Sub 2 Hour Marathon Discussion: My Thoughts and Yours

will see it in my lifetime wrote:

We just need a 57 guy that's more a half/full type than a 10K/half type like tadese.

See, that's all we need!

Latest improvements in performance seem to coincide with the first signs of unregulated doping in Kenya. By unregulated I mean the average athletes as opposed to athletes manged by existing high profile agents with access to those types of facilities

It is no accident that all of a sudden you are getting marathon runners with good but not world betting track pedigree running 2:04 and 2:05 marathons. I would suspect the clean marathon record is around 2:05 low which would indicate a significant improvement in the marathon world record over the past 30 years but no where near enough to approach a sub 3 hour.

Sorry sub 2 hour

So True So True wrote:

Wait, did you just say that you found the fastest half-marathon run in a marathon and justify it by saying that it is only two seconds slower than the second half-marathon run during the 2011 Boston Marathon?

How does that work again?

I assumed we aren't counting Boston because of the wind... if we do than it's indeed one second faster.

PS for some reason my post got deleted where I linked to the Berlin splits. Don't know why.

13k to 34k looks fastest to me

I think it is unlikely there will ever be a sub-2 marathon. All the standard arguments about why it will take at least several decades have been fairly well elucidated already, on these message boards and elsewhere. However, there seems to be an assumption that people will keep trying and trying, and if it's not accomplished in 50 years time, well, they'll keep trying, and if it takes 200 years, or 1000 years, they'll keep trying until somebody does it.

But when you think about it, how likely is it that marathoning as a popular sport will continue beyond maybe a few more decades? Is it really likely that there will be a Berlin Marathon in 100 years or 500 years time (or even a city of Berlin for that matter)? What if interest in the sport declines, and mass participation declines, and sponsors start to pull out because they're not getting much value for their investment? Gradually, it will become harder to put together quality fields, and individuals will start finding new ways to seek their fortune as prize purses decrease. At that point, when the level of professionalism has declined to where marathoning is conducted at a similar level to, say, the early 1900s, it's highly unlikely that the unlikely individual human capable of a sub-2 (if such a feat is physically possible) would even participate in marathoning, and if they did, they wouldn't have the framework in place to enable them to reach their potential.

100 years from now, or maybe at most a few hundred years from now, I think it's unlikely there will be an NFL, NBA, MLB, etc, and popular, well-paid professional marathons will probably disappear before those sports. The world will probably look as different to ours as ours does to the world of hundreds of years in the past. There is no reason to think professional sports will be the one constant in an ever-changing world.

"

Just wait until Usain Bolt fathers a child with Tirunesh Dibaba."

Are they dating?

Another consideration for fans of running: would it even be possible to enjoy it as a fan if someone managed to run a sub-2? Wouldn't the mere fact that they had obliterated something that had seemed impossible not long before lead to the conclusion that it had to be drug-fueled?

Not to mention, it WOULD have to be drug-fueled!

My own feeling would be, come on! those guys in the 2000's and 2010's were like superbeings, mountain men, scrawny, lithely muscled stick-people who grew up at altitude running 10k to and from school, then got hooked up with modern technology, lightweight shoes, synthetic tracks, advanced coaching, probably EPO and other drugs, all that - and the best they could manage was 2:03? And you're telling me this new guy ran 1:59? In what way could this person have been in any way more suited to being a fast distance runner than the 2002-2013 guys? Definitely dirty!

I guess the other thing we need to consider is the possibility that one day a talented young East African would discover the CrossFit Endurance training program.

Women's world records don't line up in 5k 10k marathon, which hurts your strongest argument (John Kellog's Conversion Chart).

Now I'm not trying to come at the king (JKellogg), but I don't think we can use the fact that his conversion chart shows comparable times to then use supposition on the human species running progression.

In other words, this is a great tool for INDIVIDUALS, but shouldn't be used in any way to predict running progression in the sport.

Wejo, in your article you talked about how 5k/10k records have barely improved in 15 years.

Do you think the cause was the rampant EPO use before the EPO test came out in 2000?

Does anyone find it odd that the marathon world record was unchanged from 1988 (2:06:50 - ran by an ethiopian, just before the advent of the EPO era) until it was broken 10 years later in 1998 (2:06:05)? If EPO really was the bee's knees, you'd think someone would have obliterated it during those 10 years.

kanny wrote:

Does anyone find it odd that the marathon world record was unchanged from 1988 (2:06:50 - ran by an ethiopian, just before the advent of the EPO era) until it was broken 10 years later in 1998 (2:06:05)? If EPO really was the bee's knees, you'd think someone would have obliterated it during those 10 years.

This is a common misconception.

The way the marathon was raced was MUCH different in the 90s.

It was 'respect the distance' and now it's suicide pace 'blow up or set the WR' style.

Why aren't guys in Major League Baseball throwing 117 mph considering some were throwing in the mid 90s over 50 years ago?

Nachoman wrote:

Why aren't guys in Major League Baseball throwing 117 mph considering some were throwing in the mid 90s over 50 years ago?

Stupid troll.

They don't need too. Making millions already. Running rewards progression.

Justin91 wrote:

Give me some money. With my patented "weight vest training method", I guarantee that I can break 2:00. I just need a sponsor to my expenses while I train.

If you need a designer for your patent, let me know...

Both arguments for and against are very compelling and on their own merit, it is hard to pick a side. However, someone said "never say never", and I think this is one of those situation, where if running is going to remain a human sport for the next hundred year, it is inevitable. Whether it is technology, new training methods, or we humans have physically changed since the 1900s, there has been gradual improvement in the marathon but for some reason, people believe it has ended in 2013.

There are several things to consider in the marathon and in any sport in general. One thing that has been already mentioned is the course. Each marathon is unique based on its course and this is the major determinant of time. Interestingly, course records vary in the order of minutes between among courses. Do you believe there is no newer course in some random country that will ever be made that is faster than say, Berlin? Secondly, we can not rule out that a freak of nature will not be born in the coming years. Now whether Bolt is drugged or not, his built really makes you wonder what a future sprinter will be like. Look too at Lemaitre, these guys are build differently than the sprinters of yester years; they are lean, tall, and probably have more endurance than earlier sprinters, while still having the powerful bursts. Thirdly, how do we know that we have exploited all the world potential for the marathon? Think about it, before 1960s when Kenyan's started running officially with the debut of Keino, probably not many then saw the eventual coming of generations of African runners. Keep in mind that to be able to pursue non-essential human endeavors, you have to meet the basic needs first, and believe me, several African countries have not gotten here. Even in Kenya, world class runners even in the 1990's still did other things on the side (usually farming) instead of training all year round like they are doing now (due to the increasing ridiculously high payouts in world marathons). Even today, Kenya has a fairly good 400M potential but our best facilities are laughable for sprinting compared to world standards. I would be very surprised if in the next 20 years Kenyans don't start assaulting 400M. Look at the physique of all 400M guys from Kenya. They are all exceptionally good 800M guys with a fast 400 and that's it. They have lack muscle and they lack technique, but they have fair endurance. While the case for Kenya and Ethiopia is harder to make, think about other Sudanese and Somalis. These guys have had more to worry about than Kenya or Ethiopia but they are now just stabilizing. How do we know there is no other Farah out there. Another example is Botswana but for a different reason. This one is one of those where although all needs are met (Botswana has always been peaceful, democratic, and also well-to-do compared to many African countries), people must subscribe to a culture of running. For Amantle Monsho and Nijel Amos to have such fast times for 400M tells me that this country probably has more. To conclude, as far the marathon is concerned, the human trend over generations has been toward faster times and their is not evidence of stagnation. In fact, the fastest times ever were set only around 2 years ago and by different people!

What if Ethiopia and Kenya become more developped countries. Much less incentive to dedicate your life to the marathon. Just like Britain, USA, Canada and many other countries. We'll see less and less 2h15 guys with a few dedicated outliers.

My prediction: I bet it will be done by a genetically modified Chinese guy or girl and this is easily possible in the next 20 years.

HA!, this is so funny as it's basically the same thoughts as a thread that I posted on about the 2 Hour Marathon a couple years ago....it's not gonna happen in our lifetime. Thanks for agreeing with me Wejo.

Logical Man wrote:

[quote]wejo wrote:

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.

[quote]

Once again you are failing to understand simple logic. It was, in a word, illogical.

I also pointed out correctly that your argument to try to back up that belief was, and remains, illogical.

No, you are wrong. Maybe some overthinking going on, there?It is clearly wise to factor in rates of improvement. Quite clearly those rates have leveled off as the sport has been "professionalized." Are you suggesting we will see the same percent improvement from 2010 to 2050 as we saw from 1940 to 1980?