Sub 2 Hour Marathon definitely impossible?

So Tergat could barely walk after his Berlin Marathon. What does that have to do with anything? Perhaps HE can't break 2 hours, but for anyone to put a limit on the marathon of above 2 hours now doesn't seem right. More and more people are born each day. More and more people are running. There will be a genetic freak one of these days that will bust down the marathon time like Geb did to the 5,000 and 10,000, and then it will slowly go down from there even. I think sub 2:00 falls within 50 years.

someone mentioned that the times could be faster if the race were on a track-like surface. Look how much faster the 10K track times are compared to road races.

When is a major marathon race director going to figure out that they should prepare a special mile track for the elite marathoners, get the best pacers, charge pay per view*, and offer the best money awards out there? Seems like the best in the world might be able to knock off two minutes just from the better surface. Then, 20 years from now, someone breaks 2 hours.

*I can't even watch NYC this weekend, and I'm willing to pay! Ridiculous.

pipedream wrote:

fatty at the gym wrote:

So you are convinced Tergat's record will be broken if someone comes along and breaks it? That is deep...

"soon"... given the right conditions... and what will happen then? another flood of runners going past that mark? closer to a 60/60 split in a marathon?

Sorry, that logic might still be too complex for you. Let me simplify:

Paul ran fast.

No one has run faster.

Someone might run faster.

Someone might run faster than that.

Someone might run faster than that.

Someone might run faster than that.

These faster runners will get closer to 2:00.

Once again this brings us back to your long, drawn out point. The record will be broken when someone breaks it, and that person will have a faster time than the previous person who had the record?

The fault with your logic is you keep saying might run faster, then you say they will run closer to 2:00. How can this happen if they don't run faster than Tergat?

Your village called, they want their idiot back....

cant beleive we still think like this after the whole bannister phenomenom (sp?). Maybe not in our lifetime but it will be done eventually.

This reminds me of my chat, over in the coffee room, with the Phys.Ed. profs, at the University I was coaching at...

To keep it short and sweet, this talk took place in the late 1980's, and all these highly degreed dudes, some

in Ex.Phys., were willing to bet that the Marathon record would be sub 2:00 and the Mile Record would be 3:30, by

the Turn of the Century, as in 2000 AD...

I laughed and took the Gentleman's Wager, while saying

those records will never happen... I haven't seen anything

to change my mind...

...the first 10,000 meters under Tergat's world record pace was by Viljo Heino in 1944 (29:35.4). The first 10,000 meters under 2 hour marathon pace was by Pyotr Bolotnikov in 1960 (28:26.34). Given that, perhaps by 2019?

An interesting hypothesis if getting the equivilant advance for the marathon were linerally comparable.

Using your approximate dates-

the 1947 record was 2:25:39

the 1960 record was 2:15:17

So that's 10 minutes in 13 years.

It took 43 years to take off the next 10 minutes - 2:04:55.

But, we only need 5 more minutes to get to 2:00

So how long did 5 minute increments take?

1947 - 2:25:39

1952 - 2:20:43 8 years.

1960 - 2:15:17 8 years.

1967 - 2:09:36 7 years.

???? - 2:04:36 hasn't happened yet, but let's say Geb runs it next year in London- that's 40 years to advance the next 5 minutes.

I'd say we're hitting a wall.

Assuming running is still a sport in the future...

huh?

With world globalization we are approaching the physical genetic limitations of man. Without the introduction of drugs or some kind of mutation of cellular mitochondria that allows humans to burn ATP limitlessly...or a gene that reduces lactic acid as a waste product...or advanced hemoglobin capabilities (you get the point) we will not see a sub 2 hour marathon.

The idea we can keep getting faster and faster is simply not true. Our bodies biomechanically can only go so fast. The next "aid" to help humans drop times in my own opinion will be technology (some kind of energy rebound shoe), genetic engineering or mystery drug.

Or technological advancements in time. Our best hope is that 60 minutes is really 57...

i say lance armstrong will run it

Do you have a source for this "fact"? I would like to see how you experts determine that we are getting close to our limits. Like others have pointed out a lot of people thought that if someone ran under a 4:00 mile they would die but obviously they were wrong. But now the experts are right I guess?There has to be a limit at some point, but how do you know we are approaching it now?

Snoochie Boochie wrote:

With world globalization we are approaching the physical genetic limitations of man.

I still think a 3:30 minute is comparable to a 2:00 marathon. The 4 minute thing is old, and relates to lack of knowledge regarding the sport 50 years ago. But last time I gave my 2 cents, I got change back.....

I think this is a really interesting way of looking at the issue. I haven't done the research, but I wonder how men's and women's differentials stack up in shorter distances. Maybe women CAN maintain a greater proportion of their top speeds moving into a larger distance. Anyone know the 800/mile change or the 5K/10K?

A lot more talented runners, i.e. the East Africans, have access to the sport now than they did 20+ years ago. Do you think we're just going to discover a population that is going to jump in and make the huge contribution that the Africans have to elite running? No. That is his point, that we now have tapped all populations to find those who are most talented in distance running. The Africans were the last frontier.

But, the Africans are still relatively new to the sport so the probability of greater talents coming along than what we've seen so far with Tergat, Geb, Bekele is pretty good. That still doesn't mean that they'll go sub 2:00 though, it's very far away.

I already broke 2 hours on my treadmill.

B_Moen wrote:

I already broke 2 hours on my treadmill.

I was doing a marathon on my treadmill during daylight savings, and finished in just over an hour....

Tadesse wrote:

Is the men's marathon WR weaker than the womens? There is no reason why men should not be able to achieve the same differential. [/quote]

I guess one advantage would be that the leading women can be led by male pacemakers. A male marathoner cannot have a potentially faster runner setting the pace for him.

Or perhaps she didn't run to her potential at the 1/2 marathon.