Mike Boit ran 3:27.8 on a downhill mile in Auckland, NZ. I think it's the fastest mile ever recorded, but obviously very downhill and therefore record-ineligible.
Mike Boit ran 3:27.8 on a downhill mile in Auckland, NZ. I think it's the fastest mile ever recorded, but obviously very downhill and therefore record-ineligible.
^^^ in reply to "mark b":
"By the way, don't we already know that running downhill can be faster than running on the flat? Hasn't someone run a mile in something like 3:30 downhill?"
GalenRuppNeedsHelp wrote:
I like seeing the USA succeed as much as the next guy, but can't you see this is all a huge plan to help Galen win a spring marathon. Nike has taken out 3 big hitters and brought them into this ridiculous attempt so Galen can have an easy and uncontested spring marathon.
Galen can most likely already beat Desisa and Tadese in a marathon. Especially Tadese.
I'll point you in the direction of the Olympic marathon in case you were under a rock in the month of August. 2 of the 3 guys in this beat Galen.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Dingler wrote:I'd actually be more interested to see it on a legit course, but where PEDs were allowed. That would finally settle the debate about how much they actually help elite athletes.
Really? The IAAF takes bribes to not sanction positives and you don't have enough evidence? Paula Radcliffe? The Kenyan marathon factory?
You really think it's a free for all out there? It's not... They still need to have the illusion of innocence, which means they can't use EVERYTHING. Sure, they may get away with using a few substances and paying people off, but they're not showing up with 50 different positives from a single race.
Galen Rupp has never raced Lelisa Desisa, 2 time Boston Champ, in the marathon. You are thinking of Feyisa Lilesa, the silver medalist of the olympic marathon, who is not in this sub 2 attempt.
RossiCheated wrote:
I hate Nike as much as the next guy, but I think there's something interesting to the premise.
Let's assume the following (all big assumptions, I know):
The course will be flat as a pancake (not downhill).
The course will finish where it began or generally close to the same point (a circuit).
The runner will be paced by a bicycle that does not shield him from the wind (he won't be drafting an electric car or anything like that, and the bicycle should be next to the runner or at least several meters ahead of him at all times).
The athlete will make himself subject to normal drug testing procedures.
Given all of that, how much money would you bet on the outcome and would you take the over or the under on a 2:00 finish time?
Even in that fairly ideal scenario, I would bet $100 on the over.
And no wind machine right?
Assuming all that, at even odds, I'd bet whatever you'd let me bet. I'd go to venture capital funds and try to raise a billion. I'd bet my life. If I lose, you can execute me on PPV. If I win, I get a million bucks.
Assuming those scenarios, you are basically saying a totally flat course with a bicycle pacer, I'd even bet my entire net worth at 10 to 1 odds. Hell I'd get VC money even at 10 to 1 odds. It's not even remotely a possibility.
Come on people. Be smart here.
Think of it this way.
When Bobby Curtis lines up at Stanford to run a 10k, no one thinks, "Oh my god, what if he beats Galen Rupp's American record?"
Well guess what people? Bobby Curtis is closer on a per mile basis to the American record in the 10k at 27:24 than the WR holder is to 2:00:00 in the marathon.
rojo, one day you are going to lose your trust fund and wind up begging.
Star wrote:
I am not picking on rojo's details.
I am saying he made a false statement and calling him out for it.
Let's see what the actual details of the course are and then make the complaints.
He claims it will be an assisted race without evidence.
If it is a straight, flat course with no wind, that would not be an assisted race, yet it wouldn't be eligible for record purposes.
If it's run down a mountain side, then that would be an assisted race.
You're being obtuse. Why do you think Nike says this will not be on a world record eligible course? Do you think it's because they want to make on a difficult point to point uphill course?
It's a given that this will be on an assisted course. Rojo is 100% correct.
thegripper wrote:
Galen Rupp has never raced Lelisa Desisa, 2 time Boston Champ, in the marathon. You are thinking of Feyisa Lilesa, the silver medalist of the olympic marathon, who is not in this sub 2 attempt.
And I have now lost all validity on these message boards. This is what I get for trying to be a conspiracy theorist
What I think is more interesting is knowing how far the best runners in the world could run sub 2 pace at? 15 miles is my guess. Just take Berlin or Dubai, make it a requirement that 13.1 is hit in 59:59 or better, then give 1 million to the guy that makes it furthest at that pace. (It would require some sort of mechanical pacer to make sure the pace didn't falter).
Star is correct, Rojo is being obtuse. When you watch a marathon race on a record eligible course you never know how much of the 2-15 minute cushion over 2 hours is accounted for by race tactics, sub-optimal nutrition placement, adverse wind, awkward corners, hills etc. etc. In other words its impossible to know right now whether humans can run a perfectly staged but unassisted 1:59:59 (though I'm skeptical).
I am very confident the event Nike put on will be unassisted - it'll just focus on minimizing the detractions from ideal. It won't be materially downhill but it will be flat, it won't be wind assisted but it won't be windy, nutrition of any sort will be available at any time etc. etc. I'd bet on that.
In the unlikely event an event like that broke 2:00:00 I for one would consider it an incredibly meaningful data point. We now know humans can run that fast, the only question in any given race becomes why didn't they?
Not sure if it's been mentioned but Ed Auden is involved in this project so you know at least that the reporting will be top-notch.
All of these races already have mechanical pacers. They just need to run a bit closer to the athletes.
Rojo,
Don't bother, they just don't get it. Actually, let me try:
IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE RIGHT NOW TO RUN UNDER 2 OR IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE. IT WILL TAKE MORE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT BEFORE WE BREAK THAT BARRIER. JUST LIKE IT TOOK TIME TO BREAK 4 MINUTES IN THE MILE AND 10 IN THE 100m. NO STUNT IS SUDDENLY GOING TO MAKE SOMEONE BE ABLE TO DO IT. UNLESS NIKE HAS SOMETHING EVERYONE ELSE DOESN"T HAVE (excluding PEDs), IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. FOR NOW....
OOPS, I need to finish my thought (sans caps). Since we are still a couple minutes from 2, Nike can't will it to just happen. We need to get a bit closer to 2 before we shoot for the moon. Since we are still considerably far away from 2, we can't just throw on a pair of shoes and run under 2 on a sanctioned course. Human development just isn't there yet.
coach t wrote:
Rojo,
Don't bother, they just don't get it. Actually, let me try:
IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE RIGHT NOW TO RUN UNDER 2 OR IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE. IT WILL TAKE MORE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT BEFORE WE BREAK THAT BARRIER. JUST LIKE IT TOOK TIME TO BREAK 4 MINUTES IN THE MILE AND 10 IN THE 100m. NO STUNT IS SUDDENLY GOING TO MAKE SOMEONE BE ABLE TO DO IT. UNLESS NIKE HAS SOMETHING EVERYONE ELSE DOESN"T HAVE (excluding PEDs), IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. FOR NOW....
Thanks a lot.
The big letters made everything clear and eliminated my confusion on this topic.
What is the fastest sanctioned/record eligible course in the world?
You honestly think it was "human development" (aka evolution?) that got it to sub 4:00 and sub 10? Trust me, there was no human evolution between 1940 and 1954 let alone "human development" within John Landy who was unable to break 4 pre-Bannister but was able to do so three months afterwards.
It is an open question whether in perfect conditions (which don't describe any big city marathon but which track races come a lot closer to), any of the world's best current marathoners could run 2:00:00 for 26.2. Bannister only had to find 1 second but all previous records had been set in conditions very similar to those he ran in. No-one has attempted to set up a truly optimized marathon before - this is new territory.
coach t wrote:
OOPS, I need to finish my thought (sans caps). Since we are still a couple minutes from 2, Nike can't will it to just happen. We need to get a bit closer to 2 before we shoot for the moon. Since we are still considerably far away from 2, we can't just throw on a pair of shoes and run under 2 on a sanctioned course. Human development just isn't there yet.
I hope you're not really a coach. Humans vary from people who can't run to people who can cover a marathon in 2:03.
A sub two person is alive right now.
knew a minimalist wrote:
It's a given that this will be on an assisted course. Rojo is 100% correct.
It may be an assisted course or it may be on an ineligible course.
We won't know if he is correct until we know the course.
In ideal unassisted course would be this:
Perfectly flat and perfectly straight the entire way with perfect temperature and no sun.
Maybe allow pacers to jump in a different points so there is a rabbit the whole way.
That's no different than wejo pacing Paula.
The runner still has to run it without physical aid.
But those conditions would be much faster than any current race situation allows for and would not be record eligible.
I'm not saying it would produce a sub two but it would give us a better idea of how fast man could run after eliminating many of the variables that slow a race down.
Incidentally, what specific type of assistance do you predict they will have?