I saw Rexing do it on a track in CA. I think he threw in a few steeples for kicks.
I saw Rexing do it on a track in CA. I think he threw in a few steeples for kicks.
"Genetic freaks are born everyday"
this brings up a good fundamental question.
are we evolving into superior physical humans?
or are humans evolving more in a downward spiral physically?
I think were in an evolutionary standstill. Since humans dont need to be stronger or faster to survive, the genetic defects that are slow will cancel out the ones who are fast
when marathoners starting run 10 x 800m in 1:59 each.
Bart Yasso wrote:
when marathoners starting run 10 x 800m in 1:59 each.
But it has been scientifically proven that Yasso was off by 0.056784923%. Really, 800.4623786m is the right distance. All Marathoners must do 10 times that distance.
Relating to Clayton's performance, I also have heard the rumours about whether the Course was accurate or not....
Here's what I know....
I was very fortunate to be able to spend many hours talking to Ron Clarke.... I have a lot of it on cassette tape, if I can find it...
He (and he did run 27:39 for 10 K., on cinders, with no rabbits or whatever) told me he would only run 1 day a week with Clayton because, according to Clarke, Clayton
ran way too hard, way too often...
Again, quoting Clarke, Clayton always ran fast, because he hated running, and just wanted to get it over with, and he only did it because he was good at it....
So the run that Clarke said they did, was a Thursday 17 mile road run (which Ron said was a race) over hills, and which Ron said was one of Clayton's easier runs of the week...
Therefore, whether Clayton's WR was exact distance wise,
or not, I believe that he was training like a 2:08 to
2:09 guy for sure....
150 or more mpw, much of it fast, requiring about a dozen leg surgeries since his career ended, and too hard for a 27:30 (on cinders) guy... what am I missing here ???
I really don't believe anyone could train any harder than Clayton did, and given his somewhat subdued talent level,
based on his shorter distance performances, I don't think we have seen anyone since above his level....
Something around 2:08.30, almost 40 years ago....again,
no pacemakers.....wow !!!
Other than this famous 2:08, what else did Clayton do, Ron? I ask because I'm ignorant....I know very little about this God Of Running....
Skuj, see this link:http://www.time-to-run.com/marathon/athletes/clayton.htmHad occasion to see this gentleman in 1981 at a running seminar the day before the Van. Marathon give a talk, then later on to joinn him for a run around part of Stanley Park. Quite the character!
Skuj wrote:
Other than this famous 2:08, what else did Clayton do, Ron? I ask because I'm ignorant....I know very little about this God Of Running....
a sub 2hr marthon is 4:36 mile pace...i don't see that happening for a loooooooong time
I find this topic fascinating. There was a conference of medical and running professionals that discusses the limits of human performance at this year's Chicago Marathon (see bottom link).
Here's another interesting article. (I know it's RW, but...)
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-239-365--10614-0,00.html
It is rather insulting to ask Tergat about a sub 2 hour Marathon, because it kind suggest that sub 2.05 aint good enough. Of course he is going to say sub 2 is impossible, to put the interviewer in his or her place, and reclaim his dignity.
Ummm, your statement is kind of ridiculous in itself. Tergat has no dignity to reclaim. He is the current WR holder and something of an authority on what is possible.
Many marathoners have themselves said they think 2:00 is impossible.
Hmm so sub 2:04 is the next sub 4 barrier?
Obviously yes.
Clayton ran under 2:10 at Fukuoka(sp) also.
tadesse may run 2:04, he runs a good half, shows promise and doesn't have good speed
bekele is obviously great but he uses his hamsrings too much when he runs, the marathon requires a lower energy stride, his is good for track and cross but not for the marathon, he depends on his explosive stride which is not as useful in a marathon
Clayton always claimed that he was absolutely insistent that the course in Antwerp was accurate before he agreed to run that race because he was planning on getting the record. There had been another marathon run in Antwerp for many years on a course that was known to be about 600 meters short, but that wasn't Clayton's course. There was a letter in Track and Field News shortly afterward from Roberto Quintecani (I guarantee that I've misspelled his name, but he was T&FN's European correspondent)who claimed that the course definitely was accurate. Of course there is no way of verifying that now.
The part about how hard Clayton trained is interesting to ponder. Clayton once said that he couldn't imagine that the two hour barrier would ever be broken because anyone who'd do so would need to train much harder than he (Clayton) did and that would, according to Clayton, be impossible.
But we've had many people now who've run faster than Clayton on training that certainly isn't easy but is not nearly as hard as what Clayton did and late in his career Clayton ran 2:11 on something like 70-80 mpw which lead him to say that he probably had trained too hard earlier in his career. So we have to consider the possibility that Clayton might have run even faster if he'd not trained as hard as he did.
Anyway, about twenty years ago a friend asked me whether I thought the two hour barrier would be broken in my lifetime. He thought it would and I didn't. He wanted to bet on it but I was smart enough to ask how I'd collect my money if I won. I still don't expect to see a sub two hour marathon, but that assumes that the human body remains like it is now. We can't rule out some sort of super performance enhancing drugs or even genetic manipulation and then all bets are off.
By the way, if you ever wanted to make copies of those cassettes where you talked to Clarke and sell them you'd have a buyer here.
Clayton's training probably would have been improved nowadays by a 'sharpening' period of reduced volume and more speedwork in the weeks just before the race, and something resembling a taper in a week to 10 days before.
Who knows what he could have done?
Noakes TLOR suggests that guys like Clayton and Ron Hill were never 100% even on race day, due to the long term cellular damage they were constantly training and racing through.
Of course, it's okay to say now what Clayton may or may not have done better...
But I think he took the World Best down from 2:12.ish
to 2:08.30ish (3 1/2 minutes) over a couple, or was it
a few years ??
And his time is still really outstanding...
Especially for a guy without altitude or any of the many
other factors that are contributing to the East African
distance running success. And without pace-making...
Is anyone 100 % sure of that ?? Did he have company
in the earlier stages of his Amsterdam run, or his
other fast Marathons ??
And it doesn't seem that he was particularly "talented",
in the sense of being a great natural runner...
As to what Clayton ran off lower mileage later in his career, you don't run the way he did earlier (150-180
mpw), and just lose that training effect...That's got
to be in your body somewhere, right ??
In Clarke's words, Clayton may have run trained way too
hard, but maybe that's what it took for him to run the
times he did....
I have located the cassette tapes, now I just have to locate my cassette player, and see if they still play...
The sound quality is very poor, but I could transcribe
them. The Clarke tapes have a lot of interesting info. about his own training, and the people he met and raced
against... I also have tapes of Lydiard and Harry Wilson talking to distance runners & coaches in Vancouver from many, many years ago... I'll see what I can do...
Don't worry I'll take it under 2 hours. So no, it is not impossible.