A 2012 woman beats the best man of 1960 in the 100 meters
A swimmer clocked 53 seconds in 2012; the fastest man, 55 in 1960. Technique and equipment explain the leap more than biology does.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
When a 2012 swimmer left the best man of 1960 behind
In 2012, Ranomi Kromowidjojo stopped the clock at 53 seconds over 100 meters. In 1960, the fastest men's time over that distance was 55 seconds. With that pair of figures, any debate about athletic superiority between the sens seems settled in an uncomfortable direction.
The cheese explains nothing
The Dutch swimmer's diet comes up, her consumption of Dutch cheese, as if lactose explained a two-second leap. No. The answer lies elsewhere: swimming technique, turns, low-friction suits, pools with less resistance, quantified training, and a level of professionalization that did not exist in 1960.
Comparing times from different eras is cheating
Some argue the comparison is legitimate because the clock does not lie. Others reply that measuring a swimmer in a cotton suit and one in high-tech gear is not measuring the same thing. The balance, however, tips toward the skeptics: in timed sports, material pogre counts as much as or more than biology.
The figure does not prove that today's women outperform the men of the sixties. It proves that half a century of innovation separates as much as a decade of talent. Anyone looking for battles of the sens should watch the clock of the twenty-first century.
In 2012, Ranomi Kromowidjojo stopped the clock at 53 seconds over 100 meters. In 1960, the fastest men's time over that distance was 55 seconds. With that pair of figures, any debate about athletic superiority between the sens seems settled in an uncomfortable direction.
The cheese explains nothing
The Dutch swimmer's diet comes up, her consumption of Dutch cheese, as if lactose explained a two-second leap. No. The answer lies elsewhere: swimming technique, turns, low-friction suits, pools with less resistance, quantified training, and a level of professionalization that did not exist in 1960.
Comparing times from different eras is cheating
Some argue the comparison is legitimate because the clock does not lie. Others reply that measuring a swimmer in a cotton suit and one in high-tech gear is not measuring the same thing. The balance, however, tips toward the skeptics: in timed sports, material pogre counts as much as or more than biology.
The figure does not prove that today's women outperform the men of the sixties. It proves that half a century of innovation separates as much as a decade of talent. Anyone looking for battles of the sens should watch the clock of the twenty-first century.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (28 replies).
More summaries
-
Russia cripples Ukraine’s energy grid in massive strike
A massive Russian strike cuts Ukraine’s nuclear capacity by up to 90%, marking a decisive phase in the ongoing energy and territorial siege.
-
Trump says it's time for Ukraine to have a new president
Trump declares that "it's time for Ukraine to have a new president." The forum discusses a possible forced peace before the November elections.
-
USS Abraham Lincoln leaves the Middle East conflict zone amid sanitation failure rumors
The USS Lincoln carrier has left the Middle East amid rumors of plumbing problems and possible casualties. Strategic withdrawal or technical failure?
-
Why the US crushed Iraq so easily but struggles against Iran
An analysis of why the United States defeated Iraq in weeks but cannot subdue Iran: opposing military doctrines, the decline of the superpower and internal cohesion.
-
Iranian fast boats fire on tanker in Strait of Hormuz, closing it to traffic again
Iranian fast boats attack a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Analysis of the tactic, Iran's internal contradictions and the impact on oil.
-
Not 1939 but 1914: the parallel nobody wants to see
We analyse why the 1914 comparison fits better than 1939: inflation, debt, military dependence and three generations with no memory of total war.