Nike releases some details - Breaking2 marathon course *will* be record-certified, but the race itself will not be record-eligib

At least this means it won't be downhill.

Seems like the race might not be record-eligible though, because they might (?) use pacers that hop in without starting from the beginning.

I think, if they're already going to have an eligible course, they might as well dot the i's and use regular pacers -- that way you'd have the respect of many more marathon fans and the IAAF.

This is a joke.

Why don't you just tell us what you are going to do instead of slowly feeding information to RW drip by drip? I can only think of some sort of spring shoe or running surrounded by a device that blocks the wind, goes at the perfect pace and might be air conditioned.

If they think they are going to come close to the record simply by having pacers jump in and out, they are out of their minds. I've 100% got no problem with them having 1 million pacers trying to rabbit them on the Berlin course but they'd get nowhere near 2.

-Rojo

I changed the title of the thread to make it a bit more descriptive. The initial title was "Nike's Breaking2 marathon course *will* be record-certified, but the race itself may not be record-eligible"

So you added "reverses course" but then said they are releasing info small bits at a time. Did they actually state that the course wouldn't be record certified or was that just speculation?

Nike stated in their release to the press that it would NOT be record eligible.

Nike and their Alternative Facts machine. LOL.

It will heavily and artificially wind-aided. Give them a tailwind of 15 mph and that will shave about 7 seconds per mile.

CycloneAlum wrote:

It will heavily and artificially wind-aided. Give them a tailwind of 15 mph and that will shave about 7 seconds per mile.

Honestly that'd be the only way anyone would even have a chance. We simply aren't there yet. This is like when people first started talking about a 4 minute mile when the WR record was around 4:10. The difference is that now training is much improved and records don't fall that quickly anymore.

Umm. Pace car?

http://www.roadbikereview.com/reviews/woman-sets-world-speed-record-on-bicycle-at-147-mph

http://fredrompelberg.com/EN/world-record

rojo wrote:

I changed the title of the thread to make it a bit more descriptive. The initial title was "Nike's Breaking2 marathon course *will* be record-certified, but the race itself may not be record-eligible"

As the guy who wrote the RW article, let me just clarify that Nike didn't reverse course at all. They said in their initial announcement that the sub-two attempt wouldn't be record-eligible; that's still the case. Some commentators, including Rojo, immediately leapt to the conclusion that this meant the course would be downhill. They were wrong; that was never the plan.

rojo wrote:

This is a joke.

Why don't you just tell us what you are going to do instead of slowly feeding information to RW drip by drip? I can only think of some sort of spring shoe or running surrounded by a device that blocks the wind, goes at the perfect pace and might be air conditioned.

If they think they are going to come close to the record simply by having pacers jump in and out, they are out of their minds. I've 100% got no problem with them having 1 million pacers trying to rabbit them on the Berlin course but they'd get nowhere near 2.

-Rojo

I changed the title of the thread to make it a bit more descriptive. The initial title was "Nike's Breaking2 marathon course *will* be record-certified, but the race itself may not be record-eligible"

Probably won't get you sub 2, but perfect drafting until the end could get you in the vicinity of 2:01:00 flat, if we assume Kipchoge has a race of about 2:02:30-2:03:00 in him on that day.

Honestly get behind a big car or truck and I could see something under 2:01. Under 2 is still a definitely stretch, but I think it's closer than you make it sound under these sorts of conditions.

Over moderation....... wrote:

So you added "reverses course" but then said they are releasing info small bits at a time. Did they actually state that the course wouldn't be record certified or was that just speculation?

According to the WSJ, yes they didd. Check out the December 12th Wall Street Journal Article by Sara Germano.

Sara Germano wrote:

The company says that while the run won’t be world record-eligible on a sanctioned course, the attempt will “show the potential to break it and enable future times to fall.”

Alex Hutchinson - wrote:

rojo wrote:

I changed the title of the thread to make it a bit more descriptive. The initial title was "Nike's Breaking2 marathon course *will* be record-certified, but the race itself may not be record-eligible"

As the guy who wrote the RW article, let me just clarify that Nike didn't reverse course at all. They said in their initial announcement that the sub-two attempt wouldn't be record-eligible; that's still the case. Some commentators, including Rojo, immediately leapt to the conclusion that this meant the course would be downhill. They were wrong; that was never the plan.

I just looked this up. Nike's original didn't say anything about the course.

Sara Germano of the Wall Street Journal then dug into this and reported this, "The company says that while the run won’t be world record-eligible on a sanctioned course, the attempt will “show the potential to break it and enable future times to fall."

Rojo took that and posted this "Nike admits that its sub-2 hr attempt won't come on a legitimate course and won't count for a WR"

No one really disputed his post there but he was leaving out the possibility that the run could be on what would otherwise be a record certifiable course but employ not record certifiable means.

So the course on its own could be "legitimate" but the record attempt "illegitimate".

Nike marketing has a bunch of smart people. They want to get a sub 2 and make it look as legit as possible. A big fan behind the runners, what about a big wind blocker/mechanical pacer right in front off them, Illegal shoes? Who knows what they think people will tolerate.

The Nike people may not even know what they are going to do.

The problem is they have not announced what they are going to do. Thus we are left to split hairs on what Germano wrote.

Meanwhile running purists want to see a legit sub 2 on a legit course and we know that isn't currently close to happening. Hutchinson says it's "a huge relief" that the run will likely be on a course "certified according to IAAF regulations" which he goes on to imply means a course on which a run would be record eligible if they weren't cheating the rules in some other way.

So I think the headline "reverses course" is not accurate. I'm open to suggestions as to what it should be.

Poor logic by Nike.

That dude running 25:43 on the a downhill 10K didn't change perspectives on what was possible for a 10K, neither did Justin Gatlin's 9.45

I didn't see Robert's post.

We're left to split hairs on what Germano wrote and Hutchinson wrote because of Nike's obfuscation.

Hutchinson says the course " will be certified according to IAAF regulations. " and implies that means it will be record eligible (if they actually followed the other rules of the sport).

Germano said it "won’t be world record-eligible on a sanctioned course" which to me technically means it could be on a "sanctioned course" but not "world-record eligible" but most people aren't going to read it that way.

The bigger point to remember is this will not be world-record eligible.

Am I the only one that assumed this would be most above board from the beginning? I assumed they didn't want to used a sanctioned race because they wanted to be able to say "the race is on Saturday morning and conditions will be pretty good but conditions will be perfect thursday evening. I also assume they will have pacers starting at the halfway point. I also assume they will be paced by a specifically designed moped to hold pace exactly to the nearest second. Other than that, I assume everything will be able board. I think their goal is to show that with perfect conditions and perfect pacing, the human body is capable of running sub 2. I'll be severely disappointed if it turns out to be a gimmick.

This is pretty much what I was envisioning too. TBD date/start time to get the most favorable weather conditions. Motorized pacing to get the pace perfect. While technically not legal and therefore not record eligible, it doesn't bend the rules too much. Not sure about pacemakers who start halfway.

Downhill courses, fans, etc. just seem too blatant and I don't think the public would buy it. Personally I'd feel springy shoes would fall into this category as well. But at the end of the day Nike is a shoe company and someone running sub-2 in a shoe would make a lot of people buy them.

wejo wrote:

We're left to split hairs on what Germano wrote and Hutchinson wrote because of Nike's obfuscation.

Hutchinson says the course " will be certified according to IAAF regulations. " and implies that means it will be record eligible (if they actually followed the other rules of the sport).

Weldon, there's no need to split hairs. Here's what I wrote in the article that was linked at the top of this thread:

"That doesn’t mean the overall race will be record-eligible. It won’t be, for reasons that haven’t yet been specified. There are possible disqualifiers ranging from subtle to egregious; the comparison I made in my last update was to Roger Bannister's first four-minute-mile attempt, where the use of lapped pacers rendered the attempt unratifiable. Still, the fact that the course itself is slated to be record-standard is good news."

There's nothing ambiguous at all: the race won't be record-eligible, but the course will be. I gave a specific and obvious example of how that might happen. With all due respect to Germano, who is an excellent reporter, she must have misunderstood the distinction between a record-eligible race and a record-eligible course.

Roger Bannister did not use lapped runners to pace him. Brasher led the pace the first two laps while Chataway hung on behind Bannister and then took the lead until about 1450y when Bannister took over. They never lap any runners. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTXoTnp_5sI

In the article your state: "When I chatted with two of the senior Breaking2 team leaders last week...."

It is curious that you didn't name the actual team leaders. It is a general practice in journalism to name the sources that provide all the information for an article.

Perhaps, Gernamo talked with sources that were actually making those high level decisions.