[qwerki]

Animations and factoids like this are somewhat deceiving. They imply a message that human runners have improved constantly since 1896 without taking into account the fact that in this period the running surface has continually improved, running shoes have gone through significant incremental improvements, starting blocks have been added and timing equipment have become more accurate.

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.

[kazinator]

The animation is deceiving simply because it doesn't show acceleration. Those starting blocks you mention will have a big impact on the initial acceleration, but ultimately, the data isn't there; we don't know what meter splits any of those medalists ran.

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.

[JoshTriplett]

> The animation is deceiving simply because it doesn't show acceleration. Those starting blocks you mention will have a big impact on the initial acceleration, but ultimately, the data isn't there; we don't know what meter splits any of those medalists ran.

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.

[spikej]

As an example of your point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jas9ff0hdFI

[taneq]

Yeah, it would be great to see something showing split times, so you could see which sprinters are quick off the mark and which ones just have a blisteringly high top end.

[tvural]

Maybe the improvements in the weight of the shoe matter, not just the spikes. Reducing the weight is more than a matter of shaping the shoe - I think most improvements now come from using new materials. The weight is added at an extremity and has to be lifted every time you pull your foot up. I know this makes a noticeable difference for long distances, but I'm not sure about sprints, where you take a much smaller number of much more powerful steps.

[jonmc12]

Was wondering why the 1896 time of 12s was so slow - found this pic of the race - https://www.olympic.org/news/speed-merchant-burke-shines-in-.... Running surface, shoes, starting blocks.. exactly. Today there are 8th graders that can run faster than 12s 100M.

[mehwoot]

The 1896 olympics were very amateur, both in facilities and level of competition, even compared to 4 years later. Many top athletes did not compete.

[ghaff]

I also like the "interesting" experimentation with starting technique.

[TheLarch]

"They imply a message that human runners have improved constantly since 1896"

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.

[onion2k]

The question is whether or not Thomas Burke would have been able to beat Usain Bolt if he'd had access to modern training, diet, technology, etc. We can't know if training or talent accounts for the > 2 seconds difference. It seems reasonable to assume it'd at least be a closer race than the times imply though.

[raverbashing]

> We can't know if training or talent accounts for the > 2 seconds difference

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

[fahadkhan]

I might be missing something here. But Strong Men and Body Builders are distinctly different events.

[Steko]

> see what bodybuilders look like today

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.

[raverbashing]

> Afaik "strong man" =/= bodybuilder

Yes, I wrongly assumed there weren't "exclusive" bodybuilders on 1920 but it seems there are

But you can look at both for comparison

[Steko]

Again it's not a very useful to compare a (not purely athletic) competition in it's infancy a century ago with a sprint which people have been doing for thousands of years.

And again the analogy is poor because modern bodybuilders look radically different for multiple reasons that go beyond simply training, nutrition and knowledge.

[boodm]

Don't avoid the elephant: drugs. Steroid cycles today eclipse Arnold's day by a staggering amount. Hell, most use oil (synthol) to make their muscles symmetrical.

I have no doubt that the same usage (albeit more sophisticated drugs) happens at the Olympics.

[mkagenius]

> We can't know if training or talent accounts for the > 2 seconds difference.

I am sure if I train I would reduce my timing from 17s to 15s.

[onion2k]

If I trained I could reduce my time from 10 to 9. Sadly that's in minutes though.

[usaphp]

There is a huge difference between reducing time from 17 to 15 and from 12 to 10 sec.

[Xcelerate]

> my understanding is that pieces once considered nearly impossible to play are routinely played at music schools now.

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.

[oselhn]

Quality of musical instrument is huge factor too. I play trombone and I improved significantly only by buying new instrument without changing my practice routine. It is just "cheap" amateur instrument.

[TheLarch]

Thanks for pointing that out. I read a Beethoven bio recently and it kept talking about "the quality of musicians available at the time," meaning they were quite inferior. I guess what you're saying is part of that observation.

[dnackoul]

Finally, my first Hacker News comment!

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.

[Someone]

Here are two changes that I would like to see discussed:

- 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)

[scruple]

Timing and timing source accuracy was the first place my mind went to after seeing the animation. I believe that when I ran cross-country and track, decades ago, that the timings were tracked by hand, even at regional and state competitions (in my experience and to my knowledge).

[z3t4]

Also there were not so much money involved, you couldn't make a living as an athlete. It was mostly for upper class who had enough free time to train.

[mattnumbe]

Your post makes me think of that old picture of guys smoking during the Tour De France.

[sschueller]

This video shows and compares some of what has changed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jas9ff0hdFI reply

[sndean]

> 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

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.

[1] http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm

[antognini]

I recently learned that in the early part of the 20th century the runners would dig their own holes to start out of. Sometimes they were even given trowels.

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=...

[lobe]

I still remember doing this in high school. Well, not me, but those who were in the most competitive races would dig up the dirt a bit and use those holes, everyone in the less competitive races would just start upright.

[njharman]

As a species we are inseparable from our technology. They go hand in hand. One does not improve without the other.

[DominikR]

Yes, the material got better, but my opinion is that these are not the main factor for these kinds of improvements in the last century.

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.

[goatlover]

Drugs, then.

[denzil_correa]

> They imply a message that human runners have improved constantly since 1896 without taking into account the fact that in this period the running surface has continually improved, running shoes have gone through significant incremental improvements, starting blocks have been added and timing equipment have become more accurate.

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.