[goodmythical]

>Makes you wonder how much raw human potential has progressed

Surely raw human potential cannot have progressed very much at all in the (at most) two generations represented by the 27 years the record stood.

Granted, the population is significantly higher, so it is more statistically likely that we've produced a genuinely faster human than existed 27 years ago.

I think it's fairly well accepted that most of the records being broken now are down to tech, nutrition, and aids. Springier shoes, mechanical pacers, better 'fuels', deeper understanding of exercise periodization, etc.

Give the old record runner all of the same boosts, the same training, I can't imagine he'd be noticeably slower, perhaps within hundreths, but I'd bet within a tenth or two.

[almost_usual]

There’s a psychological factor. Many people believed it wasn’t humanly possible to do a sub 4 minute mile before Bannister accomplished it.

Once that was done the flood gates opened and many others broke it in the following months. This is the “central governor” theory in endurance sports.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_governor

[Revisional_Sin]

Nah, common misconception.

Progress had been steady for decades, but was interrupted by WW2.

There was one other person who did it a sub 4 minute a month and a half after him, then 3 more people the next year.

It was more down to improvement in training (Bannister was doing interval training, which was a new idea at the time).

[imoverclocked]

Not everybody who can run, runs. Not everybody who runs, runs close to their full potential. Even elite athletes have a life that can “get in the way.” Many who run close to their full potential get injured and set their training back.

[chneu]

I think a lot of it is also more people doing the sports.

We are assuming the old record is "the best a human can do because one person did it best" or some form of that.

There are likely hundreds or thousands of people alive right now who could break this record given the same lifestyle and training.

[Revisional_Sin]

I think OP meant "raw human performance" rather than "raw human potential".

IMO, better training counts as "raw performance". I think that's more interesting than somebody happening to be born with a genetic advantage.