What will happen first: 1:39.xx or 1:59:xx?

this

Look, sub 26 is already old news, just check out 3 minutes into the vid

World Record! Unbelievable!

Agree totally. And just look at the most aided marathon of all time- 2011 Boston- and they still couldn't crack 2:03!

Just a number wrote:

and that took 16 years. But let's say Rushida can do the same: in three years we'll be at 1:40.49

But it didn't take Kipketer 16 years to do it. How old was he when he made his pro debut? And how old was he when he set the record? That's a little more accurate than 16 years.

This is just stupid, but I'll play your game. Rushida actually took 21 years to do this because that's how old he was. or, maybe it took him 16 years because he started running at the age of 5!

Geezus it just doesn't work this way with WR's. The numbers are the numbers and inevitably it takes longer and longer to lower the times in smaller and smaller increments.

Just like the post above about the Marathon WR.

MarathonMind wrote:

Just a number wrote:

and that took 16 years. But let's say Rushida can do the same: in three years we'll be at 1:40.49

But it didn't take Kipketer 16 years to do it. How old was he when he made his pro debut? And how old was he when he set the record? That's a little more accurate than 16 years.

This is just stupid, but I'll play your game. Rushida actually took 21 years to do this because that's how old he was. or, maybe it took him 16 years because he started running at the age of 5!

Geezus it just doesn't work this way with WR's. The numbers are the numbers and inevitably it takes longer and longer to lower the times in smaller and smaller increments.

Just like the post above about the Marathon WR.

That's not stupid. And that's not how world records work. You can't just draw a projection like you did. Their occurrences are not set in stone and predictable. Also, world records do NOT take longer and longer to lower. It might even be the opposite. Either that or neither longer nor shorter. But not longer.

Factt wrote:

Wilson Kipketer dropped .6 off of it though.

Yes, but Coe took 1.7 off it. His 81 run would have been quicker had he not run wide on the bend to pass Billy K, possibly 1:41.4, and that was early June. If he'd had the likes of Kipketer to run against later that season on the faster tracks of the late 90's, he'd have run as fast as Rudisha did in 2010.

I don't think we've come very far at all in 30+ years.

Remember in 81 Coe ran 45.7 for 400 compared to a 45.5 pb by Rudisha. There isn't much difference in basic speed. And who do you think had the better 1500 endurance?

To run 1:39.9 a guy has got to be closer to the Coe mould IMO. He'll have to be able to run internationally at 400m (sub 45, but only just ~ someone like the Borlee twins) but be a simultaneous world class miler (3:45-3:47). We haven't had anyone approach that since Coe.

A 1:39:XX is certainly more feasible. Rudisha may be able to do it on the right day. Some sprinters with a lot of speed could dust off some old Lydiard books and get there in a few years. It is humanly possible. The sub-2 marathon is a whole different animal. You would need everything to go right. Weather, pacing, probably a wedge of world class runners breaking the wind for the winner. The sub 2 seems a long ways away by comparison in my opinion. They does not mean that the sub 1:40 will be easy or we will ever see it.

People are dumb wrote:

Anyone who talks about a sub 2hr marathon is completely out to lunch and does not really know or understand distance running.

Like Ryan Hall? He knows distance running better than any other marathon.

*American

20-40 years. I hope to be still alive then. Would you care to wager?

sub3over40 wrote:

Some sprinters with a lot of speed could dust off some old Lydiard books and get there in a few years.

hahahaha... Thanks for a laugh!

out to lunch wrote:

20-40 years. I hope to be still alive then. Would you care to wager?

+1

You know what stinks though? When these amazing things actually do happen, and you get back on Letsrun to laugh the pants off these naysayers, they suddenly disappear. That's one of the disadvantages of message boards compared to live conversation.

Indeed. Or they insist that athletes can only reach the top with drugs. Or that new records can only be set with new drugs blah blah blah.

Swellzner wrote:

sub3over40 wrote:

Some sprinters with a lot of speed could dust off some old Lydiard books and get there in a few years.

hahahaha... Thanks for a laugh!

What's funny about that?

What will happen first, 1:10.xx or 3:49.xx?

GARF wrote:

Rudisha isn't fast enough over 400 to run under 1:40.

I'd say he can do a 1:40.5. Try to imagine someone taking 2 seconds off the 1500m, or half a second off the 400m records. A whole second doesn't seem like a lot, but in 800m its bigger than it looks.

Remember he tied up badly the last 50m in his 1:41.0. 1:40.5 is about the limit of his ability.

Rudisha is only 23. He's got a lot of prime years left. He's got 5 or 6 years to improve a litte over a second. He could definitely do it (not saying its a certainty).

someone will take a half second off the 400 record, and that man is Usain bolt. I think that he is going to absolutely shock the world if and when he decides to go all out for the 400m and train appropriately for it. Im sayin that within the next 10 years the 400 record will most likely be sub 43 seconds....maybe usain can get it down to 42.5 or so?? i mean come on, he's run a 43.58 split, with no specific 400 training whatsoever. and he runs 19.19 in the 200. not really hard to see him stacking 2 21.25's back to back.

Swellzner wrote:

[quote]sub3over40 wrote:

Some sprinters with a lot of speed could dust off some old Lydiard books and get there in a few years.

hahahaha... Thanks for a laugh!

I thought that might tweak a few people!