As for 1954, the point is that Bannister's mark unleashed a sudden burst of record breaking in such a short period of time that simply attributing it only to changes in training is not adequate. It's obvious that it was a change in mindset where running 4 60 second laps in a row didn't seem so arduous. Any of us who have raced have experienced that type of breakthrough--suddenly a performance that we never thought possible becomes commonplace, even easy. Much of performance improvement comes from mental outlook as much as physical. To be honest, there are many runners today who train as much as Paavo Nurmi, yet can run a minute faster over 10k. And think of all the high school runners who train like Nurmi but with less experience who can break the equivalent of 3:52 for 1500m. That difference cannot be explained solely by training or physical attributes--it's about expectations and how they limit us.
RMc
At 11:16 AM 10/16/2003 -0700, t-and-f-digest wrote:
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:19:14 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Lazy Marathoners Before 2002
I could as easily believe there's widespread drug use by marathoners as the next guy, but does it not seem to you that some of today's really fast 10K runners have moved up to try 42K--and that could explain the fast times? Marathoners of the past were not typically competitive at 10K. (Zatopek was, Shorter was, and others you could name.)
Maybe "enduring speed," the way Coe did in the 800 meters, is an idea that's moving up to marathon running. Plodders (relatively speaking--no slur intended) may be uncompetitive at this point.
Mitch
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:43:48 +0000 From: "alan tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: t-and-f: Lazy Marathoners Before 2002
This is not 1954. HUGE difference in training between now and then. HUGE difference in tracks between now and then. HUGE difference between mindset between now and then.
Alan
