Agree or disagree?
Agree or disagree?
nope.
i think it's about 3min. not 2:15 for men.
women idk
3min for a 210 guy.
Well he compares it to 2017, statistically.
Since then, the men's WR has improved by over 2 minutes, and the women's over 5 minutes. That roughly confirms his numbers.
number games wrote:
Well he compares it to 2017, statistically.
Since then, the men's WR has improved by over 2 minutes, and the women's over 5 minutes. That roughly confirms his numbers.
Sounds about right, though it’s not all the shoes. These races have advanced in pacing, there’re fueling improvements, and now record attempts are more realistic and thus incentivized/facilitated at places like Valencia. On the women’s side, it seems there is a larger shoe effect and more participation playing a role (as Revis said too).
If you want to extending it to faster times - sub-2:04 is like the old sub-2:06. If you run 2:04-2;05 nowadays sure it’s fast but if in a quick race it doesn’t mean you are a contender in a major.
have any of you guys who disliked my messages run in both at a high level? thought not
inthegamee wrote:
have any of you guys who disliked my messages run in both at a high level? thought not
Imagine getting salty about anonymous people clicking pixels on a screen...
Idk about the logic here -- the approach isn't scientific at all. He's just plotting the # of marks at a certain time & attributing that 100% to the shoes. The sport could be getting better so just counting up the number of sub-2:08s/2:16s might not be caused by shoes. We might be seeing a rise in better training/nutrition. We might be seeing more marathons employ pacers. We might be seeing the emergence of fast non-majors, like Valencia, where everyone goes to run fast times. The shoes help. Stuff like this doesn't do anything to convince me it isn't more like 60-90s in good conditions, on fast courses, with good pacing, with good nutrition, etc.
I think it's almost totally about the shoes.one minute per racing hour seems to be about the equation at elite and sub elite. Elite marathon training and pacing and nutrition and race org was REALLY well advanced by 2017 . Obvs it suits maurten etc to big up gel minutiae in v recent years. Higher density of East African women getting equal access to worlds best support imo explains the different metrics at v sharp end of women's elite. I'm not sure the metrics of doping have changed notably between 2017 and 2024 so imo both lists may be equally dope riddled at whatever per cent.
no one on this site can come remotely close to a 2:10 ESPECIALLY Tony Reavis who may have never even run one. So, you don't have the credentials to knock runners times from 2017 compared to 2014.
*compared to 2024
NERunner03533 wrote:
Idk about the logic here -- the approach isn't scientific at all. He's just plotting the # of marks at a certain time & attributing that 100% to the shoes. The sport could be getting better so just counting up the number of sub-2:08s/2:16s might not be caused by shoes. We might be seeing a rise in better training/nutrition. We might be seeing more marathons employ pacers. We might be seeing the emergence of fast non-majors, like Valencia, where everyone goes to run fast times. The shoes help. Stuff like this doesn't do anything to convince me it isn't more like 60-90s in good conditions, on fast courses, with good pacing, with good nutrition, etc.
He also mentioned sodium bicarb, and women's depth. It literally starts with "As so-called Super Shoes and advanced nutritional supplements ..."
The approach is mathematical/statistical, and the reasons for it are speculative and of course subject to discussion.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Sounds about right, though it’s not all the shoes. These races have advanced in pacing, there’re fueling improvements, and now record attempts are more realistic and thus incentivized/facilitated at places like Valencia. On the women’s side, it seems there is a larger shoe effect and more participation playing a role (as Revis said too).
If you want to extending it to faster times - sub-2:04 is like the old sub-2:06. If you run 2:04-2;05 nowadays sure it’s fast but if in a quick race it doesn’t mean you are a contender in a major.
I've long thought that the women have always had the ability to run much faster, but always lacked the depth, which has a double influence: few women to pace each other to 30-35K, and no real need to run faster than second place, as the goal is to win, making most women's races tactical.
Paula showed in 2003, that with aggressive pacing from the start, with two male pacemakers, that women should have been running much faster than 2:18s and 2:20s. With higher participation, more depth, and aggressive pacing, I said in another thread that non-African women should have been running more 2:15s-2:16s before supershoes, and, if African women mimic the gap of the men, 2:12s-2:13s. With supershoes (and bicarb?) we should expect an ability to run some 2-3 minutes faster.
NERunner03533 wrote:
Idk about the logic here -- the approach isn't scientific at all. He's just plotting the # of marks at a certain time & attributing that 100% to the shoes. The sport could be getting better so just counting up the number of sub-2:08s/2:16s might not be caused by shoes. We might be seeing a rise in better training/nutrition. We might be seeing more marathons employ pacers. We might be seeing the emergence of fast non-majors, like Valencia, where everyone goes to run fast times. The shoes help. Stuff like this doesn't do anything to convince me it isn't more like 60-90s in good conditions, on fast courses, with good pacing, with good nutrition, etc.
For shi-s and giggles make everyone wear the old technology for 2 years to see how much shoes help
1972 to 1984 era
2-3 min for the shoes
2-3 min for the course (flat) and drafting
makes Shorter's 210 a 205, no surprise
on the women's side, there is no comparison, as they are doing completely different things now. along the lines of the iron curtain "lady" sprinters that hold today's records.
still the 2 hour marathon is an epic accomplishment, it's like someone running 205 back in 1974.
and with the women, and the upcoming 208, well that is a more than epic demonstration of technology, peds, and neo-lydiard training methods ... coupled with a natural diet.
Self centred to comment on all the downvotes on my post. Strange, as my comments on every point align with almost everyone I speak to in the sport, which covers a bunch of international runners and their coaches, ditto a bunch of next level down runners and their coaches,and other people who earn a living at the higher levels of the sport, including anti doping. Maybe we are all wrong and should be poring over marathon training and nutritional and peacemaking progress (or "progress ")that has occured in the 2017 to 2024 era .
"Pacing" not "peacemaking". Latter is harder to nail.
footsie24 wrote:
Self centred to comment on all the downvotes on my post. Strange, as my comments on every point align with almost everyone I speak to in the sport, which covers a bunch of international runners and their coaches, ditto a bunch of next level down runners and their coaches,and other people who earn a living at the higher levels of the sport, including anti doping. Maybe we are all wrong and should be poring over marathon training and nutritional and peacemaking progress (or "progress ")that has occured in the 2017 to 2024 era .
You come across as an attention seeker who gets salty or butt hurt over negative feedbacks. That tells us you are very immature. Based on the feedbacks you got, you already realized you are pretty much irrelevant and that bothers you like a pebble in a tight running shoe. Pathetic. Grow up...bro.
