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

This will be done within the next 25 years. 3000m has already been run well under 4min mile pace (3000m WR equivalent to 7:56 2-mile) and the ability to run 2 miles under 8 has been possible for quite a while, although only Komen (7:58.61) has actually done it. The 5000m wr is about 4:07 per mile, which I believe is a little weak comparatively.

I don't mean your model is not optimal, I don't know (except of course for years before 1900 where it gets ridiculous, but you may say there weren't world bests at that time). I really mean the progression is quite irregular and any relatively simple formula cannot possibly account for the bumps (you'd probably have to sum different terms involving the year, or throw in a funny function (sine or whatever), but what sense would it make?). That's because the WR evolution is a complex phenomenon that just won't lend itself to that.

We have to understand the causes for the evolution. That would probably lead us to use different functions for different time periods. The boundaries would be, for instance, when some athletes started to use modern training principles, beginning of steroids use, first serious tests for that, when the Rift people got interested in running, EPO, EPO tests, etc. But even then, that would tell us nothing about what is going to happen next.

I like this way of thinking. Instead of looking for an absolute truth, just knowing we're searching for useful theories. (But in the case of athletics performance evolution predictions, good luck!)

rojo wrote:

Tergat: "Take it from me today; forget about it, it will never happen. It's impossible. Definitely maybe 2:03:10 but anything lower than that, it's going to a very uphill task."

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=170858

Unless that new google company drastically expands humans lifespans, it's not happening in my lifetime on a standard course with the current rules.

-Rojo PS. I say standard course and standard rules as i already think it's currently possible if they drive behind the lead pack with a machine that blows like 20 mph winds at the runners back for the whole race.

I'm more optimistic.

KK's 2:05:38 was pretty groundbreaking in 2002, and it came down more than two minutes in the decade since then.

And there are now FAR more guys knocking on the door now than in 2003, when Tergat was the only guy widely conceived to be sniffing it.

When Tergat did 2:04:55 in 2003 he said that was his absolute limit, that he couldn't walk for days afterward; he characterized it as being about as fast as a human could go. And now there are what, half a dozen guys under that? The current WR holder has beat Tergat's time by well over a minute, twice now.

I think in a way Tergat is underselling himself and how much FASTER he could have taken the marathon if he had hit it in 1996-2000, rather than as a swansong.

It is basically illogical to expect people NOT to keep improving marathon performance. From 100m to 42195m, every single generation characterizes current performance as surely near the limit.

Every single person to say this has been wrong. Ever.

"Ever" meaning in the last hundred years or so. A property holding true for some time does not mean it will forever.

RunAnnArbor wrote:

For the sake of clarity, and sobering reality...

A 1:59:59 marathon will require around about a 4:34/mile pace

Jeptoo threw in one of those in her Great North Run.

Not too long after his 2:04:55, Tergat also said that he didn't think it would be possible for anyone to improve on that time too much. He said he put so much into training for that and completely expended himself doing it that he didn't think it would be possible for anyone to run much faster. Of course now, three times since someone has run a full minute faster.

If only people would start taking gallowalks...sub 2!

I wrote extensively about this topic in an earlier thread.....in order to have any real chance to break the 2 hour barrier, the race organizers will need to create incentives for a "team approach" a group of the very best runners would need to get a equal payday for getting one person over the line fastest, a bit like team time trials in cycling. The key is the drafting (pace-making) which saves you a lot of energy. If a race organizer were to try it, then it could be interesting. My suggestion would first be to see how long a group could hold sub two hour pace. Could they get past 27K? If the pay day was big enough, maybe the top guys would try it. Keep in mind this is their job, so they would only "risk" such an attempt if it was equally as attractive as them winning a major marathon. get a group of guys designated to do all the work through 10K and then drop...then the next group carries the pack through to the half way mark....then the next group takes over through 30K. the last group who are designated to go for the record, are the last to share the work. The strongest in the end goes for the record, and if he breaks it, they all get to celebrate as it was a "team effort". Anyone who thinks that this is an individual effort does not understand running at this level. As the top guys how fast they think they could run a marathon completely solo from the beginning. You would never see a sub 2:06 performance. This is a team effort!

That's not much.

i remember when wrote:

Not too long after his 2:04:55, Tergat also said that he didn't think it would be possible for anyone to improve on that time too much. He said he put so much into training for that and completely expended himself doing it that he didn't think it would be possible for anyone to run much faster. Of course now, three times since someone has run a full minute faster.

A 14:13 5k, 8 and (almost) a half consecutive times would be necessary to run 1:59:59, more than 4 consecutive 28:26 10ks, ON THE ROAD.

Meanwhile, ON THE TRACK,

2012 US Olympic Trials - Qualifying Standards

Event “A” QT (Automatic)“B” QT(Provisional)

5000m 13:33.00 13:50.00

10000m 28:15.00 29:00.00

Having read the history of the quest for the sub four minute mile, prognosticators said the same thing.

I get that seconds are different than minutes but based on what we know now, it seems impossible but in time that will change.

We will see the sub 2 minute marathon.

RunAnnArbor wrote:

For the sake of clarity, and sobering reality...

A 1:59:59 marathon will require around about a 4:34/mile pace, using the calculator here:

http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/4/4_1/96.shtml

Wilson Kipsang's 2:03:23 worked out to around a 4:42/mile.

I realize that's an 8 seconds/mile difference. And, when I say it that way...8 seconds a mile doesn't sound like THAT much of a difference. So, then I think...what if a Haile Gebrselassie, or a Daniel Komen, or a Kenenisa Bekele...decided from the beginning of their career..."I am going to be a marathoner"...while still running 5 and 10Ks to hone their speed for the marathon.

Could any of them, in their prime, average 8 seconds a mile faster than Wilson Kipsang did in Berlin last Sunday?

.

It's conceiviable! But there must be a limit based on human physiology. It can't be present day half marathon pace?

Mcnj wrote:

You CANNOT predict the future. Now That's impossible. I'm pretty sure scientists said a sub- 4min mile was impossible and you would die due to heart failure. Now hundreds of people do it every year. The sub 2hour marathon will be achieved. Records are mean't to be broken and as time goes on and we evolve even more as a species things will change. Predicting the future is always wrong. Another example was the first computer - hahaha!

"The future is unwritten"

Joe Strummer

The Clash

Balian wrote:

We will see the sub 2 minute marathon.

Maybe. As I've already said, the world will likely end before we get under 7 minute marathon. Sub 2 minute requires us to find another galaxy because the Sun will effectively shut down before sub 2 minute marathon is conceivable.

We will definitely see sub 2. I don't think that the mathematical models shed any light on this question. This will take a genetic freak of a human to accomplish. The good news is that genetic freaks are born all of the time. The question is whether they will find the marathon at all.

A perfect example is the 100m or most hotly contested distance over which most every human has measured themselves at one point. At the beginning of the 1990s the WR was 9.92. No mathematical model would have predicted 9.58 in 2009. That is a monumental difference. All we need is the Bolt equivalent to show up at the marathon. That could happen in five years, or it could take 50 or more, but it will happen and no math model can accurately predict it.

agip wrote:

Did anyone think 9.58 was possible before it was done?

A problem with putting ceilings on human ability is the rare event of a freak like Usain Bolt.

It would take more than a freak. Usain Bolt has run the 100m 1.13% faster than anyone else. 1.13% faster than the existing marathon record would translate to a time of 2:02:00.

Still not even close.

rekrunner wrote:

That's not much.

i remember when wrote:

Not too long after his 2:04:55, Tergat also said that he didn't think it would be possible for anyone to improve on that time too much. He said he put so much into training for that and completely expended himself doing it that he didn't think it would be possible for anyone to run much faster. Of course now, three times since someone has run a full minute faster.

I searched for the quote and can't find it. I think it was around the time Haile was trying to lower the record at Berlin and Dubai in 2007-09. And Tergat didn't expect the WR to get much lower. Haile, on the other hand, thought he could possibly run 2:02 and change.

I point this out only to say that Tergat was wrong about his 2:04:55 being lowered only slightly. It's now 92 seconds lower, which IS a lot. To put 92 seconds in perspective, taking another 92 seconds off would take the record down to 2:01 and change.

800m Coach wrote:

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.

perhaps this helped in some way. ron clarke took a break after junior years and didn't get into running until a little later. norm green?

and also

The answer was to take up running the mile at 19 and then move to Australia with his mother and sister when he was 20. Clayton soon found happiness as a draftsman-surveyor and as a reasonably competent distance runner.

from sports illustrated