Paul Tergat agrees with LetsRun - Sub-2 marathon is impossible

I don't know about sub 2, but I can tell you Mo will be the first sub 2:02

The following marks are going to fall before the 2:00 mark

9.50 for 100

19.00 for 200

42.5 for 400

1:40 for 800

3:40 for mile

7:15 for 3000

12:30 for 5000 - this will be a big deal since it would mean sub 4 all 3.1 miles

26:00 for 10,000

57:30 for HM

So definitely not before 2050.

Cheriyouts of fire. wrote:

The following marks are going to fall before the 2:00 mark

9.50 for 100

19.00 for 200

42.5 for 400

1:40 for 800

3:40 for mile

7:15 for 3000

12:30 for 5000 - this will be a big deal since it would mean sub 4 all 3.1 miles

26:00 for 10,000

57:30 for HM

So definitely not before 2050.

An improvement to sub-2 from today´s WR is the same improvement as the mile WR down to 3,34.

The 1500 and mile marks are superior.

Worth a 2:01- so a 2 flat is more along the lines of a 3:24 1500.- 1:39 800.

My own opinion of what is impossible is a sub 1 minute marathon. That would be 2530 km/h (1570 mph), two times faster than the current land speed record. I think the wind resistance would be too strong. After all, the world record speed for free fall is 1357.64 km/h (843.6 mph). Also the world will end before humans become such superrunners. The marathon world record will likely end up being between 7 and 8 minutes before the world ends.

What time could Bekele at his peak and training for the marathon run on a completely straight course with the maximum allowed drop and a perfectly straight slope? The running surface and temperature/humidity would also be optimal. Pacing would be perfect. There would be maximum allowed tailwind. He would be using all the PEDs that the doping test won´t detect.

name hidden wrote:

My own opinion of what is impossible is a sub 1 minute marathon. That would be 2530 km/h (1570 mph), two times faster than the current land speed record. I think the wind resistance would be too strong. After all, the world record speed for free fall is 1357.64 km/h (843.6 mph). Also the world will end before humans become such superrunners. The marathon world record will likely end up being between 7 and 8 minutes before the world ends.

This is a very scientifically well thought out answer

Let's say some billionaire, who happens to be a track guy, and maybe has an international sporting goods company, and is worth $16.3 billion according to the current Forbes magazine, and maybe already sponsors some major running teams and coaches, decides to put up some major cash for a sub-2?

Let's say he puts up $50 million for the guys who do it, $2 million each for the pacers who hit the 5 K marks on schedule, and some serious change for those who break 2:01, if the winner gets sub 2?

Do you think the Kenyans, Ethiopians, and the pharmaceutical industry will go wild with a two year head-start to prepare?

Imagine the publicity, speculation, and world-wide TV audience?

according to Forbes wrote:

Let's say some billionaire, who happens to be a track guy, and maybe has an international sporting goods company, and is worth $16.3 billion according to the current Forbes magazine, and maybe already sponsors some major running teams and coaches, decides to put up some major cash for a sub-2?

Let's say he puts up $50 million for the guys who do it, $2 million each for the pacers who hit the 5 K marks on schedule, and some serious change for those who break 2:01, if the winner gets sub 2?

Do you think the Kenyans, Ethiopians, and the pharmaceutical industry will go wild with a two year head-start to prepare?

Imagine the publicity, speculation, and world-wide TV audience?

That would be a monumental waste of $50 million. He would be better off using the cash to provide good nutrition to more Africans. Increasing the talent pool would eventually lead to a sub 2 and he would at least get some philanthropic return on his investment.

Federico wrote:

That would be a monumental waste of $50 million. He would be better off using the cash to provide good nutrition to more Africans. Increasing the talent pool would eventually lead to a sub 2 and he would at least get some philanthropic return on his investment.

Most, if not all, of the money would likely go back to Kenya and Ethiopia. It will go to raising the standard of living of many people through investment spending and development. Geb, Bekele, and others have shown us already that they use their wealth to improve their homeland.

And we are having fun here. Please don't take us off topic.

I have done this calculation in another thread.

If Bekele were as good at the marathon as Kipsang and everything was perfectly ideal he would have run 2:01:37.

This implies that it would take a 25:57 10k runner to focus on the marathon in his prime, to have perfect conditions, perfect pacing, and a perfect day to just have a shot at sub-2.

This really is a fun thread. Earlier, I mentioned Haile Gebrselassie, Daniel Komen, and Kenenisa Bekele. And, whether any of them in their prime might have been capable of running 4:34/mile for an entire marathon. I think sooner or later, we will see a runner of that caliber, maybe even one more talented, bring that extreme and rare combination of speed and endurance to the marathon. People often mention Bolt as an example of a 'freak' in another event...someone who comes along and just destroys the records...as if an entire generation was skipped. I suggest that David Rudisha is another such talent. He is young enough, and has enough fast eager competition coming along, that I am hopeful and cautiously confident that we will see him run the first sub-1:40 800. I don't know that we've seen that athlete, that prodigy come along yet in the marathon. Have we had an athlete come along in the marathon, who is a Bolt or a Rudisha? I don't think we have. Or, is a Wilson Kipsang that guy? Perhaps Paula Radcliffe was that athlete, on the women's side, at least on that one day in London in 2003...when she ran her 2:15:25. That still blows my mind. To throw another statistical bit in the mix: Zersenay Tadese's 2010 world best in the half marathon is 58:23, works out to 4:27/mile. I think someone else already mentioned Dennis Kimetto's 25K best of 1:11:18, which required a 4:35/mile pace. As a mere mortal track fan...wow.

I would never say never.

But sub-2 hour talk seems premature. Shouldn't we start some

"is a sub-58 half possible?" and

"is a sub-26 10K possible?" threads first?

Once these happen, then we can start talking seriously about a sub-2 hour marathon.

Physiologically, marathon times can improve from two sources: how to get more energy from fat, and how to reduce energy loss.

We can use simple math and logic to create an optimistic lower bound: since 2:06:50 to 2:03:23 took 25 years, seems like it won't happen before another 25 years. But then again, something unexpected can always happen.

And one final thought. Each generation is taller than the previous one. Whose to say that other important changes also occur over generations that will favor faster marathons?

grox wrote:

I don't want to hurt your feelings, but actually, if you enter any date, your model is off by a significant amount of time.

math nerd wrote:

Keep in mind that the runner who breaks 2 hours isn't born yet.

You don't know. No one knows.

There is a limit, we don't know what it is, we don't know when it will be reached. Why won't people admit that they don't know?

No hurt feelings, I'll double check the numbers. I remember it was a time series model, I forget the error margin.

Good point about no one knowing, I just like to have fun with numbers.

I think George E. P. Box said it best with "Essentially all models are wrong, some are useful."

Cheriyouts of fire. wrote:

The following marks are going to fall before the 2:00 mark

9.50 for 100

19.00 for 200

42.5 for 400

1:40 for 800

3:40 for mile

7:15 for 3000

12:30 for 5000 - this will be a big deal since it would mean sub 4 all 3.1 miles

26:00 for 10,000

57:30 for HM

So definitely not before 2050.

I think sub-2 happens before sub-26 10K, and not because it is easier. The first one to run a sub-2 marathon will get much greater fame and fortune than the first to run a sub-26 10K. That means anyone who has the potential to run a sub-26 will focus on marathon from a very early stage of his career, and therefore will not reach his potential in 10K.

A few other things will happen. Once someone runs a 2:00:xx, every top runner will try to enter the fastest course available (Berlin Dubai, Rotterdam, Frankfurt, etc.) and Boston and New York will not see any top talent, unless they change the course.

And many of those fast course races will set their pace to 59:5x for the first half, and many runners will chase that pace. There will be many failed attempts before someone manages to hold onto an even pace.

As a note 50y ago; 1963, the record was 2:14:28...; 25y ago; 1988, 2:06:50 was the best time ever recorded.

My best reasonable guess ...2:01:49

Take out all stops...2:01:04

12:25.64 is 4:00 minute mile pace carried out over 5000 meters. That's not happening in your lifetime; sorry.

Of course it will happen.

If you don't count Derek Clayton's 2:08.34 due to a short course, 2:09 wasn't even broken until December of 1981. 32 years later, it is 2:03:23.

In my lifetime, it has gone from 2:15:16.2 to 2:03:23 - a decrease of nearly 12 minutes. Another 3 minutes shouldn't take too long.

Kipsang is simply putting his shoes on and going out for a couple of runs a day (a couple of long runs). He is certainly not being monitored by a group of specialists who monitor his body daily to see what he can handle and where his recovery is at. He does not have access to all the best science to help his running. Does he even have the opportunities that are available to the Nike athletes in Portland?

Kipsang did not run to school every day, did not start running until 21, and did not start training seriously until 25. He does not have a lot of experience, but is largely self-coached - doing consistent 110 mile weeks at altitude. I believe Kipsang will run 2:02:30 before he is done.

We have a long ways to go in training methodology and the ability to recover the body. If Kipsang is doing 2:03 now, being self-coached and starting at 25, I think it won't be too long before we see someone approaching 2:00. My guess is by 2030.

I haven't looked at the way people are trying to make predictions from the current progression, but anything based on trying to fit a straight line is almost certainly not going to work well in the long run, even if it fits the existing data quite well. As you get faster air resistance goes up roughly with the square of speed. At low speeds overcoming air resistance is only a small part of the power output, the faster you get the more it dominates.

That doesn't mean that people can continue to lower the record, but the faster it is the harder it becomes to make improvements.