[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.

[raverbashing]

Yes, drugs play a part as well

[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.