it's will be more difficult to break 2:03.23 though... if you read kipsang's quote he said he thinks he could break his own WR and anything better than 2:03.23 would do.. meaning he thinks he could break it but not by much. (It's very difficult)
it's will be more difficult to break 2:03.23 though... if you read kipsang's quote he said he thinks he could break his own WR and anything better than 2:03.23 would do.. meaning he thinks he could break it but not by much. (It's very difficult)
There has been `` 4 humans that have demonstrated 12:40/26:20 potential. Nobody but one of them (KB) has come close since 2008 (26:25). So I'd disagree with this TRUE marathoner with that type of resume theory because they don't exist. -----
Pikachu wrote:
On this topic I'd say: Say never "never".
And why do some people think, you'd have to have this crazy 5 K/10 K speed?
A TRUE marathoner could do it with a 5/10 K potential of 12:40/26:20 I think.
12:40 %% 26:20 > 57:30 > 1:59:59 isn't completely out of question some day for some freakish endurance talent.
It's a question of talent, training and conditions. I really think, it WILL happen. It might be decades down the roas. But it WILL happen IMHO.
Pikachu
Also, for those who think we are on a nice, neat progressive curve towards a time somewhere under 2 hrs, keep in mind that some similar curves have been like that in the past, only to suddenly fall apart.
Take the women's 100m. It seemed to be experiencing a steady progression throughout most of the 20th century. I imagine there were observers at various points in time who thought it would never get any faster, but it always did....until it didn't. Here are 20 years of progression from 1968 to 1988(from Wikipedia):
11.07 1.2 Wyomia Tyus October 15, 1968[1]
11.07 0.2 Renate Stecher September 2, 1972[1]
11.04 0.6 Inge Helten June 13, 1976[1]
11.01 0.6 Annegret Richter July 25, 1976[1]
10.88 2.0 Marlies Oelsner July 1, 1977[1]
10.88 1.9 Marlies Göhr July 9, 1982[1]
10.81 1.7 Marlies Göhr June 8, 1983[1]
10.79 0.6 Evelyn Ashford United States July 3, 1983[1]
10.76 1.7 Evelyn Ashford United States August 22, 1984[1]
10.49 0.0* Florence Griffith-Joyner United States July 16, 1988
Some might argue that the FloJo record was due to a faulty wind-reading, and that her second-best time of 10.61 should stand as the record. OK, fine. Many will argue that she blew the old record apart due to PEDs. Fine, I'm with you. However, it doesn't change the fact that, even if you completely remove FloJo from the argument, women's 100m times improved steadily through 1984, when Evelyn Ashford ran 10.76. Since then, there has been virtually no progression except for FloJo, who ran the still-existing record 25 years ago. I think a couple or three of ladies have run high 10.6/low 10.7 since FloJo (one of whom was Marion Jones, so we can dis-count her).
The point is, around the time of FloJo, you wouldn't have sounded too crazy to say that women would someday run under 10 for the 100m. Look at how the record has progressed!! you might say. Why, only 20 years ago (1968), the record was over 11 seconds - it's coming down over 2 tenths per decade!! But that argument wouldn't sound so good now. I don't see any likelihood of women breaking 10 sec for 100m in anything like the current format (i.e. it could be done by women of uncertain gender, women using mega-powerful PEDs, etc, but not by what we currently consider a "woman" with PEDs that have been invented thus far).
The same phenomenon seems to be happening in the women's marathon. Weren't women supposed to be on a curve that would see their record surpass the men's pretty soon? That argument is not heard much anymore, but anyway, Paula Radcliffe's 2:15 has already put a 10-year halt on further record progression, with no threats in sight.
My guess is that someone will bust out a 2:02:xx in the next few years, and that will be the end.
bhahahaha... and sub 0:01 in 823091301234. maybe they'll have flying cars then too.
name hidden wrote:
sub 2:00 in 2041, sub 1:00 in 301423.
arunner1234 wrote:
Michael Johnson didn't believe that bolt could break his record at the olympics and he watched in disbelief. nothing is impossible
Some things are impossible.
A preponderance of sensible opinions on letsrun is impossible.
A 2:00 marathon is far more likely.
Can I get a plus 1?
In 1990 the 100m WR was 9.92 which is 3.4% slower than where we were in 2009 under 20 years later. 3.4% off the marathon record is sub 1:59. Sub 2 is certainly going to happen. We just need to find the right person. Bolt is an aberration. I think that we all know that he could go much faster if he was challenged and trained better. There will be a marathoner like that at some point. Hopefully sooner than later. It might take a while.
rupp to break sub 2 at berlin 2020
even if due to new endurance drug ,you will all
quickly jump on bandwagon .
the fact is that sub 2 will never be broken remotely
cleanly .
And for bolt ,the only abberation is the amount of peds has used in career .
statistics can say alot when doping involved.
without igf-1 lr3 he wouldnt hold a record .
is height wouldnt be factor is .
when is someone going to speak the truth about what
happening in sprints .absolute fradulent .
when are you going to see the lightness lr3.
Lenny Zenith wrote:
In 1990 the 100m WR was 9.92 which is 3.4% slower than where we were in 2009 under 20 years later. 3.4% off the marathon record is sub 1:59. Sub 2 is certainly going to happen. We just need to find the right person. Bolt is an aberration. I think that we all know that he could go much faster if he was challenged and trained better. There will be a marathoner like that at some point. Hopefully sooner than later. It might take a while.
How many people under 9.92 have never tested positive?
True, doping is a complication. But, guys that were running slower than 9.92 (i.e. Ben Johnson and Carl Lewis) were also dopers. Doping in the 100 has been the rule for a long time, and the WR has still come down by 3.4%.
There is a ton of money in marathoning if you are really good. Trust me, someone is going to come along and shock the world like Bolt did and win every marathon for a block of years. They will also approach 2 hours on their best day in the best conditions.
That's not much.
jono wrote:
Actually rekrunner, the record has come down by 10 seconds per year. Where have you been? Gibraltar?
Well, at the risk of sounding (minimally delusional, or at worst (stupid)...
Is there anything relevant to the discussion here, in this current thread:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5426016
...about Jon Olsen and his new American record for 100 miles:
http://www.irunfar.com/2013/10/jon-olsens-north-american-100-mile-record-report.html
.
And that thread/story that got me curious about how fast anyone has run 100 miles, even on a track. I wondered what the world record is for that...and found this:
http://www.americanultra.org/news/2002news/23oct02b.html
In October, 2002...at the Crystal Palace track in London, Oleg Kharitonov rab 11 hours, 28 minutes and 3 seconds, just over 6:52.8 per mile.
So, if efforts like this show what human beings are capable of doing over a distance nearly four times the marathon distance...by human beings probably not considered 'elite marathon runners' — is there anything predictive or relevant when trying to imagine what the limits might be for elite marathoners trying to hit that 2-hour limit in the marathon? Extreme endurance and focus and an outrageous willingness to suffer enormously are going to be required to push the record closer to 2 hours, let alone get under...plus, of course, the perfect day, perfect pacing help, perfect plan, perfect...everything.
I disagree. Many have run sub 60 and numerous sub 59 in the half, while the marathon wr has fallen sharply and is only 3:24 away. In the 1980s, the record was smashed to 2:06:50 and now the time has come down by 3:27 since then in about 25 years. There's no physical impossibility of dropping another 3:24. Sub 2:03 could come next year. Give it another 25 years, maybe less.
arunner1234 wrote:
Michael Johnson didn't believe that bolt could break his record at the olympics and he watched in disbelief. nothing is impossible
Completely untrue. He knew Usain could run under 19.32 and was jumping up and down and screaming at him to go for it during the race. The BBC actually had a camera on MJ in their studio during the race to catch his reaction.
rekrunner wrote:
That's not much.
jono wrote:Actually rekrunner, the record has come down by 10 seconds per year. Where have you been? Gibraltar?
Yes it is.
If you think it is so much, then how much? What can it possibly mean to say that Tergat didn't think the record would go down "much"?In an absolute sense, 92 seconds doesn't seem like much compared to 7495. It's only 1.23%You just told us the human limit is closer to 1:45 than 2:00. How relevant is the tiny progression from 2:04:55 to 2:03:23, when the human limits are sub 1:52:30?
jono wrote:
Yes it is.
Lenny Zenith wrote:
True, doping is a complication. But, guys that were running slower than 9.92 (i.e. Ben Johnson and Carl Lewis) were also dopers. Doping in the 100 has been the rule for a long time, and the WR has still come down by 3.4%.
A lot depends on how gene doping progresses. You could see quantum leaps in performances if this technology takes off.
Yep someone will run 2:02:30 and then over the next 10000 years nobody will ever run faster. There will be zero changes in training, nutrition, equipment, and so on that will let them run even 1 second faster.Eventually we will hit limits. But trying to call them is a foolish game.
Gamera wrote:
Also, for those who think we are on a nice, neat progressive curve towards a time somewhere under 2 hrs, keep in mind that some similar curves have been like that in the past, only to suddenly fall apart.
Take the women's 100m. It seemed to be experiencing a steady progression throughout most of the 20th century. I imagine there were observers at various points in time who thought it would never get any faster, but it always did....until it didn't. Here are 20 years of progression from 1968 to 1988(from Wikipedia):
11.07 1.2 Wyomia Tyus October 15, 1968[1]
11.07 0.2 Renate Stecher September 2, 1972[1]
11.04 0.6 Inge Helten June 13, 1976[1]
11.01 0.6 Annegret Richter July 25, 1976[1]
10.88 2.0 Marlies Oelsner July 1, 1977[1]
10.88 1.9 Marlies Göhr July 9, 1982[1]
10.81 1.7 Marlies Göhr June 8, 1983[1]
10.79 0.6 Evelyn Ashford United States July 3, 1983[1]
10.76 1.7 Evelyn Ashford United States August 22, 1984[1]
10.49 0.0* Florence Griffith-Joyner United States July 16, 1988
Some might argue that the FloJo record was due to a faulty wind-reading, and that her second-best time of 10.61 should stand as the record. OK, fine. Many will argue that she blew the old record apart due to PEDs. Fine, I'm with you. However, it doesn't change the fact that, even if you completely remove FloJo from the argument, women's 100m times improved steadily through 1984, when Evelyn Ashford ran 10.76. Since then, there has been virtually no progression except for FloJo, who ran the still-existing record 25 years ago. I think a couple or three of ladies have run high 10.6/low 10.7 since FloJo (one of whom was Marion Jones, so we can dis-count her).
The point is, around the time of FloJo, you wouldn't have sounded too crazy to say that women would someday run under 10 for the 100m. Look at how the record has progressed!! you might say. Why, only 20 years ago (1968), the record was over 11 seconds - it's coming down over 2 tenths per decade!! But that argument wouldn't sound so good now. I don't see any likelihood of women breaking 10 sec for 100m in anything like the current format (i.e. it could be done by women of uncertain gender, women using mega-powerful PEDs, etc, but not by what we currently consider a "woman" with PEDs that have been invented thus far).
The same phenomenon seems to be happening in the women's marathon. Weren't women supposed to be on a curve that would see their record surpass the men's pretty soon? That argument is not heard much anymore, but anyway, Paula Radcliffe's 2:15 has already put a 10-year halt on further record progression, with no threats in sight.
My guess is that someone will bust out a 2:02:xx in the next few years, and that will be the end.
You're all too late:
Jason Rexing ran a 1:59:40 marathon, into a 20 mph headwind in 95 degree heat, while translating the I Ching into Appalachian English, with Hobie Call riding on his back wearing an 80 lb. weighted vest. He kept on running and destroyed all the ultra records through 10 days.
Jason was wearing trainers, too.
asdfaafdafasd wrote:
Yep someone will run 2:02:30 and then over the next 10000 years nobody will ever run faster. There will be zero changes in training, nutrition, equipment, and so on that will let them run even 1 second faster.
Eventually we will hit limits. But trying to call them is a foolish game.
.
[/quote]
Well, you brought up a second issue which I mentioned earlier: what is the likelihood that humans will continue competing in marathons for the next 10,000 years? I'd say it's extremely unlikely. In other words, the ultimate potential for humans in the marathon distance may never be reached, because people will move on to different activities for any of a large variety of possible reasons.
Things change fast. In 500 years time (if humans are even still around and still live on land), the whole marathon running phenomenon will likely just be an interesting fad from human history, back in the Sports and Celebrity Era (~1920 to 2050).