Redmau5 wrote:
I'm old school, so I honestly don't know, but do the wave lights act in the same manner? I mean I'm sure they have an effect, and I'm sure a real person is better, but I have to imagine they make 90% of the difference if you can see the WR right on the floor next to you.
Of course the lightwaves make a huge difference to the efficiency and distribution of effort. Let's look at the 400 splits of Ingebrigtsen in 2 of his recent sub 3:30 races:
Oslo - 55.7, 56.1, 55.1, 41.0 (54.8) = 3:27.95 - about as even as you can get - less than a 1.0sec range in the first 3 laps. If you look at his 100m splits, the eveness is even more apparent: - 13.5, 13.5, 13.5, 14.2, 13.9, 14.1, 14.0, 14.1, 13.6, 13.7, 14.0, 13.8, 13.8, 13.6, 13.6. Only a 0.7secs difference between the fastest and slowest 100m.
Lausanne - 56.1, 55.8, 56.1, 40.7 (54.8) = 3:28.72 - this time there is only a range of 0.3 secs in the first 3 laps.
The wavelights are a big part of the reason why so many fast times and records (world, area and national) are being set this year. The other, of course, is the on-going use of carbon plated spikes, which have had an impact the past 4 seasons now. 3:31's are being regularly run and a sub 3:30 isn't the barrier it once was. Studies have shown that the new spikes improve performance by about 1 - 1.5%, which for a 1500m is about 2 secs. I'd say another second is saved by the light pacing as well.
Thus a 3:30 is more like a 3:33 in old (10 years ago) money, and a 3:27 is more like a 3:29 high/3:30.
As another example, Faith Kipyegon's 4:07 was only possible due to the even laps of 62, 62 and 62; such even pacing is practically unheard of in the history of this event. Of course she is clearly the GOAT for women's 1500m, but she is not 5 secs better than all those (many clearly doped) record holders that came before her.