How many World Records of lesser major distances could a sub-2-hour marathoner break?

10k maybe.

Trackbot! VDOT 1:59:30 Marathon

VDOT for 1:59:30 42.195km: 86.5

Equivalent race times based on VDOT:

Marathon: 01:59:18

Half marathon: 00:56:56

15K: 00:39:41

10K: 00:25:55

5K: 00:12:26

3Mi: 00:11:58

2Mi: 00:07:42

3200m: 00:07:39

3K: 00:07:08

1Mi: 00:03:36

1600m: 00:03:35

1500m: 00:03:21

I am a bot. Info:

http://habs.sdf.org/trackbot

Yeah, maybe the 10K, but I'd say they wouldn't break that or anything else.

Moot point because nobody is ever going to run sub-2, barring some new legalized assistance.

It's sort of like asking:

How many world records could a 3:38 miler set?

Interesting question.

With 3:35 1500m,

400            0:53.82

800            1:50.82

1000          2:20.23

1500          3:35.0

1-mile       3:51.50

3000          7:26.13

2-mile        8:00.31

5000          12:43.60

10000        26:22.28

half-mara   57:45.27

marathon   119:30.0

With 3:30 1500m,

400            0:51.98

800            1:47.67

1000          2:16.50

1500          3:30.0

1-mile       3:46.24

3000          7:18.15

2-mile        7:51.97

5000          12:32.81

10000        26:07.61

half-mara   57:30.25

marathon   119:30.0

That last one isn't looking too far from peak Kenenisa Bekele. Maybe a 2 hour marathon isn't as impossible as some people think. We should have convinced Bekele to give it a shot in 2003-2009 or Geb in the late 1990s. Maybe peak Tadesse or Wanjiru could have been close too.

http://timescalculator.appspot.com/

Tadesse? He's no marathoner and that should be readily apparent.

ZerseNo wrote:

Tadesse? He's no marathoner and that should be readily apparent.

Tadesse has preparation/fueling/injury issues in the marathon. He has the ability but just hasn't figured out how to have a successful run yet. It should be readily apparent that a half marathon wr holder should be a threat to the marathon wr.

Or for women...

Trackbot! VDOT 2:14:59 Marathon

VDOT for 2:14:59 42.195km: 75

Equivalent race times based on VDOT:

Marathon: 02:14:51

Half marathon: 01:04:21

15K: 00:44:47

10K: 00:29:13

5K: 00:14:03

3Mi: 00:13:32

2Mi: 00:08:43

3200m: 00:08:40

3K: 00:08:04

1Mi: 00:04:04

1600m: 00:04:03

1500m: 00:03:46

I am a bot. Info:

http://habs.sdf.org/trackbot

Metric Miler wrote:

Well that's obviously nonsense but ok.

Instead of insulting people and showing your selfishness, how about explaining your viewpoint.

calculo wrote:

1"59'30 for M, let's call it same for a track, albeit track is lot quicker as no undulations

a guy that quick for M woud have some serious basic speed as you can't keep mining endurance which is already near limits for men, IMO

the guy woud likely have ~ 51.0 speed at worst

you are a copycat, stats gangsta beat you first

TrackBot! VDOT 3:28 1500m

VDOT for 3:28 1.5km: 82.6

Equivalent race times based on VDOT:

Marathon: 02:04:07

Half marathon: 00:59:14

15K: 00:41:15

10K: 00:26:56

5K: 00:12:56

3Mi: 00:12:27

2Mi: 00:08:01

3200m: 00:07:58

3K: 00:07:25

1Mi: 00:03:45

1600m: 00:03:44

1500m: 00:03:29

I am a bot. Info:

http://habs.sdf.org/trackbot

Metric Miler wrote:

Alright I've been here before with calculo but you'd like to read it obviously:

1. Why would this imaginary athlete have a 400m time of 51 flat. That is so unreasonable for what would be a pure endurance monster.

2. Why would you use the athletes 400m to help predict his 5k/10k ability. That makes no sense, it is about as far away from an accurate metric as you can get in this context. May as well use the athlete's guessed 100m PB.

Your 3rd point doesn't seem very relevant so I'll stick to the first 2.

Why is 51 seconds so unreasonable? Being an endurance monster has to do with the ratio of long times to short times. The actual 400 speed is irrelevant. You can be an endurance monster with 45, 55, or 65 400m speed.

You use 400m to predict 5k/10k because you need times on the extremes to predict times in the middle. This is basic interpolation. Yes, you could use 100m times, but most pro runners do not have any noted 100m times. Their 400m times are much easier to estimate.

good job wrote:

you are a copycat, stats gangsta beat you first

no

his calculator is inaccurate

it's useful but not quite correct

51.00 flat speed is estimated from numerous calculations + canova input

innaccurate calculator :

With 3:30 1500m,

400 0:51.98

800 1:47.67

1000 2:16.50

1500 3:30.0

1-mile 3:46.24

3000 7:18.15

2-mile 7:51.97

5000 12:32.81

10000 26:07.61

half-mara 57:30.25

marathon 119:30.0

gold standard is

3'30.00 / 1"59'30' ->

51.26

1'47.49

2'16.36

7'18.65

12'33.99

26'10.14

57'33.85

the calculator he uses is too slow at shortest distance of 400, gets better around input at 1500 as expected, but too quick at 10k

it's useful but not accurate enough in 400 - M range

the best method to exemplify is to compare my original 51.00 / 1"59'30 posted earlier with what his calculator offers for same...

Haha hi calculo. Third point not relevant hey? ;).

"You can be an endurance monster with 45, 55, or 65 400m speed." No, you can't. There is no 45 second guy that would run a good marathon.

You could not use 100m times. Human physiology makes interpolation across sprint and distance events difficult. We are not easy to predict and model. Nobody has as of yet come up with an algorithm to create a power law that accurately describes a runner from 100m to the marathon. It is not basic interpolation.

Metric Miler wrote:

Haha hi calculo. Third point not relevant hey? ;).

"You can be an endurance monster with 45, 55, or 65 400m speed." No, you can't. There is no 45 second guy that would run a good marathon.

You could not use 100m times. Human physiology makes interpolation across sprint and distance events difficult. We are not easy to predict and model. Nobody has as of yet come up with an algorithm to create a power law that accurately describes a runner from 100m to the marathon. It is not basic interpolation.

It doesn't matter if there is or isn't a 45 second guy that can run a good marathon. You are changing the subject. An endurance monster has to do with the ratio of your times not the absolute times.

The rest of your post is changing the subject and getting off topic. Admit you were wrong then we can change the subject.

"You can be an endurance monster with 45, 55, or 65 400m speed."

This statement is wrong. Admit that and we can move on. 45s 400m speed directly damages the ability of an athlete to be good over long distances.

Your line of thinking where athletes are simply easy to predict math models reminds me awfully of an annoying poster around here...

TrackBot! VDOT 3:35 1500m