Sub 2 Hour Marathon Discussion: My Thoughts and Yours

Stefano Baldini split 14:13 for 35-40km at the 2004 Olympics (http://www.thefullwiki.org/Stefano_Baldini)

I agree with everything in that article except the drugs part. You seem to assume that 12:37/26:17/2:03:38 are all clean performances. And I doubt that.

It's hard to imagine that during Mosop's 30,000 meter world record of 1:26:47 that even had he dropped a 28:00 for 1:54:47, he'd still have to run a sub 5 minute final 2 kilometers to get under 2 hours!

Part of me likes to think that the half marathon and marathon are akin to each other like the 100 and 200. Part of me believes that the half marathon should be slower than the marathon as the marathoner gets to have a running start for the last half, but in the face of the striking disparity between the 30,000 world record and the sub 2 hour marathon, I'm left with a bitter tasting conclusion.

LaVeyan wrote:

Stefano Baldini split 14:13 for 35-40km at the 2004 Olympics (http://www.thefullwiki.org/Stefano_Baldini)

downhill

Nutella1 wrote:

I agree with everything in that article except the drugs part. You seem to assume that 12:37/26:17/2:03:38 are all clean performances. And I doubt that.

This.

Factor in the drugs issue and we're a good 7 minutes away from the sub-2 marathon.

I don't see it in my lifetime. What I would like to see is a 5k concrete surface loop in a major city host an elite marathon. Get a sponsor to put up big money. Pacemakers. No drug testing. Huge crowds to help runners late. See how fast they can really go.

i do think it can be done, but would like to make a good argument for it. does anybody have a link to a full replay of the london marathon?

Lighten up Francis wrote:

I don't see it in my lifetime. What I would like to see is a 5k concrete surface loop in a major city host an elite marathon. Get a sponsor to put up big money. Pacemakers. No drug testing. Huge crowds to help runners late. See how fast they can really go.

No drug testing? Hell the race might as well provide the PEDs for the athletes during the training. More of them may actually decide not to use them then.

Hi Wejo. Your argument against the sub-2 is compelling, but here is my Devil's Advocacy/counterpoint:

A 17-yr.-old from Eritrea just ran about 1:00 for a HM. Given a logical improvement over the next 5 or 6 years, this athlete could conceivably run 57:00 for the distance. Now, wouldn’t you say that an athlete splitting the HM 3 minutes off their best for that distance has some chance of holding pace for the 1:59:59 or lower? Note that Geb has an HM PB of just under 59 minutes and averaged 62 minutes in his Marathon WR, so the 3-minute clearance at halfway is about right.

This article talks about the 5000m and 10000m equivalents to the 2:00 marathon being way below current WRs, thereby making a sub-2 marathon a distant dream, but I don’t believe the first sub-2 athlete will necessarily have to be the best 5000m and 10000m runner ever. He just has to be great at the HM and Marathon, IMHO.

Guys will be running 1:55 to 1:58 easily when they get on the same stuff as the biggest doper of them all.

It seems at least two generations away, probably Berlin 2055 if weather is good.

GlobalView wrote:

A 17-yr.-old from Eritrea just ran about 1:00 for a HM.

Yes but how old is he?

Point taken, but if he is indeed 17, then maybe my assertion has some "legs" (PI)?

GlobalView wrote:

Point taken, but if he is indeed 17, then maybe my assertion has some "legs" (PI)?

He isn't.

Wejo, both what you wrote and what rojo wrote assumed no great, undetectable drugs.

But the data you use for your conclusion is based on athletes somewhere along the line that use great, undetectable drugs.

Does this mean that you both think people can get there with drugs?

And if so, then we will likely see a sub 2 hour marathon because eventually a great combination of talent, training drugs will come along to get it.

But based on your analysis, we won't see sub 2 in our lifetime even with drugs.

I'm a little confused on where the two of you stand.

Wow.

No wonder this message board is considered by many as a waste of time.

wejo wrote:

...

Here's what I wrote:

"I'll present my argument much quicker. To run under 2 hours in the marathon, one has to average 14:13 per 5km split. The Virgin London Marathon had arguably the best men's field in the history of marathoning. The field was decimated by strong early pace. How many 5km splits did they run faster than 14:13? NONE. The fastest 5km split was the downhill opening 5k and that was only 14:23. For a 2 hour marathon we essentially need 8+ back to back sub 14:13 5ks, and the top marathoners in the world got decimated by a pace where they didn't even run 1 of these. We're a long way from a sub 2 hour marathon on a legit course (with the perfect 26.2 mile decline off a mountain you might be able to get one now), barring some radical breakthrough in training.(I don't count wonder drugs)."

...

This ^ is NOT a logical argument. To see why, simply replace the times with the equivalent times from 1940 or 1980. The exact same argument would apply and show that taking another 3.5 minutes off of the then-current world record would be impossible.

Obviously, the world record DID come down (another 23 minutes from the record in 1940 and another 5.5 minutes from the record in 1980). As a result, it is self-evident that this argument is vacuous.

Now, that is not to say that the sub 2 hour marathon is inevitable. Or that it will happen in the next 25 years. It is simply to say that the argument used above does not hold any water

Somebody should publicly announce a concerted attempt at it, even if they know they will completely explode after 14 or 15 miles. It would generate a lot of media attention for themselves and the event. Sponsors would be happy and the athlete would be running without much pressure because they'd know they have very little chance of success.

Nutella1 wrote:

I agree with everything in that article except the drugs part. You seem to assume that 12:37/26:17/2:03:38 are all clean performances. And I doubt that.

Trust me I don't rule out the possibility of doping with any of the world records. What I was trying to rule out was the invention of some wonder drug that helps performances even more or if there was no drug testing and someone broke 2:00 while completely doped.