going on 1.2 Million was the total casualty list for all
combattants in that Fiasco which was just One Engagement in what was
the Biggest Family Fight the World has ever seen.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/somme.htm

With the information explosion, the quantitative tolerance for death has clearly fallen, but the ignorance, stupidity, and egocentrism remain.

Dan Connelly d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m said:

Davey Crockett said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 3, 2:02 am, Michael Press <[email hidden]> wrote:

> The devil's staircase.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/bringemon4.png

Ain't nothing Dude

The Brits lost 58,000 killed and wounded on the First Day of the Somme
91 years ago almost to the Day

And going on 1.2 Million was the total casualty list for all
combattants in that Fiasco which was just One Engagement in what was
the Biggest Family Fight the World has ever seen.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/somme.htm

With the information explosion, the quantitative tolerance for death has clearly fallen, but the ignorance, stupidity, and egocentrism remain.

Unfortunately so

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply

Beavis and Butthead in London

PRIME Minister Gordon Brown has dismissed the latest London bomb scare
as "feeble" and "unlikely to frighten the public".

Mr Brown is understood to be disappointed with MI5's effort,
describing it as "half-assed and transparent".

A source close to Brown said: "The PM wanted to start things off by
scaring the absolute, Holy [censored] out of people.

"A badly driven Merc with a couple of gas bottles in the back does not
cut the mustard.

"We asked for Arabic literature on the passenger seat, a map of
Whitehall with big red crosses on it and a huge controlled explosion
on live television. Someone will be getting their backside kicked for
this."

The source added: "We're trying to introduce ID cards, imprisonment
without trial and further restrictions on what's left of Freedom of
Speech.

"We wouldn't be able to force through new parking regulations on the
back of this pile of [censored] and the BNP will be laughing their asses
off"