FireJimTressel.com
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 148
I've been dealing with a lot of high school track recently, and I discovered a phenomenon that fascinates me to no end. It's the progression and limits of world records. This could go for any sport that deals with timed events. We're going to use the 1-mile run in track. The world record is 3:43.13 by Morocco's Hicham El Guerrouj set in 1999.
If Guerrouj ran 3:43.13, I submit that it is realistic for someone to run 3:43.12. If you give me that, I submit it is realistic for someone to run 3:43.11. If you give me that, I submit that it is realistic for someone to run 3:43.1. Perhaps you see where I'm going with this.
In 1954, Roger Bannister ran the first sub 4-minute mile when he clocked 3:59.4. So, in the 45 years between Bannister's fete and Guerrouj's standing world record, the time dropped 16.27 seconds. In the mile, that's quite drastic. So now we've established big drops over a period of time are possible. Does this mean we can assume the world record will drop 16 more seconds over the next 45 years? That would leave it at 3:27.
If you know a lot about track, you have a hard time seeing anyone running the mile in 3:27. That's fine, but common sense (as stated above) suggests it has to be possible at some point. If it's possible for someone to run 3:43.13, you must think it's possible for someone to run 3:43.12. Let's skip the argument that it seems downright preposterous for someone to run the mile in 2 minutes flat. We all must agree that it is physically impossible for someone to run the mile in 0 minutes, 0.01 second.
But if you go by the common sense idea that you reasonably can take 0.01 second off every world record time, then it must be possible to get to 0 minutes, 0.01 second at some point.
Now you're going to suggest there is a flaw in that reasoning. That's fine. But if you can't take 0.01 second off every world record and still make it reasonable, where do you draw the line?
At 3:27.85? At 3:27.84? At 3:27.83?
At 3:00.56? At 3:00.55? At 3:00.54?
That right there is the puzzling thing about this whole phenomenon. It seems logical that a human can only take so much time off the world record, but it is illogical to be able to pick an exact time as the lowest limit.
By the time the world record got that low, all of us would be dead. Our children would be dead, and our great grandchildren likely would be dead.
That doesn't make the phenomenon any less fascinating.
Any other thoughts? This is not a trick question or a brain teaser. I have as many questions as you do.
If Guerrouj ran 3:43.13, I submit that it is realistic for someone to run 3:43.12. If you give me that, I submit it is realistic for someone to run 3:43.11. If you give me that, I submit that it is realistic for someone to run 3:43.1. Perhaps you see where I'm going with this.
In 1954, Roger Bannister ran the first sub 4-minute mile when he clocked 3:59.4. So, in the 45 years between Bannister's fete and Guerrouj's standing world record, the time dropped 16.27 seconds. In the mile, that's quite drastic. So now we've established big drops over a period of time are possible. Does this mean we can assume the world record will drop 16 more seconds over the next 45 years? That would leave it at 3:27.
If you know a lot about track, you have a hard time seeing anyone running the mile in 3:27. That's fine, but common sense (as stated above) suggests it has to be possible at some point. If it's possible for someone to run 3:43.13, you must think it's possible for someone to run 3:43.12. Let's skip the argument that it seems downright preposterous for someone to run the mile in 2 minutes flat. We all must agree that it is physically impossible for someone to run the mile in 0 minutes, 0.01 second.
But if you go by the common sense idea that you reasonably can take 0.01 second off every world record time, then it must be possible to get to 0 minutes, 0.01 second at some point.
Now you're going to suggest there is a flaw in that reasoning. That's fine. But if you can't take 0.01 second off every world record and still make it reasonable, where do you draw the line?
At 3:27.85? At 3:27.84? At 3:27.83?
At 3:00.56? At 3:00.55? At 3:00.54?
That right there is the puzzling thing about this whole phenomenon. It seems logical that a human can only take so much time off the world record, but it is illogical to be able to pick an exact time as the lowest limit.
By the time the world record got that low, all of us would be dead. Our children would be dead, and our great grandchildren likely would be dead.
That doesn't make the phenomenon any less fascinating.
Any other thoughts? This is not a trick question or a brain teaser. I have as many questions as you do.