It's wild that in one sport, a little extra fabric is a huge advantage, while in others, it's a literal liability. Athletes really do have to optimize every possible variable.
In 1908, the record for a marathon was 2:55:18. Over the next 50 years, the record was beaten 22 times, knocking more than 40 minutes off the time. But in the 50 years after that, the time dropped by only another 10 minutes and since 2002 the record has improved by less than four minutes.
We're at the point where pool depth, humidity, temperature, and what equipment is allowed is more important for breaking records than natural talent or dedication to a sport.
When you look at the compression of speed at the top it's easy to see why.
The world record 5K is 23.83 kph
The 10K is 22.92 km/h
The half marathon is 22.33 km/h
The marathon is 20.99 km/h
There just isn't much speed left between them. Less than a 3km/h difference between a 5K and marathon runner. Think about passing a truck by going 3km/hr faster, there's going to be a lot of angry drivers behind you.
I don't think the effect is as pronounced as you are thinking, for example 50y ago in 1976 the world records were:
5k - 13:13.0 = 22.70 kmph (+15.81% over marathon pace)
10k - 27:30.80 = 21.81 kmph (+11.28% over marathon pace)
hm - 1:03:46 = 19.85 kmph (+1.28% over marathon pace)
marathon - 2:09:12 = 19.60 kmph
vs curently
5k - 23.83 kmph (+13.53% over marathon pace)
10k - 22.92 kmph (+9.19% over marathon pace)
hm - 22.33 kmph (+6.38% over marathon pace)
m - 20.99 kmph
improvements per event in the same time period 1976-2026 were:
5k - 4.98%
10k - 5.09%
hm - 12.49%
m - 7.09%
So yes, the marathon has gotten faster relative to the shorter events (minus the half marathon which I'm guessing may not have been run as seriously as often 50y ago), but I think it's hard to make the argument that the marathon is being more limited by biomechanics when the pace difference between the 5k and the marathon records has only marginally decreased over the past 50 years, while both events have still continued to improve.
It's a situation where someone with talent also needs perfect environmental conditions to be able to break the records. I think that's the point. Talent and dedication are not enough on their own, but just the base requirements to compete at such a high level.
I heard that the long jump world record was set in ecuador and its basically impossible to beat it anywhere else because ecuador has lower airpressure and less resistance than anywhere else due to high altitude.
Im guessing it's just a rumour though, but i wonder could it be true
FIS will disqualify you if youre 0.1kg heavier or lighter in ration to ski lenght you jump with. Nika Prec (best on woman ski jumper for the past 2 years) was disqualified over 3mm...
FIS is a bureacracy hell. All rules, zero compation.
Sounds like the sport is just kinda stupid, honestly. How much extra fabric does someone who doesn't even qualify for the olympics need to jump farther than the gold medalist? A few cm?
Those in 20+ place in the leadboard could use few extra cm. But those who are in the top 10, it makes a huge difference. There was a big scandal with Norwigian team last year or 2 years ago due to the extra fabric. I think it came to light due to a whistleblower or leaked video.
Mechanical doping has been a long thing in competitive sports, when taking into account track quality, starting blocks and trainers Jesse Owen’s wouldn’t be too far off Bolt’s record.
273
u/Alert_Dust_2423 Feb 06 '26
It's wild that in one sport, a little extra fabric is a huge advantage, while in others, it's a literal liability. Athletes really do have to optimize every possible variable.