Thank you, Nike, for the sub2h Attempt

so is you fer it or agin it?

You're right, who cares what the fun police think. I don't think they'll run 2:00:00 but I want to see how long they can last. Over 30k?

Exactly! Even if they can go sub 2 (which they probably won't) and it's non-eligible for some reason, people will realize that it is possible to do it. After Bannister broke 4, everybody started doing it. Once someone breaks 2, everybody is going to start doing it.

I'd be more on board if they covered the shortest line on the racetrack with a fast mondo surface.

agreed but it would be a great accomplishment to go under 2h02:00. No way under 2h01:00.

BRMarathoner wrote:

Kipchoge has run 2h03'05 in London with horrible pacing (a 28'37 10k and a close to sub2h00 pace from km 40 to the finish line). How much faster could Kipchoge have run in Berlin that day with better pacing?

I stopped reading right there.

You are thanking Nike for a sub-2 attempt and part of you rationale is "Kipchoge might be able to do it if he only paces himself better."

Yes, he went out in 28:37 for 10k in London. What's wrong with that? That's only 2:00:44 pace. According to your logic, we are ready for that. So by your logic, he didn't go out too fast - at least for a sub-2.

And when you factor in the fact that the first 10k of London drops about 100 feet in elevation, his pacing was pretty darn good. A 100 foot drop in elevation is worth about 18 seconds (1.8 seconds for every 10 feet).

So he really ran a 28:55 'effort' which is 2:02 flat pace.

And yet he couldn't handle that.

Why are you comparing a sub-4 mile in the early 1950s to a sub-2 marathon? Really, what do they really have in common?

A bunch of English guys were messing around while as students, decided to train seriously for a couple of month (mind you this was during the amateur era) and broke the barrier. It obviously didn't prove to be as big of a physical limit as was previously thought, considering how many times it was broken moving forward. The 4-min barrier was about people taking the sport seriously.

Fast forward to today, we have groups of more talented East Africans training full-time and running 2:02:57 with as much financial incentive as possible to break WRs. This type of barrier is not going to be one that everybody starts doing, if anybody does. That would be like saying "If David Rudisha breaks 1:40 in the 800m, everyone will start doing it." Or... That WR will be untouched for 18+ years, like MJs 400m (before Rio16) and Hicham's 1500m.

Lastly, I don't think it's that great for the sport right now. The Marathon is a race, it's never been a time trial. All performances have only been recorded as races and we are changing the event at the top level to be a "perfect scenario" time trial. Even this spring, we don't get to see Bekele vs Kipchoge at London (and a WR attempt). What's the point the Marathon if it's not a race anymore?

Read again, even if you will stop at the part you've mentioned, because before that I made it very clear that "Though I am confident that we will not see the sub 2h, I do believe that we are close enough to justify the attempt". So "you are thanking Nike because Kipchoge might be able to do it if he only paces himself better" must be your conclusion and not mine's.You ask what was the problem of Kipchoge 2h03'05". Simply put, he ran roughly 90s faster than anyone else has ever run in London with not optimal paces. My point is, that 2h03 Kipchoge of London splitting 29'00 - 29'10 in Berlin could have run under 2h02'30. My guess is he has the ability to run a 2h02'15". Look at the way he finished, running close to sub 2h pace for the last 1.5 miles. And what if Kipchoge is now better than he was last year? You really think it would be that crazy to see Kipchoge running a 2h01'50? I honestly believe that is in the realms of reality.So there's at least two scenarios in which the Nike sub2 attempt would be very interesting and exciting to see and I can't understand why there's so much criticism in what should be one of the most amazing moments in marathon history. Yes, a big marketing move but still exciting. I don't mind seeing them making millions if they bring something exciting that highlights running in the world. The two very exciting scenarios (that have at least reasonable chances to happen) would be:a) Kipchoge splits something like 61'00 for the Half Marathon and finishes the race in a new fastest time ever recorded for the Marathon (quite possibly under 2h02'30 and maybe a dip under 2h02). Depending on the variables (wind in the tunnel, crazy shoes and whatsoever I believe he could go even faster than that, but i hope Nike doesn't go that far to discredit the race).b) Kipchoge goes as long as he can @ sub 2h pace. Yes he would probably DNF or finish 2h06+, but for how long he could endure the sub 2h pace? My guess is that he could go over 30k and set new WR for the 25k and 30k on the way. I don't see him going for much longer than 30k, but so what? Running over 30k under sub 2h pace wouldn't be exciting enough to watch?Honestly rojo I see your point but i also see enough evidence and scenarios to justify all this buzz created by Nike. I don't understand why there's so much hate involved. Yes they won't break the 2h, but it could be exciting and important for our sport. Is like watching a great movie that you know the ending, but you still want to watch to see the journey.

I understand your points but I disagree. They have a lot in common. The fact that we know a lot more about training today, more money is involved and so on only works on a retrospective approach. Back in 1940s and 1950s i guarantee you there were coaches and scientists claiming that we knew enough about training; there were physiologists claiming the sub 4 min mile was impossible, or that we had tried for long enough and should get back to 'real racing' and not time trials. Very similar scenarios. As I said, I don't think the sub 2h will happen now, it is a process just as the sub 4 min mile was. 10-15 years before Bannister the Swedish were already making serious attempts to that. My guess is that in 10-15 years the sub 2h Marathon will be much more real than today and for that to happen, this attempt made by Nike is an important step. Honestly I would also prefer to see a real battle between Bekele and Kipchoge than this sub 2h, but I can understand the reasons for Nike spending so much money on that and I think that also can be exciting. In the history of running there has always been 'real races' and WR attempts and I don't see the problem of the Marathon being like that as well. They can be exciting in their own ways. WC and Olympics will always be there for 'real races' and eventually big Marathons will see in these "WR attempts" an opportunity to start branding themselves as "real races". We have a lot of those every year already.

I like the OP's reasoning.

I totally agree with the OP, Nike is making America great again!

Amerikano wrote:

Why are you comparing a sub-4 mile in the early 1950s to a sub-2 marathon? Really, what do they really have in common?

A bunch of English guys were messing around while as students, decided to train seriously for a couple of month (mind you this was during the amateur era) and broke the barrier. It obviously didn't prove to be as big of a physical limit as was previously thought, considering how many times it was broken moving forward. The 4-min barrier was about people taking the sport seriously.

This exactly.

We now have a growing list of high schoolers breaking 4mins.

I also reckon anyone starting new threads are Nike personnel and should be ignored.

These anonymous posters can deny they work for Nike all they like, and bash it all they want, but they're keeping the topic hot.

Likewise if Letsrun are doubters of this project, and disagree with it, don't go posting it on the top of the page.

I think the real reason Nike are planning it in Italy is because the Italians must throw a hell of a pasta party the night before.

Kipchoge and Bekele are competitors to the core. The best strategy for the fastest time would be to let them just race each other. They respect each other enough and will perhaps not try and drop each other with an irrational increase in pace. Thus keeping it sensibly even pacing. Hell what do I know...

It would be great to work for Nike, however I don't. Now being excited about the company leading a sub 2h project with the best marathoner in the world and create a thread to praise the company for doing it after reading critics after critics implies that I work for Nike? I don't care about Nike. If Adidas, New Balance, Brooks, Asics or any company was doing it, this topic would exist anyways.

That's one of the reasons this forum is going downhill. There's an army here full of idiots ready to point fingers to athletes and posters, sharing empty conclusions for the pleasure of discrediting others.

OP, you are correct.

This is good attention for the sport.

Even the critics, like the ones running this site, can't help but to keep commenting on it.

And they will watch it.

And they will report on it.

If it wasn't interesting they would not do that.

agree. F the haters. this will bring attention from outside the running world, best to embrace it.

Amerikano wrote:

The Marathon is a race, it's never been a time trial. All performances have only been recorded as races and we are changing the event at the top level to be a "perfect scenario" time trial. Even this spring, we don't get to see Bekele vs Kipchoge at London (and a WR attempt). What's the point the Marathon if it's not a race anymore?

Did Adidas not just have Wilson Kipsang essentially run a time trial to try to break the WR in Tokyo? Yes it was a regular race and not just one set up for three men to run, but Kipsang essentially just time trialed it up front with a specific goal of running faster than 2:02:57. I don't see anyone freaking out about him running it like that.

What? Tokyo is a WMM race with over 25,000 people, that's how it's supposed to be done. Going to a formula 1 track with a pace car blocking wind with no additional runners is a pure time trial and won't count as a performance.

I can say that this Sub-2 effort is an interesting run and will create buzz through catchy headlines. You won't have me disagree there.

My two points are:

KB vs Eluid Kipchoge was sacrificed this spring for this Sub-2 time trial. Hopefully, they will race at Berlin in the fall.

Having two legends and rivals with equally fast PRs go for the WR was a dream matchup. It sucks that Kipchoge ducked London.

Also, sub-4 and sub-2 do not have as many parallels as people are portraying. For instance, shortly after Sub-4, performances dropped immensely for a long period of time... then boom... We've been stuck at 3:43 and 3:26 for the longest period of time in recorded athletics history. These are similar times in regards to performance in general, so I'd say the limitations of performance are changing too. I will be interested to see what Kipchoge runs, for what it's worth.

Waaaaaaaaaa I don't like Nike waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Salazar made my friend look bad waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I don't want our sport to have money waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I think this idea from Nike is awesome! They are obviously paying Kipchoge and gang very handsomely, since the effort is probably going to take them away from paydays at major races this year around the world.

Being on the big 2.4K track is also a really cool idea. The TV coverage should be excellent - and it would seem fun to go in person, as you could watch them run by every 7+ minutes, and continue watching on a jumbo screen of some sort when they are out of view.

Imagine the publicity that would occur if this happens: Rupp runs very fast in Boston, and then joins the Nike group for the sub 2 effort in Italy this December. Then these boards would really freak-out.