I just finished reading "The Perfect Mile," a splendid book by Neal Bascomb that covers the exploits of Bannister, Santee, and Landy as they attempted to break 4. The media circus and hype surrounding the trio was ridiculous.
With Haile Gebrselassie (Why doesn't spellcheck recognize this man's name yet?) lowering the world record all the way to 2:03:59, is a sub 2-hour marathon possible? And more to the point, why is it less of a big deal than a 4-minute mile?
did you put any thought into this question?
maybe because no one has done it yet.
during a marathon, there is 2 hours worth of time where the runner can mess it up. in the mile its 4 minutes.
because the 2 hour marathon is decades away.
funny thing though, the marathon WR is exactly 4min away from sub 2hr
Did you put any thought into that response?
Obviously. But even before Bannister ran a 4-minute mile, there was still considerable anticipation and hoopla surrounding his training and races. You don't see the media clamoring as to when someone will break 2 hours.
Also, in the marathon, another way to look at it is there is also 2 hours of time to compensate for a mistake. In the mile, one mistake will screw your attempt.
Maybe it's because the mile is a more watchable race?
The world record had been 4:01.xx for 10 years before Bannister broke it. It probably looked like either 1)humans had reached an insuperable barrier, or 2) 4 minutes was just begging to be broken. So, I'm guessing the fact that the world record had been close to four minutes in the mile for a while (and two guys had been close, Andersson and Hagg) for a while, while the marathon world record isn't even close to two hours, is the reason. I promise that if two guys trade off two or three races in which they run 2:00:xx in the space of a year or two, then the world record stays the same for a decade, the two hour marathon will start to get a lot of media attention.
Also, the four minute mile is very . . . well apportioned? 4 minutes, 4 laps of 1 minute each, exactly 15 miles per hour. Also, the mile is a standard unit of measure.
This was before drugs; a time of innocence. Now we have doped 2:08/2:09 runners running 2:04s, it a matter of time before some new superdrug comes along and we have a 1:59. But it's not exciting anymore, any more than it will be exciting when Bolt runs an 18.89 200. It's cartoonish and silly, like
http://axon.blogg.se/images/2009/ronnie_coleman_photo340_29818577.jpg
HaileHail wrote:
Did you put any thought into that response?
Obviously. But even before Bannister ran a 4-minute mile, there was still considerable anticipation and hoopla surrounding his training and races. You don't see the media clamoring as to when someone will break 2 hours.
Also, in the marathon, another way to look at it is there is also 2 hours of time to compensate for a mistake. In the mile, one mistake will screw your attempt.
Maybe it's because the mile is a more watchable race?
I think you answered your own question. The media doesn't give a shit about the marathon. Who cares about a 2 hour race other than other marathoners and serious distance runners? The mile is on a track and the "sprint" of distance running. It's just short to hold the short attention span of viewers while also being exciting, unlike the marathon.
because people were close to the 4 min mile for years before they broke it
if we (mankind) was running 2 hours 30 seconds the interest would be massive
my opinion - it will never be done
bahumbug wrote:
HaileHail wrote:Did you put any thought into that response?
Obviously. But even before Bannister ran a 4-minute mile, there was still considerable anticipation and hoopla surrounding his training and races. You don't see the media clamoring as to when someone will break 2 hours.
Also, in the marathon, another way to look at it is there is also 2 hours of time to compensate for a mistake. In the mile, one mistake will screw your attempt.
Maybe it's because the mile is a more watchable race?
I think you answered your own question. The media doesn't give a shit about the marathon. Who cares about a 2 hour race other than other marathoners and serious distance runners? The mile is on a track and the "sprint" of distance running. It's just short to hold the short attention span of viewers while also being exciting, unlike the marathon.
Nowadays most viewers don´t have longer attention span than 20 seconds.
[quote]vdawg wrote:
'because the 2 hour marathon is decades away.'
There is the answer
Even if not decades it's not close yet
In the early 50's was running there were a number of runners cabable of sub 4, such as Wes Santee. Especially as Hagg and Andersson had pushed it so close in the 40's
Bannister knew that hence the rush for the record and media clamour
I think as the record gets closer to 2 hours it will become a bigger deal.
Let the record get to sub 2:03, then we can reasonably talk about sub 2:00. For all we know the record will drop seconds at a time for many years and not get below 2:02 for Gold knows how long.
But maybe.... someone will come along and drop a 2:02:xx and make it a feasible reality.
Pretty sure most major marathons get more coverage than the average Diamond League meet. Think about it...2+ hours of non-stop product placement, plus the marathon is where the money is, so more top notch talent will go to the marathon, rather than the track, and therefore so will the media.
That being said,
back in the day, sub 4 was thought to be impossible by many scientists, it was thought you would die if you ran under it. Sub 2 for the marathon is not an impossible barrier, it's a matter of when, not if.
bugsy wrote:
This was before drugs; a time of innocence. Now we have doped 2:08/2:09 runners running 2:04s, it a matter of time before some new superdrug comes along and we have a 1:59. But it's not exciting anymore, any more than it will be exciting when Bolt runs an 18.89 200. It's cartoonish and silly, like
http://axon.blogg.se/images/2009/ronnie_coleman_photo340_29818577.jpg
A sub 2 hour marathon can be done without drugs, as can any World Record.
Drugs are an irrelevance to those runners and coaches with the right attitude.
Though others have pointed some version of this out, the answer is that the sub-2 hour marathon has not even been sniffed yet by the human race.
Haile's world record, though impressive, is still miles away from sub-2 hours. The rate of improvement is going to slow, the faster times get. The African running boom, if you will, accounted in large part for the general trend toward faster elite times in the last 15 years or so.
Now that that's happened and roughly 2:04 seems to be the elite for the present moment, the world would need another ace up its sleeve - like another untapped population of people - to drive the times down quickly.
Times will, of course, get faster but they will creep downward slowly. Once people start busting 2:01 marathon times, then the talk about sub-2 hours will start to explode. For the moment, sub-2 is still in the realm of fantasy.
Bugsy needs to get out of his fantasy world where runners are accused of being druggies if they are fast. Funny how these cheap accusations never produce specific names or places or dates or other solid proof. Are these accusations hate inspired or brought about by fits of jealousy?
Bugsy, give us your name, location, PRs and specific instances that you know of where the rest of us are still in the dark.
Because it is the marathon and not the mile, it simply falls well outside of the general public consciousness and thus fails to capture the public's imagination.
Johann Gambleputty wrote:
Though others have pointed some version of this out, the answer is that the sub-2 hour marathon has not even been sniffed yet by the human race.
Haile's world record, though impressive, is still miles away from sub-2 hours. The rate of improvement is going to slow, the faster times get. The African running boom, if you will, accounted in large part for the general trend toward faster elite times in the last 15 years or so.
Now that that's happened and roughly 2:04 seems to be the elite for the present moment, the world would need another ace up its sleeve - like another untapped population of people - to drive the times down quickly.
Times will, of course, get faster but they will creep downward slowly. Once people start busting 2:01 marathon times, then the talk about sub-2 hours will start to explode. For the moment, sub-2 is still in the realm of fantasy.
I am not so sure that the current populations in play have met an elastic limit just yet. However, the half-marathon WR needs to drop some more before sub-2 becomes feasible.
Andrew A. wrote:
I am not so sure that the current populations in play have met an elastic limit just yet. However, the half-marathon WR needs to drop some more before sub-2 becomes feasible.
Of course, for the half-marathon WR to drop, the 10k record needs to drop significantly, and for the 10k record to drop, the 5k record needs to drop significantly, and for the 5k...
5/10k are fast enough for a sub 2 hour marathon for a lot of marathoners. Look at the Japanese guys with low 28 10ks and sub 2:08 prs. Of course no one who can run sub 26:30 is running the marathon.
The Party's Crashing Us Now wrote:
Andrew A. wrote:I am not so sure that the current populations in play have met an elastic limit just yet. However, the half-marathon WR needs to drop some more before sub-2 becomes feasible.
Of course, for the half-marathon WR to drop, the 10k record needs to drop significantly, and for the 10k record to drop, the 5k record needs to drop significantly, and for the 5k...
asdfasdfasdasdfasdfasdfa wrote:Of course no one who can run sub 26:30 is running the marathon
that's more due to the elite M not bothering with a track 10k
sammy ran 26'41wjr as a kid & i have no doubt he was in <26'30 shape in peking
i'd also reckon lel was good for <26'30 when he was at his peak a coupla years+ ago
also 3 kenyans run 2"04+ this year - at least 1 shouda been good for 26'30
then that kenyan who ran what was considered an impossible 2"05 in boston - add him as potential 26'30 guy if he'd run a 10k that day in ideal conditions
