10 Seconds or Less...

An interesting entry from Steven D. Levitt of Freakonomics fame, over at the bestselling book's blog (here). Levitt examines the progression and evolution of the 100 metre men's sprint, noting the relatively slow rate of improvement over the past 40+ years.

As Levitt notes:

Last week, the sprinter Usain Bolt ran 100 meters in 9.58 seconds, shattering the existing world record. For his feat, Bolt may just be named athlete of the year.

In some ways, what is more remarkable than Bolt’s feat is how slow the improvement has been in the 100-meter dash.

Back in 1968, Jim Hines became the first person to break the 10-second barrier, finishing the race in 9.95 seconds. In 1991, Carl Lewis got the world record down to 9.86 seconds. In 1999, Maurice Green ran 9.79 seconds. Asafa Powell ran 9.72 in 2008.

Thus, between 1968 and today, the world record time had improved by 3.7 percent, or less than 0.1 percent per year.

This is in spite of the fact that there have surely been technological advances in tracks and shoes, as well as expanding knowledge of weight training and fitness. The world’s population has increased substantially, as have nutrition levels, especially in developing countries.

The biggest puzzle to me is not how remarkable Usain Bolt is, but rather why it’s been so hard to get people to sprint faster.

Given the controversy in swimming and the technological advances "undermining" the integrity of the sport, it's surprising how slowly sprinting has developed by comparison. Advances in footwear, running surfaces, sportswear, training practices and diets haven't created the same progression as in other sports, making Bolt's accomplishments that much more incredible.

Is Bolt testing human potential? Or merely providing a catalyst for further improvement and an indication of things to come?