Nike sub 2 Hour Marathon attempt in 2017 & Nike ruins dream Bekele vs. Kipchoge London matchup

Maybe it's a relay...

rojo wrote:

zzzz wrote:

Here's the route I was thinking of, without any effort choosing the perfect roads. The elevation profile would be about ideal for a good downhill runner:

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=6995683

Is that a dirt road? Trail? Or paved road? What type of surface?

Smooth paved asphalt. They run bike tours where there where they shuttle tourists up and they coast down on rental bikes. Looks like it averages about 7 percent grade, which would be about perfect in my opinion.

Update:

https://cdn.letsrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Weldon-and-Robert-Johnson-Runners-World-Magazine-50-Most-Influential-People-In-Running.jpg

Are they Siamese twins?

Rojo,

A race down Haleakala would be a great chance to upstage Nike. It could be informal - just show up and run, with some filming from a car or bike for verification. It could also be done as a FKT kind of thing on Strava with filming for verification A course wouldn't have to be measured out perfectly. Run an extra half mile to GPS watch measurements, so sure you're at least at a marathon. People who are good bets to go sub-2 right now on Haleakala might be the ultra runners who are good at downhills and are also on the fast side. I'm sure Jim Walmsley and Haden Hawks could do it within a month (Hawks is recovering from TNF50 a week ago).

Add Joe Gray to someone that could go sub-2 on Haleakala for sure. The guys that run the up and down versions of the world mountain running championships are sure things, even if they don't normally run marathons. They won't bonk because the effort is less than 2 hours, and the GAP on a 7 percent downgrade is pretty slow.

this is annoyingly dumb...this huge investment to try and do a sub 2hr marathon distance...what was it 30 million???? how about this nike and the rest of the corporation idiots out there

get the fastest LEGAL course and set it with all the fastest guys out there and the 30 million for the guy who breaks 2hrs.....no other winnings at all, no prize money or 2nd or third etc

no the only rule is whoever breaks 2hrs gets 30 mill....if two guys break 2hrs then the first place guy gets 90% of the 30 mill

no no no lets take 3 guys to try and cherry pick the distance to promote our BRAND...so lame. its not a WR there is no race there is no value at all just a STUNT. its like when jesse owens had to race horses for cash after the 1936 olympics

I looked around trying to see what the GAP of a 2:00:00 downhill marathon on Haleakala would be.

According this calculator:

http://runworks.com/calculator.html

it's about the same as a 2:17:21 flat marathon.

I used inputs of 26.245 (for a marathon with 0.01% short course prevention factor), and 2:00:00, and 9058 ft of elevation drop (about 6.55% grade).

It's probably in the ballpark of being correct, though I wish I could see how strava calculates it. This link has some information on strava GAPs and references but no calculator:

http://labs.strava.com/blog/improving-grade-adjusted-pace/

I'm sure GAP would also depend on the individual runner's downhill ability, but whatever formulas have been developed are probably assuming a good downhiller.

I check the downhills that I ran fastest strava, and they are quite a bit steeper at around 11 percent grade. But I don't think there are roads that steep for a marathon distance anywhere on earth. Haleakala might be the best.

zzzz wrote:

I looked around trying to see what the GAP of a 2:00:00 downhill marathon on Haleakala would be.

According this calculator:

http://runworks.com/calculator.html

it's about the same as a 2:17:21 flat marathon.

.

According to my calculations, it would be closer to a 2:09 marathon.

My calculations show at a 6.5% grade you would decrease 1:20/mile going up. The benefit going down is about half that or 40 seconds per mile. You would then have to subtract the cost of altitude. Lets be VERY beneficial and just take the average of 6,000 ft which would be from the start to around mile 23 (disregarding the effort increasing exponentially up to the almost 10,000 ft start. That cost would be roughly 20 seconds per mile. That leaves a benefit of 20 seconds per mile or 4:55 effort. The remaining factor is whether any human could sustain the quad damage for 2 hours that a 4:55 effort pace would entail at a 6.55% elevation drop. (Highway brake warning signs to truckers start at 5% decline)

My answer is NO.

Hayden Hawks ran the downhill St George marathon in 2:23 for comparison.

The runworks calculator has already been proven to be garbage here.

No. 4:34 pace downhill at 7% for 2 hours is not a 2:17 marathon effort. There is no calculation for that because it's never been done. The eccentric loading and fatigue of running downhill would brick you way quicker than you think at that pace. The ultra guys never run 4:34 pace period, much less for 26.2 miles. They won't just start popping sub60 halfs coasting downhill. Cmon man. They wouldn't be good candidates. But..

if the course is 2% decline (not 7%) and you take Kipchoge on that course, he may have a shot. That's fast enough for him to still crank and keep his legs. 2% is a huge drop still for 26 miles, so that's a possibility.

This is an awful idea. You know what was so great when Dennis Kimetto ran 2:02? There was no more debate as to what the WR was! No matter what side of the fence you were on with Mutai's Boston time, there was always A DEBATE. For the last few years now there has been no question, and it has been great.

I do not believe any of these guys will break two hours. That said, what if Kipchoge runs a 2:01? There will always an asterisk, a debate to be had about who was the fastest of all time over the marathon distance. I think Kipchoge can get the WR somewhere legit without any of this nonsense. And then no one would be able to argue the fact. Please Eluid Kipchoge, don't sully your legacy with this sideshow.

malmo wrote:

Slim Fast Dietician wrote:

didn't realize how tiny these runners are.

Are you serious?

You can't teach small.

Well you objected to people saying Herb Lindsay was "huge" and now it looks like he actually was.

rjm33 wrote:

Hurdler Guy wrote:

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with gimmicks - Gatlin's 9.45 was kind of a fun thing. However it in no way indicates that humans are ready to run 9.45 wind-legal. My real problem with this is that it could ruin possibly the greatest matchup of all time!

Exactly.

This stupid Nike idea must be STOPPED.

Questions:

1) Did Alberto Salazar have anything to do with this stupid Nike idea?

2) What is rojo going to do about this stupid Nike idea (as one of the top 50 most influential people in this sport) besides talking to the Wall Street Journal?

3) Can rojo stop this stupid Nike idea debacle?

I don't think that rojo can stop it.

1) yes, most likely

2) nothing

3) No

Instead of begging Nike to stop this shide show experiment, we should be begging them to include Bekele. Give anyone who goes under 2 hr the big bonus (500k), and no significant money (like 1 k) for the "winner." Then we could get the matchup we all want to see, but see KB and Kipchoge working together to run the fastest marathon possible

Yo Barabbas! I too rather see KB vs Bekele this spring and think Nike all hype. That was my first post.

But zzzz is thinking ultra guys will just plow a sub 2 hour marathon in some hypothetical 7% decline of a course. That seems even more outlandish, and possibly more impressive, than sub2 itself. My comment was about what would be an actual setup for sub-2, given the situation created with Nike. The other setup (most likely) would be a marathon at Pre on the track, given Moses Mosops success at 30k. Get your popcorn ready!

Lesisa and Tadese will probably each run a different half

This entire project sucks!

There is another thread that approaches Kipchoge

Unfortunately, rojo will not have the ability, power, energy, motivation or money to stop Nike.

I have done a personal boycott of all Nike merchandise ever since the Nike Oregon Project with Alberto Salazar started. It is not a big deal because Nike's shoes are not any good anyway.

What would happen if we the entire LRC forum did a boycott of all Nike merchandise until Nike calls off this stunt? Do you think Phil Knight will get scared?

Answer:

There is a high probability that nothing will happen and Phil Knight will not even notice anything, since there are only 17 people at this forum.

If we count jamin (0.72 of 1 male human), he will increase the total up to 17.72 people, which is still not enough people for Phil to notice anything.

We need a secret (and improved) plan to stop this stupid Nike idea by Phil Knight (and Alberto Salazar).

Well, I have no stake in accuracy the runworks calculator. That might have been the first time I looked at it. I just found it from a Bing search. But it seems somewhat plausible to me. Your formula is just that the benefit is half of what you would lose going uphill?

Just to see if your formula works for me, what would you calculate the level ground pace to be for 4:47 pace on a 11 percent downhill? I know what it feels like to me as a good downhill runner. What about 5:00 pace at 8 percent downhill?

I was saying that altitude would probably have little effect, but that was when I was overestimating the benefit and thinking of my runs on what turn out to be 11 percent downhills. I agree that altitude would have an slow down effect. Of course, it would also have a slight benefit of decreased wind resistance - you would be going 13 mph. Probably a net slow down effect, but not as much as you are estimating.

As for the any human being able to sustain that quad damage, I've said that I believe, for good downhillers, it isn't going to cause much damage. I don't get quad damage in an untrained-for-downhill condition doing 8-12% grade downhills at 5 flat to 4:45 pace for 6 miles, so quite a bit steeper than 6.5%. For 99% of runners, they will really, really feel the quad damage that you speak of in that kind of effort. For me, I feel no quad damage at all after that kind of downhill, even when untrained/untoughened for downhills. I don't feel damage during the downhill, immediately afterwards, or days later. I wasn't always like that - something clicked for me about 2010 (after running a lot since 1986, lifetime miles now is probably around 70,000 miles), and my downhill form just became super easy. I could easily see sustaining that for at least 1:30 -1:45 in an untrained-for-downhills condition, because that's about all I have when I do long hard/steady workouts (or races for that matter) and I'm a poor marathoner. But that would be 18 miles already. Maybe I'll try it when or if I ever go to Maui again. Again, I am not immune to quad damage. It's just that when the pace is near 5 flat or faster, I don't get it. I only get quad damage when the fastest I can sustain is slower due to the need to brake (not due to it not being steep enough).

Anyway, even if 2:17 effort will give you 2:00:00 on Haleakala, ignoring altitude effects, it would be easier than 2:17 effort because you would be running that effort for 17 minutes less time. That could also keep you under the elapsed time beyond which many people bonk.

Way too many curves on Haleakala.

Got Curves wrote:

Way too many curves on Haleakala.

You don't have to slow down for the curves at running speed. Here's a video: