Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Why are those records so hard to break historically?

08-27-2011 , 03:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
I was once a distance runner. We would take 220 minus age, and try to workout at about 80%-90% of that. The max heart rate couldn't be altered. For elite marathoners, the 220 number could be as high as 240 iirc. Stroke volume is also very important.
Apparently this formula is pretty dated and not very accurate as seen here. It is true that maximum heart rate for athletes can vary from 160-220 for a 20 year old person, so the 240 number I quoted is reasonable, but apparently endurance athletes tend to have lower rates than sprinters, and the difference may not be as important as I was led to believe.

So why was our coach beating on us to achieve a 180 pulse when for all he knew our max could have been 160? What an idiot!

Last edited by BruceZ; 08-27-2011 at 04:03 AM.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-27-2011 , 04:33 AM
If we really think Bolt would break and/or shatter the WR in long jumping doesn't that pretty much answer the question? Or were there potential world record breakers 30 years ago skipping the sport as well?

I mean variance could be a factor, but that seems secondary here.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-27-2011 , 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ortho
I don't think very many people doubt that Usain Bolt could break the long jump record with a year or two of training.
lol
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-27-2011 , 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by masque de Z
Why is long jump one of the hardest records to break through time? Most other sports see significant steady improvements over time including 100m dash very closely related to long jump.

Why do we seem to have a problem with this in particular?


Is close competition the secret? Is it the secret behind all long standing records in sports?


The greatest long jumps in history 20 years ago in 1991. Probably the most intense human limit competition ever witnessed in this sport;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybEs3j_MmrA


The record before in 1968!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEt_Xgg8dzc

It is also tough for women;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YLulaMCHn8



A look at all records in athletics;

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

Seems high jump and pole vault are also very tough ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWde8sMxe1w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTfX_JDank8


However the long jump and high jump are easily reproduced trials (as opposed to long distance records etc that take significant time effort and cannot be tried many times during the lifetime of the athlete). We definitely hit barriers in these dont we? (drugs behind the past records possibly?)
Men's long jump had a very unusual progression. Beamon's jump in '68 was an extraordinary outlier, probably the greatest track and field performance of all time when compared to the state of the competition at the time. It really is inexplicable and he never approached that mark again. Had he continued the WR on a more normal progression, it likely would have been broken many times up to Powell.

The high jump and pole vault records are very difficult to break as well, although some rule changes have had an effect on this. Bubka himself actually pushed some of these rules changes after getting onto the IOC. They have shortened the pegs on which the crossbar sits as well as rounded the top edge of the rubber ends of crossbar that sit on the pegs, making it more difficult for the bar to stay in place when touched by the vaulter. Bubka had longer pegs with square end pieces. Physically, not sure why they haven't been exceeded yet.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-27-2011 , 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Apparently this formula is pretty dated and not very accurate as seen here. It is true that maximum heart rate for athletes can vary from 160-220 for a 20 year old person, so the 240 number I quoted is reasonable, but apparently endurance athletes tend to have lower rates than sprinters, and the difference may not be as important as I was led to believe.

So why was our coach beating on us to achieve a 180 pulse when for all he knew our max could have been 160? What an idiot!
Bruce,

While I wasn't anything special myself beyond a good high school athlete, but I did train race horses on the highest level for 35 years and have monitored heart rates and run a million blood chems on the best of the best and I can confidently say their max heart rate isn't the limiting factor. H+ ion concentration is. It is how they metabolize sugars/fats to produce energy and handle waste products (lactate).

Give a well conditioned race horse 8 oz of NaHC03 about 60 minutes before their performance and you can be sure their mile time will drop by about 1.1 seconds.

I think you will find the ratio of slow twitch to high twitch muscle fibers the key to distance running. There is a reason a preponderance of the elite distance distance runners in the world can trace their ancestry to within a few hundred miles of the Rift Valley (Kenya, Ethiopia)
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-27-2011 , 04:33 PM
The really sick thing is that a slow twitch guy like Gebrselassie can run the last 200m of a 10K in 24s or something absurd.

swinging, how much spiking goes on in horse racing? Probably no one here knows but I wonder how much it goes on in human racing as well...
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-27-2011 , 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginglory
Bruce,

While I wasn't anything special myself beyond a good high school athlete, but I did train race horses on the highest level for 35 years and have monitored heart rates and run a million blood chems on the best of the best and I can confidently say their max heart rate isn't the limiting factor. H+ ion concentration is. It is how they metabolize sugars/fats to produce energy and handle waste products (lactate).

Give a well conditioned race horse 8 oz of NaHC03 about 60 minutes before their performance and you can be sure their mile time will drop by about 1.1 seconds.
Interesting. I heard that Secretariat's heart was like 3 times normal size (literally and figuratively) and that was a big factor to his success. Any truth to that?

EDIT: Confirmed from wiki it was 2.75 times average size.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-27-2011 , 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginglory
I think you will find the ratio of slow twitch to high twitch muscle fibers the key to distance running. There is a reason a preponderance of the elite distance distance runners in the world can trace their ancestry to within a few hundred miles of the Rift Valley (Kenya, Ethiopia)
I actually tried to find out why the best marathoners come from Kenya. I didn't see your reason in the article I read, but there are different theories, including a high interest in the sport among people trying to get out of poverty there, and intense training including high altitude training.

I always felt I was at a big disadvantage in cross-country because the fast guys were always smaller less muscular guys. I was built more like a sprinter.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-27-2011 , 08:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
I think I have a big piece of it: long jump performance is much higher variance than, for comparison, 100 m dash performance. As masque's equation shows, distance is quite sensitive to takeoff speed (which is measured at a single point in time) and angle (same, plus quite hard to control); it's also moderately affected by landing posture, and looking at some clips of great jumpers will show that this seems to be hard to control even for them. (More for shot put than the others, I believe, but I haven't seen numbers on it.)

By contrast, in the 100 m dash no single step controls — time is a function of ten or so seconds of moderately well controlled steps. And this is true for many track and field events. Even some of the the throwing events, which in principle might be as high variance (and perhaps are — I'd like to include them in this comparison), seem to be either for athletes to "groove", as it were.

I think this is the biggest reason that progression of the world record (as opposed to an average of top performances, as shown in the graph above) will be jerkier for long jump than the races and maybe than other track and field events (but see below): it is more likely to be dominated by outlying performances, because the variance from performance to performance is greater.
meh, I think that over the course of an elite long jumper's career peak they do enough jumps in enough major competitions to flatten out the variance. Now if you said the same thing about simply Olympic records than maybe.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-28-2011 , 12:21 AM
What about cricketer Don Bradman's batting average? This image showcases it well:

Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-28-2011 , 03:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CompleteDegen
Beamon's jump in '68 was an extraordinary outlier, probably the greatest track and field performance of all time when compared to the state of the competition at the time. It really is inexplicable and he never approached that mark again.
Yep. He never even jumped 27 feet again, after jumping 29 feet 2 1/2 inches in Mexico City.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-28-2011 , 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
Interesting. I heard that Secretariat's heart was like 3 times normal size (literally and figuratively) and that was a big factor to his success. Any truth to that?

EDIT: Confirmed from wiki it was 2.75 times average size.
Secretariat on necropsy was discovered to have an enormous sized heart. The only people that argue that is the primary factor in athletic performance are the guys trying to sell you devices to measure heart size externally.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-28-2011 , 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceZ
I actually tried to find out why the best marathoners come from Kenya. I didn't see your reason in the article I read, but there are different theories, including a high interest in the sport among people trying to get out of poverty there, and intense training including high altitude training.

I always felt I was at a big disadvantage in cross-country because the fast guys were always smaller less muscular guys. I was built more like a sprinter.
Bruce,

If training at altitude was a factor Mexicans from Mexico City and Nepalese shirpas would be great marathoners, but , on the whole, they are not.

Every competitive distance athlete today works out by the live high / train low philosophy. This is a system that allows the person to sleep in a tent with ~ 15% O2 rather than the normal 21% O2 which simulates being at about 10,000 ft above sea level. This lowering of O2 in the air tricks the human kidney into producing more erythropoeiten (the hormone that stimulates red blood cell production) which increases hematocrit naturally. It is a cute way around the blood doping rules.

Live high /train low is better than living high/ training high because the athlete can do more reps and push harder at sea level, while gaining the physiologic benefits of resting at altitude.

So the Kenyans being excellent because of living at altitude kinda goes out the window.

The reason most great sprinters are descended from West Africans and most great distance runners are from East African stock is because of their differences in striated muscle fiber type composition. This is demonstrable by muscle fiber biopsy and other similar methods:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21760934
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-28-2011 , 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RigMeARiver
The really sick thing is that a slow twitch guy like Gebrselassie can run the last 200m of a 10K in 24s or something absurd.

swinging, how much spiking goes on in horse racing? Probably no one here knows but I wonder how much it goes on in human racing as well...
Almost 100% to some degree. There are a lot of gray areas in the medication rules. Most rules state there cannot be any detectable level of any drug in the horses system when you present him to race and you cannot give a horses anything other than his normal feed stuffs within 24 hours of a race. There is an FDA regulation that says a licensed vet can give a horse anything that is FDA approved in the pharmacopia at his discretion. So these rules collide sometimes.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-28-2011 , 12:55 PM
Sorry, what I was implying by 'spiking' was somehow sneaking a substance into a rival horse that would slow them down.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-28-2011 , 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RigMeARiver
Sorry, what I was implying by 'spiking' was somehow sneaking a substance into a rival horse that would slow them down.
I am not aware of a single instance of this. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but rumors fly on the back stretch of a racetrack and I've never encountered any in 35 years.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-28-2011 , 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginglory
Secretariat on necropsy was discovered to have an enormous sized heart. The only people that argue that is the primary factor in athletic performance are the guys trying to sell you devices to measure heart size externally.
I think David Sklansky would argue, and I would agree, that it is highly improbable that his heart size and his performance are not correlated.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-28-2011 , 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginglory
If training at altitude was a factor Mexicans from Mexico City and Nepalese shirpas would be great marathoners, but , on the whole, they are not.
The article I read said that very thing.

Logically though, it could be a combination of altitude with other factors, like the popularity of the sport in Kenya. Not saying that's true, just that logically this argument by itself, barring the other things you mentioned, has a flaw.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-28-2011 , 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginglory
I am not aware of a single instance of this. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but rumors fly on the back stretch of a racetrack and I've never encountered any in 35 years.
They gave cocaine to a horse to make him overbreathe, hence slow down, on an episode of CSI Miami.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-29-2011 , 07:34 AM
this article talks about kenya's long distance running success (bit about kenya starts about halfway down and continues into subsequent parts): http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/tra...ng-part-1.html
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-29-2011 , 11:53 AM
Any ideas about pole vault record ?
Bubka did 6.14/6.15 (outdoors/indoors) and it looked like he had huge margin on some 6m+ jumps. His potential was probably much higher if he had any competition.
Now polish guy won world championship with 5.90 jump yesterday and it's almost 20 years after Bubka's domination.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-29-2011 , 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by punter11235
Any ideas about pole vault record ?
Bubka did 6.14/6.15 (outdoors/indoors) and it looked like he had huge margin on some 6m+ jumps. His potential was probably much higher if he had any competition.
Now polish guy won world championship with 5.90 jump yesterday and it's almost 20 years after Bubka's domination.
Did you read the thread? Bubka, coincidentally, among others pushed for rules changes that made the pegs on which the bar rests shorter and changed the rubber end pieces over the bar from square to rounded at the top. This will make it more difficult to break his record. Also, Bubka was a badass, so there's that too.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-29-2011 , 11:01 PM
Quote:
among others pushed for rules changes that made the pegs on which the bar rests shorter and changed the rubber end pieces over the bar from square to rounded at the top. This will make it more difficult to break his record
From what I've seen he jumped 6m being 30-40cm over the bar and not close to touching it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMGTiQClVMM

I doubt new rules have anything to do with his records standing that long.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-30-2011 , 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick
I would guess it is because fewer talented athletes are "wasting" their talent on the long jump.

I went to school with an olympic quality triple jumper of that era, and jumping really far took up much of his life.

You will also notice that there haven't been great strides forward in badminton, table tennis or bocce either. Corn hole is just more popular currently.

(It was pretty cool during high school regional track meets when he'd have to take an extra jump because the opposing coaches thought he was cheating somehow and they wanted to watch)
Pretty much this, but I felt like I'd inform you that you're totally wrong about table tennis.

Table tennis isn't popular in America, that's for sure. But it is taken very seriously in China and some European countries. It would be silly to say the game isn't improving each year. But of course, it's not as easy to make an objective measure of this (as it is with long jump). Still I have little doubt that modern players would crush players from an earlier era.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote
08-30-2011 , 11:07 AM
LaVillanie (sp?) cleared 5.80 by maybe 50cms yesterday and has done 6.01 but is horribly inconsistent.
Why are those records so hard to break historically? Quote

      
m