The quest for the 2 hour marathon...fail:(

"might" ? It was the dumbest by far. Stupid with a capital S.

No, we won't see a 2 hour marathon in our lifetime. 2:02 in not 2 hours. Two completely different animals.

Agreed. It ain't happening and the OP was right, in my opinion anyways.

Dufusboy wrote:

That might be the dumbest statement ever on this site. You don't think humans have limits? So a 1 minute mile is possible? What about a 15000 pound bench press?

Hey, people tried to tell those neutrinos that they couldn't go faster than the speed of light, but they didn't listen, did they!

I agree with you. No one will be sending 8 of those. I can't think of any splits in the sub 14:20 range. Shouldn't we wait to start hypothesizing about this until we see oh, 1 28:26 10K in a marathon....never mind the idea that someone could string 3 more together and then a nice 2.2K at the same pace. This is a silly debate. Not in our lifetime.

No vote from me. Agreed with the 2:02 versus 2 hour comparison. Look at the 1/2 world record and imagine him doing it twice with a slight slow down. Sorry, I don't see it happening.

A 58:23 1/2 marathon is 4:27.2 pace.

A 2 hour marathon is 4:34.6 pace.

A 2:03:02 marathon is 4.41.6 pace

The current record for the half is about 7 seconds a mile under 2 hour marathon pace. The fastest marathon run (Yeah, I'm using Boston for the example) is 7 seconds above marathon pace.

How long could Tadesse have held 4:34.6? 16 miles? 18? 20?

I say that someone is going to get the 2 hour marathon in the next few years- especially if the money gets interesting.

can anyone answer the question of how many sub 14:20 5K's been run in a marathon?

Wasn't Emmanuel Mutai's 4th 10k in London like 28:44? I'd bet that at least one 5k in there was sub 14:20

ultraMegaOK wrote:

can anyone answer the question of how many sub 14:20 5K's been run in a marathon?

I don't know how many, but I can think of two off the top of my head - 1) the guys at London in 2009 split something like 14:05 for the first 5k, 2) Able Kirui ran 14:17 in the middle of the World Championships this year to break away from the other leaders.

I would require between a 7 and 8-second per mile improvement over what Makau did...it equivalent to a more than 45-second improvement in the 10,000 record. Doesn't seem that likely.

Wise Guy wrote:

ultraMegaOK wrote:

can anyone answer the question of how many sub 14:20 5K's been run in a marathon?

I don't know how many, but I can think of two off the top of my head - 1) the guys at London in 2009 split something like 14:05 for the first 5k, 2) Able Kirui ran 14:17 in the middle of the World Championships this year to break away from the other leaders.

Pretty sure it was 14:08. But yea, that was crazy. Like 9 of them broke 14:20

Posted on another thread:

--------------------------------

Geb probably could have been ~ a 2:03:20 guy if he went to the marathon younger (but of course the marathon is not his best event). Now we have marathon specialists running high 2:03's (makau) or aided low 2:03's that are most likely worth no better than what Makau ran (due to wind and downhill). So basically, 2:03:20/30 is still likely the limit we've seen anyone capable of so far on a loop course (Geb in his prime, Makau improving slightly, Mutai and Mosop, if their boston runs were not complete wind flukes). Maybe Bekele can run 2:03 flat, but I doubt the marathon is the perfect match for him either (though his 12k cross excellence bodes well).

The talk of sub 2:00 is of course now absurdly premature.

A legit, non-aided (wind or downhill) sub 2:03 might be a lot longer off than many expect. The aided low 2:03's, and now Makau, who is a marathon beast, breaking Geb's record have people excited. But I think they are getting carried away. Only 2 people have run non-aided sub 2:04's, and not by much. Geb, the best distance runner ever (co-best with Bekele), and Makau, the perfect, fully dedicated 1/2 marathon/,marathon specialist. Let's not get carried away with sub 2:00 talk just yet.

Someone needs to split sub 60 first. I'm not aware of even a sub 61 split yet. It will happen eventually, and in my lifetime I believe (I'm 37).

If Geb had trained specifically for the marathon when he was 27 or 28, the record would already be 2:01. maybe faster.

dfasback wrote:

If Geb had trained specifically for the marathon when he was 27 or 28, the record would already be 2:01. maybe faster.

I seem to remember Geb specifically training for and running a marathon at the age of 29 (London '02, four days after his birthday) and going 2:06 something for third.

The 10,000m WR has improved 5 seconds in the last 13 years. In the previous 13 years 1985-1998) it improved 51 seconds.

For those of you who believe it made that quantum leap (of 51 seconds) due to better training (or sometimes you call it new or different training methods) I am wondering what methods those are?

Similarly, the 5,000m WR has improved 2 seconds in the last 13 years. In the previous 13 years (1985-1998) it improved 21 seconds.

The 3,000m WR has improved ZERO seconds in the last 13 years, and improved 11.5 seconds in the 13 yrs previous to that.

The 3k WR has not been bettered in 15 years. A WR at that distance has not stood for 15 years at any time in the last 100 years ... all of the IAAF era.

The 5k WR has not been bettered in more than 7 years. No 5k WR has stood for that long since 1965 when Clarke broke Kutz' 1957 WR by .2 seconds.

The 10k WR has not been bettered in more than 6 years and 1 month. No 10k WR has stood for that long since 1972 when Viren broke Clarke's amazing and long-standing WR of 27:39.4 (first 10k under 28:00) by 1.5 seconds. Even that WR lasted "just" 7+ years, you have to go back to 1937 when the WR was 30:05 to see one that lasted longer.

The factors that contributed to the massive improvements at 3k/5k/10k over the EPO era of 1992-1998 have been being applied to the marathon for the last 10-15 years.

If you go back 13 years exactly to da Costa's Berlin WR in 1998 there is an improvement of 2:27 from 2:06:05 to 2:03:38. In the previous 13 year period the WR improved only 67 seconds.

So, if you believe that these improvements occurred from anything besides new drugs that became available in 1989, and you believe that a clean athlete will break 2:00-flat in the marathon in the next 20 years ... maybe it is possible? If they average the same advances that have been made the last 13 yrs the new WR in Fall of 2024 will be 2:01:11 roughly. And if you believe in this kind of linear improvement (based on better training methods, better shoes, better pacers remember?) then it will take just about another 7 years to chip that last amount away and run 1:59:59 in 2031.

The funniest thing I have read on this thread so far are the people that said he could have run faster if he had had more/better pacing and that they "only" paced him until 20 miles. I am shocked that they could pace him that far!! He ran about 1 full minute faster than everyone in history besides Haile.

Maybe if he had run relaxed he could have knocked off one more minute like you morons said and run 2:02. It's only 2 seconds per mile after all?

hmmmm..... I can only conclude from all that you strongly imply, that the americans came late to EPO, and therefore were not improving the US 10k and marathon records much during the EPO era, however, the reason they have finally recently improved from 27:20 to 26:59 (with final 1:56 800!) and now on to 26:48 is drugs. Correct? Same with 2:08 down to 2:05 in the marathon? Am I getting you right? Big improvements in records = drugs always and forever and in all cases?

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

hmmmm..... I can only conclude from all that you strongly imply, that the americans came late to EPO, and therefore were not improving the US 10k and marathon records much during the EPO era, however, the reason they have finally recently improved from 27:20 to 26:59 (with final 1:56 800!) and now on to 26:48 is drugs. Correct? Same with 2:08 down to 2:05 in the marathon? Am I getting you right? Big improvements in records = drugs always and forever and in all cases?

People in the know will tell you that Americans have used all the drugs available to them for at least 50 years. I am not a current or former elite, not am I am an insider, but I do know what drugs are available, what has been available over time and that Americans have taken advantage of steroids, blood-packing and EPO, and other drugs.

How do I know? Some have admitted it to me, some have admitted it to others, some have tested positive. Clearly this does not mean that ALL athletes dope or that all Americans dope. But, Yes it is my personal opinion that the recent improvement of several US runners under 13:00-flat and under 27:20 was achieved with the aid of PEDs. The difference from what you seem to be thinking is that I also believe that many runners (American and foreign) who ran in the 13:00-13:20 range and 27:30-28:00 range also took advantage of doping to get to that level.

Why? Because we KNOW it was available. We know that it was being used in other sports (cycling, skiing, rowing and triathlon). We know that it was being used in track and field.

We know these things for certain. We know that they were available and used extensively in sport because even though the stakes were very high many athletes (not many in track) have admitted using them and many athletes in and out of track have tested positive.

Just in the 5000m, look at the all-time list: Nos. 9 and 16 tested positive and served bans. Neither ran at that level after returning. Granted 2 out of 25 all-time are not many, but those are the ones that got caught! Even though many of the fastest marks are from the 1990s when the testing for EPO was nonexistent and the testing in general was haphazard and weak.

I don't expect everyone to share my view. I am not trying to convince everyone. I used to try to do that 12 years ago on the tnfmedia listserver. It was dumb. So I am not trying to debate whether I am right or not ... I see it as I am right or completely wrong and we will NEVER know the truth. But it doesn't bother me that I will never know the truth, I still have an opinion based on 30+ years of experience with the subject.

Ask some of the guys that ran in the great era of 1975-1985. Back then several runners would give their opinion in magazines. Sandoval said that when he first started he "knew nothing about it", then by 1980 he could tell you that "40-60% of any field was on something and he could tell you what it was" and by the time he graduated medical school he could "tell you how to take it." I am sorry to use him as an example because I DO NOT believe he was doping, I just remember that quote well because I saw it again recently. But ask some of the Oregon, East Coast, Colorado or California distance running insiders ... they will tell you that steroids were used and that blood-doping happened. (1984 Olympic Cycling team, Martii Vainio, Cova, others seen shooting up in bathrooms before World Cross Country). Of course they can't know about all drug use, and I don't believe that every good runner runner who ever lived doped. But some did, that much is certain.

Look at the ridiculous rate of improvement in the 7-9 years since EPO became available and the unprecedentedly slow rate of the last 13 years (after EPO did its damage) and any rational person will reach an inescapable conclusion. I am not going to try and convince anyone or be drawn into an internet test of wits though.