Breaking: Nike admits that its sub-2 hr attempt won't come on a legitimate course and won't count for a WR

A random Kenya ran 25:43 on a super-downhill 10K course (wearing those banned Spira shoes with springs in them) back in 2008. The winner ran 26:01 the year before.

I can't find much on the runner (Elisha Korir Chuma) ... all I see are listed (road) PRs of 30:03, 1:03:57 and 2:16:47.

Anyone know what a 25:43 is worth for a marathon? If I remember correctly, that "defy the ban" 10K course averages 4.5% decline.

Take a legitimate top-tier 10K-to-marathon roads guy and who knows what he runs on that course and with those shoes. Then extend that to the marathon and maybe it'd be close to sub-2? Of course designing a marathon course that is that much downhill would be difficult and there is the matter of how much running downhill over that distance would beat the legs up; that might still make a sub-2 impossible even on a super-downhill course.

This is exactly how Nike is corrupting our sport, for many years they funded athletes using PEDS. Now they are ruining the sport in two ways: 1) look at this thread we are now talking about genetic breading in equine fashion but perhaps worse 2) Let's just hypothesize that they run 2:01:50-ish or 2:02:10-ish in perfect conditions on a bouncy mickey mouse loop circuit with bouncy taylor-made shoes, this will undermine other 2:02/3 times done in random weather in Amsterdam, Berlin, Chicago, London, New York or Paris even though these times are the official WR, people and journalists will undermine their efforts by saying, "though at the Nike marathon such & such ran 2:01:50-something."

Jimmy21 wrote:

What I don't get is that people agree that sub 2 will happen eventually but it's impossible now. Why is that. Humans aren't evolving to be better at running but most agree it's not impossible at some later date

Without selective breeding and 100 years, it's going to be much longer than 100 years. If you bred humans for endurance sports, probably 100 years.

With enough epo to stop an athlete's heart, 2 years. They need some more peptide discoveries. But, 5 years should definitely do it.

Our man Jos Hermens is working on this too. He is so connected at the iAAF I'd say 10 years and a 'race horse' full of peds on an official course.

goood call wrote:

So.......St George 2017?

No that's too high elevation. Perhaps lengthen the Fontana days course or redirect the Pines to Palm course.

But Nike needs to read this board and take into consideration the win course. Design a special car to break the wind similar to speed cycling or motorcycle records. Then turn around and let them fly.

I went to the Las Vegas Marathon one year in 2:20-2:22 shape. Ended up running into a 50 mph headwind on the old point to point course. I wish they would have flipped it around. Even with the net elevation gain I would have been sub 2:15 easy. The wind was so strong it was hard to stand up.

Like the Mavricks surfing competition give the runners a 3 week window. When the winds hit time to go.

Or if it's not legit make it downhill with the wind at your back. Sub 2 would be no problem.

rojo wrote:

We already know a human can easily travel 26.2 miles in under 2 hours. It's not hard at all on a bike, roller skates, etc.

Worth repeating and good point.

Rojo crying about this being a marketing ploy?

The Brojos are clickbait masters.

What's the difference?

rojo wrote:

How is doing it on a gimmicky course testing the limits of anything? We already know a human can easily travel 26.2 miles in under 2 hours. It's not hard at all on a bike, roller skates, etc.

I'm totally for this if it's the beginning och more runners being able to make a living on our sport. We should have started counting multiple world records in the marathon distance year ago. There should be classes. Just like many sports have weight classes.

Flat course (-1‰ -- +1‰)

Low Up (+1‰ -- +1%)

Uphill +1% -- 3%

Uphill +3% -- +5%

Etc

And the same in the other direction.

We all know SOMETHING must be done to increase the popularity of our sport, serious courses are already measured for lenght AND gradient, putting into record list would be an EASY addition.

This could even prolong the 2H limit meme beyond our lifetimes. I'd guess it will fall on a -3% -- -5% course first. Then one with a lower up gradient. Then on a regular course. And then some runners will start chasing it on low uphill gradient courses. Instead of seeing the 2H limit fall once, we'll get to see runners pursue it over and over and over again on ever more steep courses.

So I'm looking forward to this. To bad it's Nike that's doing it - but hey, someone might still beat them too it. Put someone like Jim Whamsley or Zach Miller on a -10% point to point in the Rockies and we'll have the first sub 2H before the year is over. Without Nikes name to it!

longjack wrote:

that peak bekele with marathon preparation, with a block of pacers to 30k, on a perfect day can go 201 x, which is 400m or so off 2 hours.

Exactly. I'd say the marathon (male) times are not exactly optimized. Just look at the two fastest performances: one from a newbie, and one from an aging guy not exactly in his top shape. Plus, not exactly run with even pace.

And, that Berlin course isn't optimized within the legal limits, see for example what Another giver of +1 wrote.

Finally, look at the progression of the WR: 1:08 improvement during the 90s, 1:43 during the 00s, 1:02 during the 10s so far. No end of WRs in sight.

I expect to see a 2:01 during the next decade, even without a newly designed course. Or lower, if we went back to the 2003 rules, e.g. no blood passport and no proper EPO test.

Ok Some rules are silly. Nike has enough class to pick a course that is probably reasonable. They won't make this a circus. It won't be pure but sometimes rules are silly.

I bet Nike with follow some reasonable rules. They won't go to St.george or one of those silly Utah marathons that drops thousands of feet.

If the course is 26.2 miles, doesn't have a massive elevation drop....or hurricane tail wind...than it's a marathon.

I bet they will make a 5k-10k circuit that is flat/loop.

Make it spectator friendly... flat...perfect concrete or ahsphalt.

If you can a 10k circuit flat/fast/sea level!

With a robot pacer ? It's still a sub-2hr marathon.

Even if the course was point to point but only dropped a few hundred feet I would say that's :)

Didn't bekele run his last 400 in something like 54 seconds? That tells me he had a lot left tof givd. Plus he said he wasn't in optimal shape and the pacing wasnt even.

I'd create a course at the Salton Sea. I did a run down there on vacation once and swear that running effort was reduced by 10 seconds.

ukathleticcoach wrote:

Jus do it in a car. Complete waist of time

Do they write differently in England than they do in the US? Jus is not a word. Also, waist is not used in the correct way. The word you are searching for is waste. Jesus, you people make me sick.

I've been travelling the last few days. How is the above much different from Berlin? They don't have someone pacing them the exact pace but they do have a car in front showing the pace they are running and it is pretty flat.

Even with that scenario of Berlin no one has run under 1:01:11 for a half split in a marathon. It's not like they haven't had the incentive to run faster for the half split on a flat course.

I assume Kipchoge in perfect "Stanford" conditions could lower the marathon record quite a bit but Nike clearly thinks by saying it won't be on a record course what most of us believe and that is 2:00:00 on a record course isn't possible now.

How much do we think turns slow people down? What do you think could be run on a course with 1 turn and 26 meter drop?

Canova also thinks drinking more often than every 5k would help a lot. Someone explain that one.

There isn't a huge difference but there are a few minor ones. The pacer would be on perfect 1:59:59 pace and the runner would know instantly if he is falling behind. You would create a course with few, if any turns and certainly none that are ninety degrees. Finally, the runner would not be in a race, trying to beat other people with money on the line for every place lost. I think that, combined with the pacing system, makes it more likely that the runner will get closer to dropping dead short of the finish (not literally, but you get the point).

Even with all of that I do agree with you. The chance of success is about zilch.

1 turn and a 42 meter drop (1 meter per km). Ideal course would be 21.1k out, 21.1k back, one wide turn, the 42 meter drop coming over the last 5 or so km as an even decline. Legal course. Build it Nike and they will come.

"Kip Keino and Jim Ryun's kids were to good to superb runners but they were not all-time. The same will most likely be true for Haile Gebresalassie and Keninesse Bekele, regardless of who they have kids with."

Mean regression. Thanks, Galton.

Please go back to traveling.

I wish someone would jump the gun and go do this on one of the downhill Boston qualifier courses, beating Nike.

My not legitimate marathon course is less not legitimate than yours. Maybe there can be records for every degree of not legitimate courses?