The rampant predictions of Bolt breaking his WRs this summer bring me back to the post-Atlanta days. It wasn't a matter of *if* MJ would lower 19.32s, but rather by how much (and whether or not he would break 19s). Of course, we all know how that turned out.
This led me to a more general question. When someone runs fast, the immediate reaction is that they will run even *faster* the following year. How many sprinters have actually set WRs in the same event in consecutive or non-consecutive years, for *any* reason? Off the top of my head:
100m:
- Powell - no
- Montgomery - no
- Greene - no
- Bailey - no
- Lewis - yes
- Burrell - yes
- B. Johnson - no
- Smith - no
In the 200m, Mennea's 19.72A prevented many sea-level marks from being recognized. But nevertheless, there are many non-WR performances such as Lewis' 19.75 or Marsh's 19.73 that had people thinking "they'll go faster".
Many factors play a part here. Injury, doping, being one-upped by a stronger competitor, and just plain failure to regain one's peak form. When someone sets a WR, does that likely (statistically) indicate their ultimate performance has been achieved?
This led me to a more general question. When someone runs fast, the immediate reaction is that they will run even *faster* the following year. How many sprinters have actually set WRs in the same event in consecutive or non-consecutive years, for *any* reason? Off the top of my head:
100m:
- Powell - no
- Montgomery - no
- Greene - no
- Bailey - no
- Lewis - yes
- Burrell - yes
- B. Johnson - no
- Smith - no
In the 200m, Mennea's 19.72A prevented many sea-level marks from being recognized. But nevertheless, there are many non-WR performances such as Lewis' 19.75 or Marsh's 19.73 that had people thinking "they'll go faster".
Many factors play a part here. Injury, doping, being one-upped by a stronger competitor, and just plain failure to regain one's peak form. When someone sets a WR, does that likely (statistically) indicate their ultimate performance has been achieved?
Comment