Ryan Hall doesn't believe a 2 hour marathon is outside of his own capabilities

I will beat him to 2:00.

Ryan Hall will run 2 hours in the marathon when Tim Tebow wins the Super Bowl.

LOL, I hope it was b) but sadly I think it was a).

well, if you think that wasted motion is not a hindrance, then you can interpret the question as naive. it is obvious that malmo thinks the idea that there would be a ten minute drop from form changes absurd. but it is not obvious that he would reject a 1 minute or 2 minute drop for a 12:56 5k/60:00 1/2 marathon runner with a 2:10 pr.

Darnell wrote:

LOL, I hope it was b) but sadly I think it was a).

You were right.

why does he focus on winning a major race, e.g. Boston, NYC, London, or the Olympics, first before talking about such a remote time goal as 2:00?

And here's the difference between a bunch of Letsrun losers and world-class runners.

I can imagine if Letsrun were around in 1954:

"4:00 minutes? That's bullcrap. No one will ever break that, especially not off of such ridiculously low mileage."

malmo wrote:

2:00 marathon? Nooooo problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Uv7DjCHN8&feature=channel_video_title

haha.

Always a hilarious video.

lol at 2:51-2:55.

I get what you're saying. And I know it's an imperfect analogy. But I'm not saying Hall is 8th, I'm saying his times are about equal to what it takes to be 8th in college football--just outside the group including LSU, Alabama, Oregon, Stanford, etc., but close enough to make a claim to be able to hang with any of them on any given day. And to take it further, his Boston performance, while an outlier, is analogous to Boise's win over Georgia. It's the example of lightning striking that makes the argument hold together. All I'm saying is, IF 2:00 is possible for anybody, the group that includes that 2:00 person likely has Hall in it. Not as the favorite. More likely if he runs a 2:00, he's still in 3rd behind a couple of Kenyans.

Captain Tenneal wrote:

haha.

Always a hilarious video.

lol at 2:51-2:55.

Personally, I'm proud that the dancing at 3:42 synched perfectly.

I told you before and will tell you again. Even in perfect conditions they aren't running 3 minutes faster at that pace. It will NOT happen. Look at the 1/2 marathon best times and explain how they are going to do 2 in a row? 2 hours is a nice round number so it must be possible to break it, right? Wrong. You won't see it in your lifetime....I said it before and I will say it again. Mutai and Mosop were scared in Boston? You are nuts!

Nutella 2 wrote:

I told you before and will tell you again. Even in perfect conditions they aren't running 3 minutes faster at that pace. It will NOT happen. Look at the 1/2 marathon best times and explain how they are going to do 2 in a row? 2 hours is a nice round number so it must be possible to break it, right? Wrong. You won't see it in your lifetime....I said it before and I will say it again. Mutai and Mosop were scared in Boston? You are nuts!

I completely agree. And I felt the exact same way about anybody ever preaking 9.6 in the 100. :-)

gamecock wrote:

I get what you're saying. And I know it's an imperfect analogy. But I'm not saying Hall is 8th, I'm saying his times are about equal to what it takes to be 8th in college football--just outside the group including LSU, Alabama, Oregon, Stanford, etc., but close enough to make a claim to be able to hang with any of them on any given day. And to take it further, his Boston performance, while an outlier, is analogous to Boise's win over Georgia. It's the example of lightning striking that makes the argument hold together. All I'm saying is, IF 2:00 is possible for anybody, the group that includes that 2:00 person likely has Hall in it. Not as the favorite. More likely if he runs a 2:00, he's still in 3rd behind a couple of Kenyans.

I get what you are saying. I don't think that we share an opinion about the likelihood.

Bottom line for me is that it is far more likely that someone will run under 1:58:00 in the next ten years than it is that Hall will ever run under 2:00:00. And the likelihood of the former is zero.

(For those who like pointing out logical issues - yes I am aware that 0% chance can not be "far more likely" than anything but whatever)

hks321 wrote:

I am not really convinced anyone can do it. The difference between 2:05 and 2:10 is quite a bit. The guy who won NYC was running on a whole new level compared to 2:09 and 2:10 guys. The 2:00 guy will have to take it up another 2 notches in his gear than the 2:05 guy.

As a matter of fact, there is a bigger difference (mathematically) between 2:00 and 2:05 than 2:05 and 2:10, when you look at it in terms of an average rate of speed needed to run those times

A marathon is 26 miles 385 yards = 26.21875 miles

A 2:10 marathon is 12.10096 miles/hr average.

A 2:05 marathon is 12.58500 miles/hr average.

A 2:00 marathon is 13.10938 miles/hr average.

Difference between 2:10 and 2:05 is 0.48404 miles/hr.

Difference between 2:05 and 2:00 is 0.52438 miles/hr.

That is approximately a 8.3% increase in miles per hour differential.

So the difference is considerably more, not even taking into account that the faster you go the harder it is to improve idea.

And that's why none of us reading this we ever see it.

Comparing this to the 4 minute mile is like comparing apples to dirt. Have you seen what the top runners look like after a running 59 minutes? Geb broke it by 5 seconds and does anyone think he could come back with a 1:01 effort? Not likely even if he went 60 out and attempted to run 60 again. ZT's record was not much faster than Geb's best when you get right down to it.

As others have said, it's a nice round number and a barrier, so it should be broke. I respectfully disagree and don't believe it could be done in Boston with the same conditions that they had last year.

Hell, with a 14:29 opening 5k and Hall leading the way, how much faster could they have gone out in? Half way was 1:01:54 and the 2 top runners ran negative splits, with the hills!!!!

We are all entitled to our own opinion and mine is no way is it happening on a certified course in my lifetime and I am 29.

I agree, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

But I'm also entitled to coming back to Letsrun in 20 years and rubbing it in everyone's face when the clock reads 1:59 on a legit course ;)

attaf wrote:

And here's the difference between a bunch of Letsrun losers and world-class runners.

I can imagine if Letsrun were around in 1954:

"4:00 minutes? That's bullcrap. No one will ever break that, especially not off of such ridiculously low mileage."

No one would have been saying that. The world record was 4:01.4 at the time. One and a half seconds in the mile is something quite a bit different that 6:17 in the marathon.

Hall was probably just talking big for the reporters. I doubt he legitimately in his head thinks that he is going to go sub-2.

not gonna happen and it wouldn't matter as you aren't registered so anyone can be attaf i may not be registered either but I'm not thinking about such a childish act...even if it's on a legit course (but it's not gonna happen so it's a moot point at best;))

Consider This wrote:

Hall was probably just talking big for the reporters. I doubt he legitimately in his head thinks that he is going to go sub-2.

I don't know.....if he legitimately thinks that he has casual conversations with the creator of the universe about his training, I wouldn't put it past him to legitimately think just about anything.