Sub 2 Hour Marathon Discussion: My Thoughts and Yours

wejo wrote:

some wonder drug

I am not saying either that I know which kind of drugs were used or that any were used at all...

...but I would argue that if the LA story proved anything then that the combination of

- EPO/CERA

- Testosterone

- blood transfusions

- steroids

- cortisone

- HGH

would well qualify as a "wonder drug". Made a race horse out of a pony.

Let's not compare 1940 to 1980.

I left open the possibility of some radical change in training. However, the marathon is a professional endeavor now. In 1940 it was not.

And the pacing argument is a valid one. The world's best marathoners approached 14:13 for a few 5k splits early on and it totally destroyed them.

Let's look at the mile. When Roger Bannister was trying to break 4 in the mile, people were running sub 4 pace for 3/4 of the race.

In the marathon, some people are saying the sub 2 hour barrier is imminent yet by and large no one is running sub 2 pace for 1/8 of the race distance. We are a long way away.

When someone breaks 1:00:00 for a half marathon split in the marathon, let's start the talk of a sub 2 hour marathon (on a legit course). Yet no one is breaking 1:01 for any half.

Have we established the fastest half marathon split in a marathon yet?

wejo wrote:

I left open the possibility of some radical change in training.

That weighted backpack idea maybe?

The backpack man wrote:

wejo wrote:

I left open the possibility of some radical change in training.

That weighted backpack idea maybe?

Worked for Zatopek.

I believe the race would have to be ran primarily anaerobic. The training for this would have to be 10K training. The individual would have to never run longer then one hour their entire life. The bulk mileage would come from swimming.

I think one key thing that always gets left out is the "freak" factor. Drugs or no drugs, Paula destroyed the women's marathon record and Usain Bolt destroyed the 100m record (just imagine if he ran through the line in Beijing). Add Bob Beamon to that mix also.

I agree that the guys running in that 2:04-ish range are themselves freaks. But so is anybody running a 9.8x for the 100m. At some point, somebody will just be even more freaksihly good than Geb or any of the current best, and with the right conditions, that person can do it.

It goes back to the saying "there's a 4:20 miler in every high school, you just have to find him." Yes, the genetic talents from Ethiopia and Kenya are doing marathons - I have no doubt that there is a selection for those who have the most genetic gifts to be the most successful. But at the same time, it is entirely possible, the person who is genetically capable of running

I understand the basics of the science behind the argument that we won't see a sub 2:00 in our lifetime. It's hard to argue with much of it. But here's the thing...every time the pundits, and I'll include us in that group since we're discussing this from a theoretical perspective, state that something Can't Be Done, or when general thought is that something can't be done, guess what... Someone is determined enough to figure out HOW to get it done. Whether it be sports, or medicine, or man's great achievements, the one commonality they all have is that the prevailing thought was that they couldn't be done. What makes us so smart in 2013 to presume to "know" what man's limits are, or what they will be in 20-30-50 years?

I remember when Dinsamo ran 2:06:50 in April 1988. That set the world record at 4:50/mile, and it dropped the record by 1:15 (~3 seconds/mile) from what it had been 3 1/2 years earlier and by over 2 minutes from what it was 8 years earlier. Dinsamo's record stood for 10 years, and to me it seemed to get to the point where it was a question if anyone could go lower. Had racers hit the limit in the marathon? Then after da Costsa broke Dinsamo's record the record fell another 3 times in 5 years, capped off by Tergat's 2:04:55 which established the record at almost 2 minutes lower than it had stood for 10 years.

So that's 4:53/mile to 4:50/mile to 4:46/mile in 19 years. Over the last decade it has come down another 1:17, another 3 seconds/mile. For whatever reason, call it drugs, call it improved course design, call it whatever, the fact is that TPTB recognize a world record now that was unthinkable 30 years ago. Ask Steve Jones after he ran 2:08:05 in Chicago fall 1984 if he thought someone could run 10 seconds a mile faster and I highly doubt he would have taken the question seriously. Yet he has lived to see the record he set lowered by 4:27.

If someone offered me a bet that we won't see a sub 2:00 in my lifetime (I'm 47) pragmatically I'd take the "not going to happen" line. But like I said above, every time we say something can't be done it's just a matter of time before someone does it. To me, it will happen when the HM record gets down under 57:45 and we see more runners putting up HM times in the 58:30-59:00 range. We've only had runners under 60:00 for HM for 20 years.

His Story Buks wrote:

I believe the race would have to be ran primarily anaerobic. The training for this would have to be 10K training. The individual would have to never run longer then one hour their entire life. The bulk mileage would come from swimming.

Therefore the marathon would be run in less than 1 hour?

Projecting things out 40+ years (i.e. the lifespan of anyone under 40) is a total crap shoot. You look over the past 40 years and there have been periods of stagnation and regression and then periods of rapid improvement. And there is always technology. Maybe there will be a new road surface (i.e. think synthetic track versus asphalt) that makes everyone 2% faster. Or a shoe that half the current weight with the same cushioning and support of today.2:00 is just close enough to seem reasonable and just far enough to seem unreachable.And of course maybe we learn everyone has been doing epo for the last 20 years and 2:09 is really about as fast as people go.

Mojo Jerkin wrote:

I don't think it will happen in quite some time, but I do expect the WR to continue to march downward. There is so much money in the marathon that it is drawing the best, and drawing them to it younger than previously, which may be why the 10K and 5K WR's are stagnant. What seems to be different now than say, 10 or 20 years ago is the sheer number of runners that come within a couple of minutes of the marathon WR each year. With that many, the WR is going to continue to fall.

Below 2:00. Not in decades I don't think, but maybe in my lifetime.

J.R. wrote:

His Story Buks wrote:

I believe the race would have to be ran primarily anaerobic. The training for this would have to be 10K training. The individual would have to never run longer then one hour their entire life. The bulk mileage would come from swimming.

Therefore the marathon would be run in less than 1 hour?

No, less than two hours. The training would be 4 blocks of sub 30 10K's with little recovery.

Then later you do two black of sub 1 hour half marathon with little recovery.

Then on race day you run the marathon distance but, die at the end like the Greek soldier news runner.

it's a fine line between finishing and death.

and

With the articles on the front page (and above) discussing the possibility of the 2 hour marathon, I just added some info to Robert's article.There should also be a thread on this as well so that's this one.

Here's what I wrote:

"I'll present my argument much quicker. To run under 2 hours in the marathon, one has to average 14:13 per 5km split. The Virgin London Marathon had arguably the best men's field in the history of marathoning. The field was decimated by strong early pace. How many 5km splits did they run faster than 14:13? NONE. The fastest 5km split was the downhill opening 5k and that was only 14:23. For a 2 hour marathon we essentially need 8+ back to back sub 14:13 5ks, and the top marathoners in the world got decimated by a pace where they didn't even run 1 of these. We're a long way from a sub 2 hour marathon on a legit course (with the perfect 26.2 mile decline off a mountain you might be able to get one now), barring some radical breakthrough in training.(I don't count wonder drugs)."

PS I don't think anyone has ever split sub 1:01 for a half marathon in a marathon."

So those are my thoughts.

Also we should start tracking marathons where any runner has run a sub 14:13 split. Has it ever been done for 10km straight? If you know of a sub 14:13 split post it here.

And what is the fastest half in a marathon? We should start chronicling any halfs in a marathon under 1:01 for sure. I don't think that's been done but it's early in the AM here so I could be wrong.

Post away.

I think building a big, fast track that is sheltered from the wind is key. Build a temporary track at a nascar racetrack, bring in the top 20 elites and pacemakers, and offer a huge bonus for a WR and bigger bonus for sub 2 hours. In perfect weather, no wind, pacemakers to draft off of, the current elites could shave off a minute or two from the world's fastest time.

I mean pacers, not pacemakers. (?!) Elite marathoners don't need pacemakers yet.

Once again you are failing to understand simple logic. As I implied, logical arguments can be made against the notion of humans running a 2 hour marathon anytime soon or perhaps ever. Your original argument to start this thread was not one of those arguments. It was, in a word, illogical.

Whether or not some people are saying that the sub 2 hour marathon is imminent I will not comment on. I do not believe that it is imminent. I also pointed out correctly that your argument to try to back up that belief was, and remains, illogical.

Wilson Kipsang ran 14:11 from 5k to 10k in the 2012 Olympic marathon - surprised no one mentioned that yet. Not a fast course either.

I'm gonna guess the fastest half ever in a marathon was the 61:30 from London in 2008.

Sorry, that year it was only 1:02. Don't know why I thought that. I've heard of a couple 61:3x and 61:4x but that's all I got.

Old news - discussed in depth 2 years ago on BBC Radio

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0105ymz

Ross Tucker in his piece pointed out that only once in history as a human broken 62 in two halves of the same marathon (Patrick Makau).

You raise some good points, but if this was women's marathoning, I wouldn't have written the piece as there seem to be more outliers. Look at someone like Semenya or Griner. OF course, Paual with two children doesn't really fall into that category but I would feel much less confident arguing against if we were talking about women's marathoning as I know humans can go way faster. Here, I'm not sure humans can do it.