1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Exercise your brain for a moment

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by FireJimTressel.com, May 7, 2007.

  1. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    You're suggesting a linear progression in the speed at which a mile can be run, when in reality, each tenth of a second shaved off of a mile will become exponentially more difficult that the previous tenth. i.e. going from 3:59.4 to 3:59.3 is MUCH easier than going from 3:43.13 to 3:43.12.

    Therefore, the time in which I mile can be run is likely to decrease over time, but it is not likely to decrease at a linear rate. Logic CAN be used, you just have to use the proper logic.
     
  2. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    Well, if we get apes classified as humans ...
     
  3. ondeadline

    ondeadline Well-Known Member

    Another question: How long before a runner clocks a sub-2-hour marathon?

    The record is the 2-hour, 4-minute, 55-second finish of Paul Tergat at Berlin in 2003 (interestingly, the second-best time in history was Sammy Korir's 2:04:56 in the same race.) Taking nearly five more minutes off the record will take perfect conditions on a flat course when you consider that nobody has touched Tergat's time in the last four years.

    Here's an interesting graph mapping out the progression of the record:

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    By the looks of how that graph flattens towards the end it will be a long damn time.
     
  5. Mayfly

    Mayfly Active Member

    4 minutes in a marathon is like dropping a full minute in the mile. It's nearly impossible once you get to that level of speed. I doubt we'll see that 2 hour barrier broken.
     
  6. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    With genetic enhancing or whatever other medical/pharmaceutical marvels are cooked up in the coming decades, nothing is out of reach.
     
  7. Mayfly

    Mayfly Active Member

    Still, that can increase muscle strength in short bursts (Tim Montgomery). Spread out over a span of 1608 meters or 26.2 miles, it would have to be a hell of a drug.
     
  8. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

  9. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    So will that at some point make "records" insignificant? What if, using that argument, eight runners tie in a dead heat in the 100 meters?
     
  10. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

  11. I think speed and distance are two distinct limits.
    Pole vaulters can improve through technology. Weight tossers can, and have, improve through innovation and refinements in their techniques. (High jumpers have, as well.) But there are finite limits to how fast the human machine can run a distance.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page