Sub 2-hour marathon; why isn't it as big a deal as a sub 4-minute mile?

Johann Gambleputty wrote:

Haile's world record, though impressive, is still miles away from sub-2 hours.

It's not "miles" away. To be precise, it is less than one mile away.

2:03.59 is 3.32% slower than 2:00. 4:01.3 is 0.54% slower than 4:00. One is very close, the other is not.

I'd also like to call into question the idea that scientists thought sub-4 was impossible. Maybe some guy thought that, but there's no way it was a commonly held belief, not when Hagg and Andersson were running 4:01s and having no negative health effects.

It's not "miles" away. To be precise, it is less than one mile away.[/quote]

So who would say he can beat Haile by a mile?

Tom

No really, scientists sais it was physically impossible. Hopefully, no one thinks like that anymore. 2:00 will happen, buthow long? No one really knows- ok, maybe Sammy Wanjiru has a idea.

Seriously, there's some teenager in Kenya who, someday in the near future, will do it.

There was more of a common culture back then and everyone & their brother knew who Bannister was and about the 4 minute mile.

Now everyone is into their own niche. Most people have never heard of Geb or for that matter Hicham El G. Everybody paid attention to the Olympics back then; now people can take it or leave it.

Remember the stories from WWII about how they ferreted out spies by asking them questions about baseball? That would not work now. Many Americans (including me) couldn't tell you who won the world series this year or who plays first base for the Yankees.

It has nothing to do with attention spans. The first reason is that doctors were calling the 4 minute mile physiologically impossible. The second is that we are nowhere close to 2 hours. The third reason is that the mile is a standard unit with all round numbers to break 4 minutes. It's uncanny. Not so in the marathon.

As the others have said it's probably got something to do with the record still being 4 minutes away so the elites have to cut some more time off and get to sub 2:03:30 then sub 2:03:00 and so on. Also it might have something to do with the only ones able to do so, judging by the current marathoning landscape, is the Africans. When it was the mile it was the Americans, Brits and Australians. So those three nationalities cared so much about upping the other that they followed it all intensely. Until Hall or Ritz start getting up there and competing with Sammy or Haile or any of the other beastly Africans, nobody will care. That is outside of the running circles of course, I'm sure plenty of those on the boards will be ecstatic if anyone breaks 2:00:00.

runn wrote:

No really, scientists sais it was physically impossible. Hopefully, no one thinks like that anymore. 2:00 will happen, buthow long? No one really knows- ok, maybe Sammy Wanjiru has a idea.

Seriously, there's some teenager in Kenya who, someday in the near future, will do it.

Really, I think it is still a question of "if," rather than when. A two hour marathon would be worth, what, like 25:30 for the 10k? Maybe it's possible, goodness knows I would like to see it done, but I think it is still a legitimate possibility that it isn't.

Can run not has run. Neither Geb or Tergat could have run a 26:30 in the year when they set the marathon record. They were both on the downside of their careers and were 20-30s+ slower over 10k at that point. Not every 26:30 guy is going to threaten 2 hours. But when he have had a hundred of them, a couple of them will show marathon to 10k ratios of a Radcliff or Beardsley (or the Japanese guys) and we will have someone threatening 2 hours. Of course that is probably 40 year out.

Chairman Wow wrote:

[quote]asdfasdfasdasdfasdfasdfa wrote:

5/10k are fast enough for a sub 2 hour marathon for a lot of marathoners. Look at the Japanese guys with low 28 10ks and sub 2:08 prs. Of course no one who can run sub 26:30 is running the marathon.

Um, 2 of history's 3 sub 26:30 guys have run a marathon. They ran 2:03:59 and 2:04:55 for their PRs.

runn wrote:

ok, maybe Sammy Wanjiru has a idea.

No.

Let's face it, to go under 2:00 you have to be tiny and most likely black. Tiny and black is not sexy.

Sex sells.

If Hall had a legit shot at going under 2:00 he'd get more press than Bannister and make tens of millions...if not more.

[quote]junk master wrote:

Tiny and black is not sexy.

/quote]

I've heard your mom feels differently!

Bazinga!

Notice I didn't say big and black wasn't sexy. I guess I could be wrong...

...if the Artist Formerly Known as Prince can break 2:00.

I'll bet he could have come pretty close when he ran his first marathon (London 2002).

And I'm not sure that Geb circa 2007-2008 could really be described as "on the down side of his career." Maybe as far as the 10k is concerned, but then again he wasn't a 10k runner at the time.

asdfasdfasdasdfasdfasdfa wrote:Can run not has run. Neither Geb or Tergat could have run a 26:30 in the year when they set the marathon record

no one said anything about running 26'30 & running M wr same year

we are talking about 26'30 guys running a calibre M

geb ran 26'29 in '03 ( no M that year as he wanted to win 10k in paris ) & had run 2"06'35 the year before

2"06'35 was an elite time back then as wr before that race was 2"05'42

But when he have had a hundred of them, a couple of them will show marathon to 10k ratios of a Radcliff or Beardsley (or the Japanese guys) and we will have someone threatening 2 hours. Of course that is probably 40 year out

i hope you are not asserting that you believe the jap guys have a superior endurance capacity to the east african hordes ???

that is not tenable

the japs are very unlikely to have better endurance, just that they have lesser basic speed which stops them running the east african times

geoff mutai has run 27'27 & 2"04'55 this year

i doubt there have been may humans who have ever lived with better endurance than that, running 2"04 off only mid-27 ability

ventolin^3 wrote:

geoff mutai has run 27'27 & 2"04'55 this year

i doubt there have been may humans who have ever lived with better endurance than that, running 2"04 off only mid-27 ability

Khannouchi is better with bests of 27:58 and 2:05:38.

The difference between a 30 year old runner and a 35 year old one is huge. And the difference between 35 and 40 is also huge as Geb is finding out. In 2007 he ran a competive 10k in 26:53 and in 2008 he ran 26:51. And yes I believe it is possible on average that Japanese train better for the marathon than the kenyans. The Africans are not some magical guys who can do no wrong. There are also other guys that show endurance ratios (and a few of them even have legitate track times run within a year or two of the marathon records) that suggest that if they were 26:30 runners they would be threatening 2 hours.

ventolin^3 wrote:

geoff mutai has run 27'27 & 2"04'55 this year

i doubt there have been may humans who have ever lived with better endurance than that, running 2"04 off only mid-27 ability

Did any of you talking about people with "slow" 10ks running fast marathons ever consider that maybe the runner has run closer to his potential in the marathon than in the 10k? On the opposite end consider Nicholas Kemboi and Abebe Dinkesa, numbers 4 and 5 on the all time 10k list (both with PRs of 26:30.xx), who have respective half marathon PRs of 1:02:10 and 1:01:53. Do you really think they have performed up to their capabilities in the half? Do you really think that Bernard Lagat could only go 1:46, or that Michael Johnson could only manage 10.09 in the 100?