Sub 2 Hour Marathon

Hall hasn't run many 5ks/10ks. His time is at least 30-40s slower (based off 5k) than what you would expect. Hall races so infrequently it is hard to figure out what his lower distance performance is. But yeah I expect that Haile would have been 60-90s faster during his prime

With an Asterisk wrote:

If Haile had run the marathon in his prime the record would be a whole lot faster and maybe be sub-2. Think about it this way... Ryan Hall is running the marathon in his prime and is about 15 seconds slower per mile then his 10k pr. So if Haile ran the marathon 20 seconds slower then his PR you would get 2:00.

That isn't an extreme. Of the people born today there will be half dozen that are 110. And millions more that are 100. 40-60 years is a reasonable guess for a sub 2:00. I am guessing half the board will be alive back then. If this seems unreasonable, as yourself what the people in 1950 would think about the current records

unlikely wrote:

dasfasd@hasd.com wrote:

So you don't expect a 4 min improvement in the next 115 years or so? That seems pretty pessimistic. That is a real long to come up with better equipment (better shoes), training, hitting the day of days, getting a genetic outlier, and so on.

Sigh... always someone to take a statement and take it to its ridiculous extreme. I suppose it is possible that some child born today who dies as the oldest person alive might see this. But most of us who live normal life spans, I doubt it.

Let's just say you aren't going to see it and neither am I.

People said the same thing about every record. In 1988 you would have been the guy saying running sub 2:05 is impossible. It had taken ~20 years to drop just over a min off the record.You have no imagination. You can't image some technology that allows the shoe to be 1 oz lighter? Or provide better energy return? Or position the foot to allow a more efficient stride? You can't imagine someone figuring out a way to get in 20% more training without the athlete breaking down? Or coming up with a compound that would either help mobilize fat or provide sugars directly?No one is saying Geb is breaking 2. Or Bolt 8 (which is more like 1:48). But someone in the next 100 years will be able to give it a shot

mopak wrote:

I'd have to agree, Geb was in great 10k shape just not quite as "sharp" because of his marathon prep.

To improve 4 mins I would think you need a guy who can run 25.30 for 10k. That would require being able to run 3.24 for 1500m and probably having 1.42 800m speed.

Nicholas Kemboi is probably the prototype. That is if his 26.30 was done clean (a massive leap of faith).

Kemboi ran 1.47.5 as a 17 year old (in Nairobi).

He ran his 26.30 at 19 years old apparently off just 2 months of high level training.

If you could find another like him and send him across to Ethiopia to train under Geb's guidance then he may come close.

Not 25.30, more like 25.50 but better trained for the 26.2

I am disapointed that you say that it is a massive leap of faith that Nicholas Kemboi was clean. So you think that Renato Canova was doping him? Come on get a life, you can't be serious? Even if you say that it takes massive leap of faith for others to believe that, you're still being a dick. Come on mopak, get yer shit together and don't be a dick.

unlikely wrote:

wellnow wrote:

It will happen in our lifetime, even if that runner is not born yet.

No it will not

****************************************

Yes it will. The record will go a long way under 2 hours this century. And that can be done without drugs and by someone with normal genetics.

The thought of much faste times makes you feel very insecure doesn't it. Well get over it.

What? A sub-2:00:00 marathon discussion? Again?If we look at past performances, there was 24 years between 2:04 and 2:08, and 20 years between 2:08 and 2:12.Given this kind of mathematical progression (a good a basis as any for this kind of brown-tinged speculation), a guess of 20-40 years, if seemingly optimistic, doesn't seem too crazy.Then the one who will do it will be born in about 10 years or so.This progression may seem too linear, and under-estimate an "exponential decay" model, so one could mathematically argue larger numbers like 50-80 years. I won't here.And of course, world records are kind of like the stock market -- past performance doesn't guarantee future success.Around that time, we will also see 10Ks at 25:50, and half-marathons at 57:13. And the 400m split time will drop from 70.5 seconds to 68.25. Mind-boggling no matter how you look at it.IMO, one main complication with the marathon, versus 5Ks and 10Ks, and even semi-marathons, is that an athlete has so few chances to attempt the marathon, and everything has to be perfect: weather, course, fitness, no injury or illness, nutrition, weight, pacing, etc. The potential athlete can attempt it maybe 2x a year, and maybe 10x in his life. One imperfection, and 6 months of training is wasted.

sthm wrote:

How long do you think it will be before we see a sub 2 hour marathon? Is the first sub 2 guy alive today?

ehyo wrote:

for now:

TADESE will break the WR

then Bekele will break Tadese's WR

Tadesse need to break 2,15 first...

dasfasd@hasd.com wrote:

That isn't an extreme. Of the people born today there will be half dozen that are 110.

Correct

And millions more that are 100.

Possible, but unlikely, no matter what the UN says

40-60 years is a reasonable guess for a sub 2:00.

Not a f***ing chance in hell

wellnow wrote:

Yes it will. The record will go a long way under 2 hours this century. And that can be done without drugs and by someone with normal genetics.

The thought of much faste times makes you feel very insecure doesn't it. Well get over it.

Yeah, about as insecure as your silly assertions about "neuromuscular coordination" with zippity doo dah to back them up and no practical application whatsoever besides.

Which is to say, not at all. Thank for playing.

Couldn't have said it better myself!!!! Check my IP address moderators, I encourage you. This guy nailed it. Then what, 1:55? Well said.

Those who believe 2 hours is possible are saying so because it's a bloody number, and nothing else. Haile or no one else is going 4 minutes faster in our lifetime, you won't see it. How dumb are you morons?

Going back in through the history of the sports, the morons have clearly been the ones that predicted the records would stand forever. I imagine your like 20 and don't really understand how long 60-80 years is. heck I am not sure if 2:30 had been broken 80 years ago. Even with advances, in those 80 years the odds of finding an even bigger outlier than Geb or KB goes up a lot. Besides the current WR is soft is you look at the 5k/10k marks. The time should be mid 2:02s which makes sense when you realize the current world record is run by a guy that well on the downside of his career.

he's right is right!!!!!!! wrote:

Couldn't have said it better myself!!!! Check my IP address moderators, I encourage you. This guy nailed it. Then what, 1:55? Well said.

Those who believe 2 hours is possible are saying so because it's a bloody number, and nothing else. Haile or no one else is going 4 minutes faster in our lifetime, you won't see it. How dumb are you morons?

Sammy Wanjiru ran a 26:41 10k on the track when he was 18 YEARS OLD! I've got to think that he could still find 30-40 more seconds and threaten the 26 minute mark as young as he is. With that kind of 10k speed a 2:02 marathon isn't out of the realm of possibility - of course under perfect conditions. Then given 100 more years a few more outliers slightly superior to Wanjiru should appear on the scene and threaten the 2hr. mark.

What you are not getting, but obviously think you are, is that there are limits. Then in 100 more years someone will go 1:55,and then 1:50, then 1:45, GET IT DASFASD! I agree with those that say it won't happen in any of our lifetimes, if at all. A human being can only run so fast for so long. Someone said shoes and this and that. Bull!

Yes there are limits. And when we get close to them I expect the rate of improvement to slow to a crawl. Since that hasn't happened yet (the rate of improvement over the last 20 years is about the same as the preceding 20 years in distance events), I am guessing there is a bit more time out there. Throw in there are people whose 10k/marathon ratios (pretty much ever japanese marathon) would allow a 27 min guy to get close to 2 hours, 2 hours doesn't seem like an unreasonable goal for the next 60 -80 years. And you don't think 1 or 2 oz lighter shoes (due to better material science) are going to reduce the time it takes? What about is somebody rolls out a synthetic surface to run on?I worry more about societal changes (nobody in kenyan or Ethopia runs, high pollution levels, no one cares about marathon racing,...) than the humans ability to run that fast.

nope wrote:

What you are not getting, but obviously think you are, is that there are limits. Then in 100 more years someone will go 1:55,and then 1:50, then 1:45, GET IT DASFASD! I agree with those that say it won't happen in any of our lifetimes, if at all. A human being can only run so fast for so long. Someone said shoes and this and that. Bull!

A four minute mile? Are you crazy? That's under 1 minute per lap for four laps; you don't realize how hard athletes have worked and how talented they have to be just to go under 4:10.

--people 60 years ago, i.e. what we will look like in 60 years

Not a flying chance in heck

I have to agree!!

It would require a nine second per mile improvement over the current record. There's no one around who's gonna do that.

Fair call Wellnow.

If he hadn't been coached by such a well respected coach I would have immediately thought PEDs. I am putting MY faith in Renato being a clean coach when my instincts on the performance sent me a red flag.

No one around today is likely to do it. Some guy born in 30 years isJust for the heck of it, all you people that don't think someone is running sub 2:00, what do you think the marathon world record will be in 60 years? I am curious if we are debating about 30s or 3 mins 40 seconds.

Pad Berson wrote:

It would require a nine second per mile improvement over the current record. There's no one around who's gonna do that.