Adding some fuel to the fire:
I would also argue that the 5k and 10k records will not be broken within the next 25 years. For now, due to increased testing, they're considered untouchable.
And after 25 years....I doubt East Africans are still into running much. So who knows, KB's records may stand for a very long time...
My only beef is with people who act like we are close to the sub 2 hour marathon.
Nothing empirically points to that. The WSJ had an article a few years ago.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204846304578090781440553160.html
How about this quote:
"In the small world of elite distance running, breaking the two-hour barrier has left the realm of "if" and has become a matter of "when?" and "who?"
That's total BS.
And another quote:
"Yannis Pitsiladis, a researcher at the University of Glasgow's College of Medicine, Veterinary & Life Sciences, who has studied elite distance runners in East Africa. "The current thinking is that it will fall sometime between 2020 and 2030, but I think it can happen much sooner, perhaps as soon as the next five years," he said. "We haven't really used much science yet in training."
is nuts. I'll bet him as much money as he wants to bet and give him 10 to 1 odds there isn't a sub 2 hour marathon on a legit course in the next 5 years.
Maybe I'm under estimating a total freak like Paula Radcliffe coming around but a sub 2 hour is completely out of the realm of what is going on now in the sport.
And the AW article on the homepage says it may be broken in the next 25-50 years. I don't think that disagrees too much with what Rojo wrote.
GlobalView wrote:
Point taken, but if he is indeed 17, then maybe my assertion has some "legs" (PI)?
But even if he is 17, there is no reason to assume a "logical progression". There are an awful lot of East Africans that appear on the scene as Juniors and just never develop past that. Sammy Kipketer, for example ran 12:54 as a junior. Got all the way down to 12:52 during the rest of his career. Choge Augustine Kiprono ran 12:52 as an 18 year old. He hasnt broken 13 minutes since he turned 20 in 2007...
Nutella1 wrote:
Adding some fuel to the fire:
I would also argue that the 5k and 10k records will not be broken within the next 25 years. For now, due to increased testing, they're considered untouchable.
And after 25 years....I doubt East Africans are still into running much. So who knows, KB's records may stand for a very long time...
Agree 100% No one is even approaching the 5k/10k times. They are same for another 15 years.
Wejo I'd still like to hear your opinion on my earlier question.
I have to agree. The more developed these countries get, there is a equally a good chance that they will not be a keen on running as now.
In response to Wejo's first post. He's right. Yes, we have established that someone has run 14:13 for 5K in a marathon (but still not quite sure). How about the other associated 5K splits: 14:13, 28:26, 42:39, 56:52. I'll stop there.
So, run a 42:39 15K followed by a second 42:39. But wait there's more. Run another 28:26. (If he does that, let's just give him the last 2.2K). No one reading this or that can currently read will see a sub 2hr. There may have been a 14:13 marathon split but we aren't really close to a 28:26 much less THREE MORE. It's 2 Hours of running ladies.
There is another Farah out there... his twin brother! Left in Somalia, I don't think he made anything of a success like Farah did. Mo said he smokes on chat show TV here.
So there are a lot more David Rudisha types left in Kenya?
Wow, congratulations then!
Was it first done in the 80s, 90s? 1.2 miles on top - how long does that take? 5-6-7-8 minutes?
Seems the classic distance was about this length, before the London Olympics (1908) and IAAF standardisation soon after. Interesting that Wanjiru (RIP) did 20.01 kph for 2:06.32 (OR). We could calculate the speed needed for a sub-2, and how far it is above the WR currently.
I think the interesting question is 'what exactly is preventing current athletes from running under 2 hours?' By this I mean what is the physiological limiting factor?
Plenty of people can run halfway at the required speed (and in some cases with a fair bit to spare) but I'm not entirely sure what exactly it is that it is stoppping them putting two back to back. If it is an issue of fuelling then potentially I could see somebody working their way around this issue somehow. However, if its just a case of physics being the issue than this may be impossible to overcome. I'm thinking here of some data I came across a few years ago examining the relationship between body mass and ability to maintain body temperature whilst running at various speeds in different climatic conditions. The problem is that in order to run at very high speeds, it is advantageous to be very small. Somebody mentioned the possibility of the genetic 'freak' who may suddenly appear on the scene, but it may be the case that the 'freak' required will, in addition to being a very fast half marathon runner with the ability to tolerate a very high training load, also be incredibly small.
I am sure before the sub-4 minute mile, sub 3:53 looked absurd.
Same with 2:03:30 and 2:00:00...both ~3% faster.
Granted the marathon now is a lot closer to the "flat" part of the curve, but it's certainly possible...but to say within 10 years is absurd.
I'd say it happens around 2060-2080.
One more though:
World Record under 2h vs. a Marathon under 2h.
In a "perfect storm" like 2011, it would have been possible to run sub2h. However, Boston had no pacers and additionally, everyone was scared of running that fast. But with a 25mph tailwind, a 2:03 runner can run 1:59.
Piran wrote:
I think the interesting question is 'what exactly is preventing current athletes from running under 2 hours?' By this I mean what is the physiological limiting factor?
Plenty of people can run halfway at the required speed (and in some cases with a fair bit to spare) but I'm not entirely sure what exactly it is that it is stoppping them putting two back to back. If it is an issue of fuelling then potentially I could see somebody working their way around this issue somehow. However, if its just a case of physics being the issue than this may be impossible to overcome. I'm thinking here of some data I came across a few years ago examining the relationship between body mass and ability to maintain body temperature whilst running at various speeds in different climatic conditions. The problem is that in order to run at very high speeds, it is advantageous to be very small. Somebody mentioned the possibility of the genetic 'freak' who may suddenly appear on the scene, but it may be the case that the 'freak' required will, in addition to being a very fast half marathon runner with the ability to tolerate a very high training load, also be incredibly small.
I like this train of thought. Although not doable right now, I think eventually science may prove useful in this regard by identifying polymorphisms that confer certain beneficial physiological traits. Comparing and crossing 10/HM specialists with FM specialists could prove illuminating. I'd love to know why Tadese can't run a decent marathon.
You wouldn't think that someone on EPO would get a significant psychological boost and make them think that they're capable of a faster time, allowing them to give less respect for the distance? People have been blowing up in the marathon since the dawn of time. All of a sudden, all racers in the 90's respected the distance? Especially now that they had access to EPO? I don't buy it.
TLW wrote:
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.
M.C. Confusing wrote:
GlobalView wrote:Point taken, but if he is indeed 17, then maybe my assertion has some "legs" (PI)?
But even if he is 17, there is no reason to assume a "logical progression". There are an awful lot of East Africans that appear on the scene as Juniors and just never develop past that. Sammy Kipketer, for example ran 12:54 as a junior. Got all the way down to 12:52 during the rest of his career. Choge Augustine Kiprono ran 12:52 as an 18 year old. He hasnt broken 13 minutes since he turned 20 in 2007...
Good points here and from earlier posters questioning birth dates. Yes, many of these East African "wunderkinds" haven't gone on to further improvement, it's true, and that probably is a testament to phoney birth dates. And some athletes peak earlier than others, no question.
But what is also true is that many of these athletes, regardless of their exact age, have limited formal training, and thus great potential. What they really need after bursting on the scene is a solid coach and training stable, as was the case with Kim MacDonald in Teddingdon, London in the late '90s, early millenium. Unfortunately, this doesn't always materialize, and maybe that explains the overall "spotty" careers of precocious young runners like Mossima, Choge, Asbel Kiprop, Isaiah Koech, etc.
My contention that the "sub-2:00 formula" hasn't happened yet, and that is: young, undertrained runner with solid times over 10k and/or HM + good coach (with a long-term plan of creating a top marathoner) and training group for the next 10 years = chance at sub-2.
OK here's how you could MAYBE get someone to run a sub-2 marathon.
1) Find a billionaire or corporation to finance the attempt.
2) Find a mountain with a slope that's right at the allowable decline (and best altitude - maybe start at 4,500 feet and end at 1,000 feet or whatever.
3) Pave a tartan track surface for the entire thing.
4) Have a huge pace truck with wind blocking shields so the runners can draft off it (if this is allowable).
5) Instruct the driver of the pace truck to drive at EXACTLY 1:59:55 pace or whatever throughout.
6) Allow the runners to accept beverages from their supporting teams on motorbikes beside them (like they do in cycling).
7) Blast techno music so the runners get super pumped.
8) If the winner breaks 2 hours, they get $10 million bucks.
9) It's televised live all across the world and billed as the greatest single sporting event ever.
10) DO IT!
Would that work?
holinshed wrote:
What about this?:
Richard Branson decides to stop worrying about space flight for a while. He buys a large, flat plot of land in western Nebraska and builds a 5km track (fast surface, long straight-aways, broad turns). He throws appearance fees at the world's 15 best marathoners to come in and massively incentivizes fast marathon times: $ for keeping
^^so what you and others are saying pretty much boils down to a marathon on a track, right? Marathon on a track is the right answer. It is always the right answer. The first sub 2:00 marathon will be a marathon on a track.
I see some references to "genetic freaks" who might come along at some random time in the future. The thing is, the guys running 2:03 to 2:05 now already are genetic freaks. All elite athletes are genetic freaks. Maybe the thinking is there would be a "freak amongst freaks" to make regular elite athletes look pedestrian, but I think the chances of this happening are essentially zero. I can't think of a single example in the history of sports where one person had an obvious level of genetic superiority over everyone else. The current elite guys are as elite as humans are going to get, genetics-wise.
Looking for somebody to surface who can run sub 1 hr for the half-marathon like so many others, but who, due to genetic factors, does not tire like everyone else in the ensuing second half-marathon, is like looking for someone that can run a 45 second 400m like countless others, but not tire that much afterwards and come back with a 48 or so next 400, and run 1:33 for 800m. Won't happen.
1. 14:35
2. 14:35 (29:10) --ease into it with some 4:40s
3. 14:35 (43:45)
4. 14:20 (58:05) -- 20k - start rollin up to a hard threshold
5. 14:20 (1:12:25)
6. 14:20 (1:26:45)
7. 13:45 (1:40:30) - big drive for home
8. 13:35 (1:54:05)
9. 5:20 2 kilometers (1:59:25)
10. :30 200 (1:59:55)
I think someone with prs of like
7:35, 13:00, 26:30 could do this. They'd have to be very fast, yet very distance oriented. The pacing of the marathon is being rethought as the duration with which they are running may be much more physiologically different than a guy running 2:15. Maybe the wall really hits at 2 hours, but a 2:15 guy just suffers through it a little longer?
Human generations are inevitabily going to change. The marathon freak of 1930s is not the same as a marathon freak of 2013, albeit with better resources but I think they are really different. The question then becomes, are future human generations going to evolve to become faster or slower? If they evolve to become slower in longer distances, does that mean that there will be faster sprinters or vice versa?
What I am not getting is why people think we have plateaued yet the current records for marathon are within last 2 years. This makes no sense because disillussion in running times logic occurs after years of lack of progress.
Anyway, after evaluating all evidence in these posts, I think the benefit of doubt is for those who are arguing that a sub 2hr marathon will happen. The support comes from historical evidence that many such feats have been ruled impossible historically (with the very same arguments here) but have come to pass. I think the accurate question is who among us will live to see a sub 2hr marathon?
wr potential wrote:
Wow, congratulations then!
Was it first done in the 80s, 90s? 1.2 miles on top - how long does that take? 5-6-7-8 minutes?
Seems the classic distance was about this length, before the London Olympics (1908) and IAAF standardisation soon after. Interesting that Wanjiru (RIP) did 20.01 kph for 2:06.32 (OR). We could calculate the speed needed for a sub-2, and how far it is above the WR currently.
I did my first 25 miler in under an hour back in '98. Like I said, it was the last 1.2 that killed me (1:12.45 for a finishing time of 2:12.38) . I'm sure that others have had similar experiences.