|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 31, 2013 18:10:39 GMT
I caught this little 'fact' on BBC Radio one earlier today;
'A well trained human is capable of outrunning a horse in a marathon'
Now on the face of things this is absurd, horses are a lot faster than humans after all. But the logic is that (at least as far as modern horse breeds go) horses are bred for speed rather than endurance, and as such simply can't maintain as high a speed over long distances as a human.
This would be supported by the history of Cavalry, which tended to be of the 'use once and wait several hours for the horses to recover' type of unit. Certainly at Waterloo the French and Allied Cavalry got into a fight fairly early in the day and were too worn out to take any further part.
There is a similar myth, although one from the Discworld novels of Terry Pratchet, that a human can outrace a horse over very short distances. This would seem a good addition to the myth above.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by PK on May 31, 2013 19:44:10 GMT
So it's a question of endurance rather than speed, unlike the "car v runner" they just did.
I'd think much would depend on the horse. I admit to being fairly ignorant of horses, but I'd guess that a thoroughbred race horse bred for speed would burn out quickly and would need quite a bit of down time to recover (else risk permanent injury). Whereas a western saddle-horse of the sort a cowboy would use on a cattle drive (and yes, there are still horses bred for such) would last much longer, but move at a slower pace.
On the one hand I'm tempted to give it to the runner on a 26 mile marathon. Shorter, and the horse could do it without stopping. Longer, and the human would have to stop while the rested horse caught up.
On the other, it's possible the horse could walk a bit, trot a bit without wearing out, and thus keep ahead of the runner.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 1, 2013 1:30:16 GMT
I recall hearing about an instance in which a professional runner *did* beat a horse in a race.
What happened was that the horse - who was young and energetic but not fully trained - panicked when the starter pistol was first fired. The few seconds it took for the rider to get the horse back under control were more than enough for the runner to take a commanding lead that the horse was never able to recover from.
Had the horse been older and better trained, then perhaps it would have run at the rider's command rather than initially panicking.
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jun 2, 2013 12:07:59 GMT
Too many variables there.
I'd bet you don't need an Olympic runner to outrun the horse of my niece!
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 2, 2013 13:53:27 GMT
It is an old legend that a reasonably well conditioned human, can, in a chase, ultimately catch a horse through a combination of being able to cut corners, and having more total endurance.
a somewhat related bit - the origin of the term "quarter horse" referred to them being bred and trained to race quarter mile races.
|
|
|
|
Post by tom1b on Jun 2, 2013 18:53:06 GMT
A well trained human is capable of outrunning a normal human in a marathon.
A normal "days ride" is generally considered to be 30-40 miles. Something was/is a 3 day ride, it was/is 90-120 miles away.
A marathon is 26.2 miles, so just about a "days ride". If you're not concerned with the health & welfare of the horse, the horse will almost always win.
The world record pace for a marathon is about 13mph. The Tevis Cup is a 100 mile horse endurance race. The race includes 2 mandatory 1 hour stops. The record pace is about 9mph or 11mph if you subtract the 2 hour mandatory stop. Human 100 mile run: The best time for Western States 100 is just over 15 hours or 6.6mph pace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 2, 2013 19:11:50 GMT
Interesting statistics there Tom. Assuming an Olympic or near Olympic level runner it would seem to indicate that the human *should* be faster than the horse over 26 miles. Of course the horses used in the Tevis Cup are presumably trained for greater endurance. If you were using an 'average' horse you'd presumably see a much lower average speed.
I'd say that was further evidence that the myth has some substance to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 3, 2013 0:57:17 GMT
but the point is when racing the human against the horse, you don't GET to subtract the stops.
|
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Jun 3, 2013 1:47:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Jun 3, 2013 5:13:50 GMT
Well, ponytails post settled that myth. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jun 3, 2013 11:12:55 GMT
but the point is when racing the human against the horse, you don't GET to subtract the stops. The problem is that no human can'T run this far at 13mph even with those stops. So a human pacing himself for 26 miles run is faster than a horse paced for a 100 miles run. Why not letting the human run 100 yards and clock his top speed to argue that a human is a lot faster than the horse at optimum speed to manage 100 miles so you have the "evidence" that the human is ALWAYS faster than a horse. On the other hand, you can look at the Pony Express. The sprint between the stations was around 20 miles so you can compare it with a marathon. The average speed of the mail was about 13mph, too - not counting the many, many stops switching the horses and exchanging mail which must have taken some time, too! |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 3, 2013 13:30:09 GMT
but the point is when racing the human against the horse, you don't GET to subtract the stops. The problem is that no human can'T run this far at 13mph even with those stops. So a human pacing himself for 26 miles run is faster than a horse paced for a 100 miles run. Why not letting the human run 100 yards and clock his top speed to argue that a human is a lot faster than the horse at optimum speed to manage 100 miles so you have the "evidence" that the human is ALWAYS faster than a horse. On the other hand, you can look at the Pony Express. The sprint between the stations was around 20 miles so you can compare it with a marathon. The average speed of the mail was about 13mph, too - not counting the many, many stops switching the horses and exchanging mail which must have taken some time, too! how long does it take to hand a set of saddlebags to someone else? |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jun 3, 2013 16:37:24 GMT
Assuming that all letters go to the same destination, then yes!
And I highly doubt that they had switched horses the same way or how could the same rider travel 80 miles while the horses only do 20?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 3, 2013 18:18:29 GMT
It seems that Pony Express* riders changed their horses at every station on their route - which was every 5-20 miles. So the average speed of a rider would be misleading, since in many places they could probably ride their trusty steed much harder and faster than you could get away with in a marathon.
One thing that is referenced on a link above, but not mentioned on here, is the ground conditions. There will be terrain or conditions in which horses would fare better or worse than a human - especially since on some surfaces pushing a horse too hard could injure it.
(*Aside; The Pony Express was only in operation for 18 months.)
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jun 3, 2013 18:39:28 GMT
It seems that Pony Express* riders changed their horses at every station on their route - which was every 5-20 miles. So the average speed of a rider would be misleading, since in many places they could probably ride their trusty steed much harder and faster than you could get away with in a marathon. One thing that is referenced on a link above, but not mentioned on here, is the ground conditions. There will be terrain or conditions in which horses would fare better or worse than a human - especially since on some surfaces pushing a horse too hard could injure it. (*Aside; The Pony Express was only in operation for 18 months.) The pony express still had a better average speed than a marathon runner so if it wasn't as efficient as it could be … Myth busted  |
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Jun 4, 2013 12:48:55 GMT
Not exactly from the horses mouth, but the rider may do  |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jun 4, 2013 13:53:25 GMT
Not exactly from the horses mouth, but the rider may do Speaking off "made it in under 8 hours". If the rider isn't on time, switching the bags as seen in the previous movie won't work, especially during rainy nights when you can't hear the other rider coming in time. Unless using a telegraph, there must have been buffer times planned in between! |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jun 4, 2013 13:55:02 GMT
And by the way, it's a funny thought that the Pony Express was the "instant messaging" of that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 4, 2013 14:04:57 GMT
Not exactly from the horses mouth, but the rider may do Speaking off "made it in under 8 hours". If the rider isn't on time, switching the bags as seen in the previous movie won't work, especially during rainy nights when you can't hear the other rider coming in time. Unless using a telegraph, there must have been buffer times planned in between! my understanding is if the new rider was not ready to go on schedule, whether the rider coming to meet him was audible or not, he was looking at early retirement. that is why standardized timekeeping became very important around that time period. similarly, if it was just a change of horses, the new horse was standing in the yard saddled when the rider was DUE - not when he showed up. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Jun 4, 2013 15:04:35 GMT
Interesting premise, and I love the link ponytail61 posted and the fact that someone actually put it to the test. Seems that overall, horses are more likely to win, but it's not busted since humans HAVE won as well
|
|
