cotton
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 11,216
- Likes
- 9
OK, with the Triple Crown portion of the horse season coming to a close, Barry Bonds tracking down Hank, and Justin Gatlin trying to play football, it occurred to me that there is a disconnect between the development over time of the quality of athletes being produced by both species.
It is apparently the case that human athletes are evolving over time, becoming bigger, faster, stronger, jumping higher, and hitting baseballs and riding bicycles farther and faster. The best measurement for comparison I could think of in measuring this progress is in track and field. Consider that the world record for the 100m has been reached 4 times (including Justin Gatlin's pending result) at 9.77 with each time recorded in 2005 or later. The records for every distance shorter than 10,00m have been set since 1996, and no track and field record is older than 1991 except the 25 and 30k, which were both set in '81 (I looked only at outdoor individual records, but the indoor and relays show a similar bias towards the modern.)
Since world-class athletes have been competing in these events for a very long period of time, it seems to me that the logical conclusion is that human athlets are evolving, becoming better at what they do over generations.
This phenomenon does not seem to have occurred with horses, however. In order to try to get a baseline, I looked at the fastest times run at each of the Triple Crown races to see whether times seemed to get faster through the years, and they are not. The track record for the Kentucky Derby was set in 1973 by Secretariat at 1.59.4. The only other sub-2 minute time in the history of the race was recorded by Monarchos in 2001, third on the list was Northern Dancer at 2 flat in 1964, and 9 of the top 15 times were recorded pre-1980. For the Belmont, Secretariat also set the pace at 2:24, and the only horse with a time in the top 7 from the 00's was Point Given in '01. Louis Quartorze set the record at the Preakness in '96 and is the most modern horse in the top 6 in that race.
Why are people getting faster, but horses aren't? Humans have more modern, improved training methods, but so do our four legged friends; humans benefit from modern medicine--whether sanctioned or outside of the rules of sport--but so do horses. And horses have the added benefit of selective breeding, which in my mind should result in horses evolving as athletes faster than humans, not the other way around.
Have I missed in my analysis somewhere, or does anyone have any theories?
It is apparently the case that human athletes are evolving over time, becoming bigger, faster, stronger, jumping higher, and hitting baseballs and riding bicycles farther and faster. The best measurement for comparison I could think of in measuring this progress is in track and field. Consider that the world record for the 100m has been reached 4 times (including Justin Gatlin's pending result) at 9.77 with each time recorded in 2005 or later. The records for every distance shorter than 10,00m have been set since 1996, and no track and field record is older than 1991 except the 25 and 30k, which were both set in '81 (I looked only at outdoor individual records, but the indoor and relays show a similar bias towards the modern.)
Since world-class athletes have been competing in these events for a very long period of time, it seems to me that the logical conclusion is that human athlets are evolving, becoming better at what they do over generations.
This phenomenon does not seem to have occurred with horses, however. In order to try to get a baseline, I looked at the fastest times run at each of the Triple Crown races to see whether times seemed to get faster through the years, and they are not. The track record for the Kentucky Derby was set in 1973 by Secretariat at 1.59.4. The only other sub-2 minute time in the history of the race was recorded by Monarchos in 2001, third on the list was Northern Dancer at 2 flat in 1964, and 9 of the top 15 times were recorded pre-1980. For the Belmont, Secretariat also set the pace at 2:24, and the only horse with a time in the top 7 from the 00's was Point Given in '01. Louis Quartorze set the record at the Preakness in '96 and is the most modern horse in the top 6 in that race.
Why are people getting faster, but horses aren't? Humans have more modern, improved training methods, but so do our four legged friends; humans benefit from modern medicine--whether sanctioned or outside of the rules of sport--but so do horses. And horses have the added benefit of selective breeding, which in my mind should result in horses evolving as athletes faster than humans, not the other way around.
Have I missed in my analysis somewhere, or does anyone have any theories?
