this writer seems very unknowledgeable about running like there is no difference between a 2:03 and sub 2 hours.
He thinks "nice and sunny" is a positive thing.
The headline really oversells the story.
I am going with the under.
^^^^that should be over as in not going sub2.
i wonder where the over/under has been set at 2 hours?
ladbrokes?
paddypower?
i really want to know.
douglas burke wrote:
i wonder where the over/under has been set at 2 hours?
ladbrokes?
paddypower?
i really want to know.
It hasn't. The guy writing it fabricated that out of thin air. The people setting sports lines are smart and informed. They want people to place wagers. What would the ML be for over 2 hours, -10 000 000 000?
He says he's taking the under, well maybe someone can track him down and bring him to this board for millions in real action.
The odd part is that the website appears reputable, as if this guy might be getting paid to write. It's one thing to have an ignorant writer spouting off about something they know nothing about. Plenty of people do that, but is there no one editing and preventing this from getting published?
I'm sorry but...that was...goodness gracious that article was terrible.
The sub 2h Marathon will be run in Boston in conditions similar to those last year, when it would have been possible already.
On a record eligible course it will be a very very long time.
Yeah okay. They will just easily drop 3 minutes, about 7 seconds per mile. Nope. You will never see it in your lifetime on a certified course. Last year was perfect and they were still 3 minutes away. You think that they are realistically going to do each half 1.5 minutes faster?
Then 1:55, then 1:50, then the first to break 1:30 (each half being run under 45 minutes, then......) My question to you is what drugs are you currently taking?
ever drink a beer wrote:
Yeah okay. They will just easily drop 3 minutes, about 7 seconds per mile. Nope. You will never see it in your lifetime on a certified course. Last year was perfect and they were still 3 minutes away. You think that they are realistically going to do each half 1.5 minutes faster?
Then 1:55, then 1:50, then the first to break 1:30 (each half being run under 45 minutes, then......) My question to you is what drugs are you currently taking?
Then what is the limit? Has it already been reached and nobody will ever set another marathon record?
I bet the technology (drugs) to achieve sub 2 is not too far off.
ever drink a beer wrote:
Last year was perfect and they were still 3 minutes away.
They were three minutes away because they didn't give it a go until late in the race. They were scared to go out in 58 to 59 minutes.
What do you think a Half Marathon could be run in on the first half of the course of Boston on a day like last year? 56min...? Probably, right?
"Regardless of his Olympic standing, Mutai is heading to Boston with a score to settle. The Times noted that he was motivated to train harder after he learned that his record-setting performance in Boston last year wasn't actually a record-setting performance. He'll look to grab headlines again, and the best way for him to do that is by beating the time he posted last year."
A score to settle? He is motivated because his time didn't count for record purposes so he goes back to the same record inelligible course for revenge.
"Add it all up, and the odds are pretty good that Mutai will run the first sub-two-hour marathon ever recorded."
Yeah that adds up.
Yes, bleacher report is definitely a publication to be taken seriously.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/1000-bleacher-report-writers-descend-on-super-bowl,27259/
since when did Bleacher Report move on from writing rather bad college football and college basketball articles and into the sphere of running?
watchout wrote:
since when did Bleacher Report move on from writing rather bad college football and college basketball articles and into the sphere of running?
They had run out of their "50 Most Overrated..." or "40 Worst..." lists so they had to think of something to fill some space. Bleacher Report is by far one of the worst sports sites on the net...there are worse ones of course but they don't take themselves as seriously as the BR people do.
Why not sub 2 hours? Gerry nearly broke 2 hours 40 years ago and he would have if he didn't pass out with a mile to go.
Whynotsub2 wrote:
Why not sub 2 hours? Gerry nearly broke 2 hours 40 years ago and he would have if he didn't pass out with a mile to go.
Absolutely correct!! Poor GL.
But I still think Zachery D. Rymer is clueless.
scared to go out in 58/59? what drugs are you on?
you do know what the record is for the open half, right?
someone asked, what's the limit then? well, why would it be a sub 2?
the dude is right. without drugs, none of us reading this will ever see it.
bleacher report??????? who cares?
dream on guys as only Billy Rodgers, myself and the guy who posted as ever drink a beer have a clue. you guys are really quite silly. Sub 2 hours?
Nutella1 wrote:
The sub 2h Marathon will be run in Boston in conditions similar to those last year, when it would have been possible already.
On a record eligible course it will be a very very long time.
Two words: St George!