Hammer Record Improvements

[Cottonshirt]

A friend of mine was trying (only half in jest) to besmirch my favourite sport with ill-informed comments that "the biggest improvements in the heavy events have all come from drugs".

I was looking for a way to show him how wrong he was and came up with this table, based on improvements to the world hammer record.

Columns are, from the left: New record, % improvement over old record, new record holder, date.

1. 73.74 3.48 Gyula Zsivotzky 04-Sep-1965[/*:m:5w9uv7z3]
2. 59.57 3.12 Imre Nemeth 04-Sep-1949[/*:m:5w9uv7z3]
3. 83.98 2.67 Sergey Litvinov 04-Jun-1982[/*:m:5w9uv7z3]
4. 86.34 2.61 Yuriy Sedykh 03-Jul-1984[/*:m:5w9uv7z3]
5. 70.33 2.40 Harold Connolly 20-Jun-1960[/*:m:5w9uv7z3]
6. 65.85 2.06 Mikhail Krivonosov 25-Apr-1956[/*:m:5w9uv7z3]
7. 62.36 1.81 Sverre Strandli 05-Sep-1953[/*:m:5w9uv7z3]
8. 68.54 1.81 Harold Connolly 02-Nov-1956[/*:m:5w9uv7z3]
9. 63.34 1.57 Mikhail Krivonosov 29-Aug-1954[/*:m:5w9uv7z3]
10. 61.25 1.51 Sverre Strandli 14-Sep-1952[/*:m:5w9uv7z3]

These are the top ten improvements listed in % order and shows that eight of the ten biggest improvements in the hammer record occurred in a drug-free era when massive improvements were being made to: technique, training methods, footwear, and diet.

I don't, however, have an explanation for why those improvements were, with two obvious exceptions, principally evidenced in the East.

Comments, please,


Martin

[cullman]

More like two out of ten. I believe the so-called drug free era ends about 1953-4.

cman

[mikli]

Not looking at WRs but overall level, the decade of the fastest development in the history of hammer throw was 1950s. Yearly top20 averages improved from 55.92 in 1950 to 64.77 in 1959 (1958 was even slightly better, 64.94).

[imaginative]

I do not know my way around the hammer throw; however, I suspect that the
shot put would provide an easier case for disproving your friend. O'Brien
changed the event entirely through technical improvements, IMO more so than
Fosbury; even Oldfield (who as a known PED user may not be an ideal
example) profitted from being an early user of a new technique.

Notably, the hammer throw could be more prone to see one-time outliers in a
throwers career, which makes looking at the size of a WR improvement
slightly risky, because it is hard to tell what part of the improvement
came from being a superior athlete and what part from just ``hitting'' a
perfect throw.

I suspect, however, that both the shot put and the hammer throw have
changed in character over the years, from requiring explosive and technical
athletes to explosive, technical, and strong (the likes of Ralph Rose
notwithstanding). As a part of that change, the potential benefit of PEDs
is likely to have increased over time.

[Cottonshirt]

I believe the so-called drug free era ends about 1953-4.

I consider two things. 1) Most of (and perhaps all) the PED's had not even been synthesised then. 2) Knowledge of the effects of drugs on athletic performance was at such a pathetic level that there was not even agreement on whether smoking was bad for you or not, and wouldn't be for another twenty years. I put these two together and see them as a counter to your claim. I would put the period when PED's started to become available to the likes of T&F athletes as the late 60's. You would have to come up with some pretty conclusive evidence to convince me that anyone at Mexico was on drugs.

(I'm gonna take my rose-coloured spectacles off for the rest of this post)

Yearly top20 averages improved from 55.92 in 1950 to 64.77 in 1959

These are interesting numbers, thank you. They obviously paint a similar picture, with the improvements coming in an era before drugs. How does the top-20 break down geographically during that era; is it eastern Europeans all the way through as suggested by the previous table, or is it a mix of nationalities. In other words, does depth tell the same picture as the table does for the top?

..both the shot put and the hammer throw have changed in character over the years, from requiring explosive and technical athletes to explosive, technical, and strong (the likes of Ralph Rose notwithstanding).

I'm not sure why you are excluding Rose; there are two possibilities:

1) You are saying he was just explosive and not technical. I would have to agree with you. From photographs of Ralph Rose in action we can see that he had no technique worth speaking of. He is facing the direction of throw, and is simply executing a glide across the circle that ends with a powerful arm. This is not technique, it is brute force. There is no way he could be described as a "technical" athlete. See that official with the umbrella? Rose's main worry would have been that his left foot would slip on the wet grass.

2) You are claiming that he was explosive, technical and strong. I would, for the reasons given above, have to disagree with you on this.

Whether modern throwers are more powerful or more explosive than the likes of Ralph Rose, Jim Mitchell, Wesley Coe, Dennis Horgan et al is a moot point. What they (the modern throwers) are is more aware of the relative importance of those factors in their overall technique; they understand how to use their strength more efficiently. Learning that, and turning their back on the throwing sector to glide across the circle backwards, is really what the first fifty years of the last century were about (for shot putters). But your suggestion that the shot might prove a better example turns out to be a good one, thank you.

1. 21.52 4.06...Randy Matson......08-May-1965[/*:m:n1i3ysbp]
2. 17.40 3.02...Jack Torrance.....05-Aug-1934[/*:m:n1i3ysbp]
3. 20.68 2.38...Dallas Long.......25-Jul-1964[/*:m:n1i3ysbp]
4. 18.42 2.11...Parry O'Brien.....08-May-1954[/*:m:n1i3ysbp]
5. 19.06 1.98...Parry O'Brien.....03-Sep-1956[/*:m:n1i3ysbp]
6. 16.80 1.94...Jack Torrance.....21-Apr-1934[/*:m:n1i3ysbp]
7. 22.62 1.80...Ulf Timmermann....22-Sep-1985[/*:m:n1i3ysbp]
8. 16.48 1.73...John Lyman........21-Apr-1934[/*:m:n1i3ysbp]
9. 19.99 1.63...Bill Nieder.......02-Apr-1960[/*:m:n1i3ysbp]
10. 17.68 1.61...Charles Fonville..17-Apr-1948[/*:m:n1i3ysbp]

...the hammer throw could be more prone to see one-time outliers...

I agree the hammer is prone to outliers, yes; just strike out the word "more". But even accepting your point, why would eastern European hammer throwers see outliers more frequently (or bigger outliers) than western European or American throwers? By suggesting that improvements come from outliers you are essentially saying that they are random, because by definition literally anyone can have an outlier. So why has no Italian hammer thrower ever had an outlier, or a Belgian or French thrower. Why has the world record for the past one hundred years been held by athletes from exactly five countries (counting Germany as one country). Why has no athlete from the Southern Hemisphere ever held the World Record; don't they have random outliers in the Southern Hemisphere? This isn't random increase by outlier, it is intellectual or organisational dominance of an event by those countries that understand the event more and/or are prepared to devote resources to it. The event being prone to outliers doesn't explain why the majority of the big improvements (in the hammer) have come from the East. But I should not be too harsh because you said you did not know your way around; you were just being "imaginative", which is a good thing.




Martin

[imaginative]

Short answers, because I am in a bit of hurry:

Rose: I meant, notwithstanding the fact that Rose was, presumably,
very strong---despite being a thrower fromt he beginning of the century.

Outliers: No, everyone can have an outlier. Let us say that, in the
language of statistics, the hammer-throw has a larger standard
deviation than the shot-put (in my impression sofar; have not crunched
the numbers, though). The best are still more likely to take the WR,
but what contribution to each individual record comes from a high
base-level and what from co-incidence can be unclear. Similarly, the
javelin: Zelezny's WR could easily have been three meters shorter
(just by not hitting it in that one competition), but he would still
have been the indisputable WR holder.

[eldrick]

Knowledge of the effects of drugs on athletic performance was at such a pathetic level that there was not even agreement on whether smoking was bad for you or not, and wouldn't be for another twenty years

that is incorrect

the seminal study in medicine carried out by doll in '50 showed this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll

( it was known in medical circles from then on, but big tobacco had to ridicule it in order to maintain business )

on that basis, i have little doubt scientists & therefore athletes were aware of potential of drugs

[Cottonshirt]

Let us say that, in the language of statistics, the hammer-throw has a larger standard deviation than the shot-put (in my impression so far; have not crunched the numbers, though).

I haven't crunched the numbers either, so let's ssume that you are right. Let's also assume that the next WR holder will come from within 1 standard deviation for all four throwing events. What I think you are saying is that, since SD for the hammer is greater there will be more men in the "zone" in the hammer than in the other three events. And, that one of this greater number of men can have an outlier any day that becomes the new World Record. And, since there are more of them this is more likely to happen in the hammer than in the other events.

Well, assuming that all those assumptions are correct I agree that that would be one reasonable conclusion to draw.

The best are still more likely to take the WR,...

Agreed. High School athletes break World Records very rarely. World class athletes do it slightly more often.

...what contribution to each individual record comes from a high base-level and what from co-incidence can be unclear.

Agreed.

But I still don't get why there aren't any Peruvian, or Spanish or Australian or Italian athletes, or anyone at all from the whole continent of Africa in that zone in the first place. Why are all those guys in that zone, however big it is, eastern Europeans?

(You have made me think, I am going to crunch the numbers on this today and will get back to you.)



Martin

[Powell]

But I still don't get why there aren't any Peruvian, or Spanish or Australian or Italian athletes, or anyone at all from the whole continent of Africa in that zone in the first place. Why are all those guys in that zone, however big it is, eastern Europeans?

How many Peruvians seriously train HT in the first place? For one thing, it's a niche event - not a whole lot of people participate in it and not a whole lot of countries take it seriously. At the same time, it's a highly technical event, which requires a lot of coaching know-how, which only exists in the countries that have a strong tradition in the event. All of which applies (possibly to a slightly lesser extent) to all throwing events.

[Cottonshirt]

eldrick,
I hope I didn't imply that no one knew of it. I'm fairly sure that is not what I said. What I said was that there was not "agreement" on it.

It is in some respects the same as with Darwin; he published his seminal work much longer ago than Sir William Doll but there is still not "agreement" on it in the sense that huge swathes of the population are actually "employed" in the business of trying to convince the rest of us that we are deluded. Teachers have lost their jobs over the issue and there have even been court cases on it!

I value your contribution to the thread, but I am going to stick to what I said with regard to the timing of drugs in T&F.


Thank you.


Martin

[Cottonshirt]

...it's a highly technical event, which requires a lot of coaching know-how, which only exists in the countries that have a strong tradition in the event.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere.

Let's look at where this strong tradition in HT comes from. It originated as an event in the traditional Celtic games seen in both Scotland and Ireland. There were originally a number of variations including throwing various weights for either distance or for height (I saw a competition for throwing a 56lb. weight for height only a few years ago at Braemar). These Celts "exported" their events to America and elsewhere in the 1800's and versions of these games can currently be seen in places as far apart as Australia and Canada.

The list of best throws that I have starts with an Englishman, Adam Wilson, throwing 27.74 in 1828. The World's Best is then attributed to either an Englishman, a Scot, an Irishman or an ex-patriate of one of these three to the United States until in 1913 we get the first official IAAF World Record held by Pat Ryan - an Irish emmigrant to the United States who won eight AAU Championships, won the 1920 Olympic title by what is still the biggest margin ever and his 1913 World Record of 57.77 (189' 6 1/2") stood as an American Record until 1953 (that's an astonishing Forty Years!). Holders up to this point have included Henry Leeke, James Mitchell, Thomas Kiely, John Flanagan, and Matthew McGrath; It's been an Anglo/Scottish/Irish tradition for over a hundred years.

In 1949 Imre Nemeth of Hungary takes the World Record. Strandli briefly takes it back for the West until in 1954 Krivonosov takes the World Record at Bern. Since then, with the exception of Harold Connolly the American winner of the 1956 Olympics and the very brief reign of Reinhard Theimer
of West Germany the World Record has been held by former Soviet block countries ever since.

Breaking the all time top-30 throwers down by country looks like this:

Russia - 11
Germany - 4
Hungary - 4
Belarus - 3
Bulgaria - 1
Finland - 1
France - 1
Japan - 1
Poland - 1
Slovakia - 1
Ukraine - 1
United States - 1

The American throw is twelve years old, the French throw is eight years old, the Japanese is five years old and the Finnish throw is four years old.

So where does this Russian/Hungarian/German tradition in hammer throwing come from? You can't buy tradition, it has to come from somewhere. Someone has to start it and keep it going. Something has to happen a number of years on the trot until people start to think of it as being a "traditional" thing which they then work on perpetuating. So, what happened in Russia or eastern Europe generally to make these folks think that they had inherited the Anglo/Irish/Scottish tradition of throwing a sledge hammer a long way?

I like the bit about coaching know-how; that's a good point. But surely it starts with a specific coach who wants to know more, who wants to be the best and to coach the best. So who is that guy in the Russian tradition, who started it for them and where did he get his know-how from?

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, I'm simply trying to encourage you to expand on it a bit.


Martin

[eldrick]

eldrick,
I hope I didn't imply that no one knew of it. I'm fairly sure that is not what I said. What I said was that there was not "agreement" on it...

the medical profession worldwide was aware of it & were in agreement with it shortly after 1950 - it was the birth of epidemiology

whoever didn't accept it was due to huge advertising by tobacco firms to stop slump in smoking

evolution is a different matter - it has been virtually unequivocally accepted by scientists for well over 100y, but only in last decade have creationists challenged it

as for steroids, they have been around since 1940s - scientists were well aware of their potential back then & any athletes who cared to look into it wouda been as well

[gh]

Not looking at WRs but overall level, the decade of the fastest development in the history of hammer throw was 1950s. Yearly top20 averages improved from 55.92 in 1950 to 64.77 in 1959 (1958 was even slightly better, 64.94).

Undoubtedly (as in the shot and discus) coinciding with use of concrete circles and the techniques they permitted.

[Powell]

Undoubtedly (as in the shot and discus) coinciding with use of concrete circles and the techniques they permitted.

What were the circles made of before that?

[dj]

Not looking at WRs but overall level, the decade of the fastest development in the history of hammer throw was 1950s. Yearly top20 averages improved from 55.92 in 1950 to 64.77 in 1959 (1958 was even slightly better, 64.94).

Undoubtedly (as in the shot and discus) coinciding with use of concrete circles and the techniques they permitted.

Finally!

Concrete circles allowed people who lived in varying weather conditions (i.e, outside of California) a chance to use the same technique virtually all the time. And with a smooth, solid surface comes the overall switch from two turns to three turns with the hammer, the reverse in the discus, and the glide in the shot.

Before that, when throwing off dirt or clay circles, one had to choose whether to wear flats or spikes depending on the weather. Flats allow a smooth foot movement, spikes require hops.

P.S. Melbourne '56 was the first Olympics to use concrete circles.