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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Yes, I wrongly assumed there weren't "exclusive" bodybuilders on 1920 but it seems there are
But you can look at both for comparison
And again the analogy is poor because modern bodybuilders look radically different for multiple reasons that go beyond simply training, nutrition and knowledge.
I have no doubt that the same usage (albeit more sophisticated drugs) happens at the Olympics.
I am sure if I train I would reduce my timing from 17s to 15s.
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.
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.
- 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)
Also, Mexico City's 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.
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=...
https://books.google.com/books?id=k0rCTsicBa8C&pg=PA145&lpg=...
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.
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.