Serious question: what would the Marathon WR be if it was ran on a track?

I think it could be 30 to 60 seconds faster if it were run on a track. Maybe a second a kilometer. It would probably depend on the athlete though. Some guys run better on mondo surface than roads. There are also rhythm runners who would benefit the lack of sharp turns on a track. There could be guys that could settle into pace and click off 70.0 for 105.5 laps in a row but might not fair as well on the roads.

a 400 meter track would be ridiculous. It would have to be like an 800 meter track for the sake of the athletes, and yes there out there. And now it is highly dependent on the wind/weather cause your going in a circle. The next question would be flats or spikes. Also everyone who finishes the race will probaly have some muscle imbalance injury to deal with from all those turns. Another thing to compare would be the responsiveness between the road and track (this is probaly already calculated) as well as how hills/downnhills favor fast times etc.

Overall I think is you could pave the dubai course in a nice thick layer of track, then we would see substanialty faster times, but if you had it on any old oval track it would hurt and hinder performance

A guy just ran 100 miles in under twelve hours on an indoor 400m track. I don't think a marathon is going to create any imbalances.

I believe it is not considered for record purposes. I also believe you cannot qualify for the trials on the track either.

How about a marathon at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway?

Since it's 2.5 miles per lap, you're looking at 10 laps plus an extra 1.2 miles.

With the right weather and a pace car, someone could smash the record there. In theory.

And here's a thought: Since the turns are banked, it would help those East Africans flying around the turns.

SMJO wrote:

A guy just ran 100 miles in under twelve hours on an indoor 400m track. I don't think a marathon is going to create any imbalances.

How do you know he didn't suffer imbalance injuries + WR marathon pace is much faster pace

What about in the CERN supercollider? Just a partial lap, and no wind. Put down some mondo in the access tunnel and let 'em rip.

What about in the CERN supercollider? Just a partial lap, and no wind. Put down some mondo in the access tunnel and let 'em rip.

I actually hold the record there, 1.4074732 x 10^-4 seconds.

"Serious question: what would the Marathon WR be if it [were] [run] on a track?"

Serious answer: probably somewhere around 2:08, assuming Berlin-type pacesetters.

it would be slower.

105 laps, plus 195 meters

that's 211 turns/curves, all the in the same direction.

mondorondo wrote:

it would be slower.

105 laps, plus 195 meters

that's 211 turns/curves, all the in the same direction.

Don't know why people think it would be slower. The 30,000 record on track is faster than the 30k road record. Not seeing the logic there. The 30k is an enroute record, but it's about 50 sec slower than the track, so I don't think they'd drop that much time in a dedicated race.

The bigger question would be whether it is possible that someone gets lapped and then comes back for the win. Pretty sure this could only happen in a marathon on a track.

What would it be if it was RUN on a track, not if it was RAN on a track. How is this grammar error made so often?

The marathon is ran on many tracks. It is a track race, and there is a "track marathon" world record.

Travis2.0 wrote:

The marathon is ran on many tracks. It is a track race, and there is a "track marathon" world record.

not by an elite East African who has run sub 2:10 otherwise

grammarist wrote:

What would it be if it was RUN on a track, not if it was RAN on a track. How is this grammar error made so often?

Someone above already made the correction, and also corrected the "was"--which properly should be the subjunctive "were."

But I agree: runners should know that the past participle of "to run" is "run" and not "ran." Similarly, they should know that the past tense of "to lead" is "led" and not "lead."

The surface is probably worth 1-2secs per kilo but the turns (yes track turns are worse than the turns in a course like berlin) will take some of that back. It is a lot easier to pace your self on a track (and we will assume competitors are removed as they get lapped) so that is a win. Road marathoners can be weather aided (tail wind and then sheltered on the way back or the wind stops) so in theory that is a win but I am not sure how often that every happens.The big unknown is that track beats you up a lot less. Can you wear lighter shoes or not suffer as much fatigue? Who knows.

Canova>God wrote:

I think it could be 30 to 60 seconds faster if it were run on a track. Maybe a second a kilometer. It would probably depend on the athlete though. Some guys run better on mondo surface than roads. There are also rhythm runners who would benefit the lack of sharp turns on a track. There could be guys that could settle into pace and click off 70.0 for 105.5 laps in a row but might not fair as well on the roads.

I don't think it would be any quicker. Haile set the half marathon record in January 2006 at 58:55 or 2:47.6/km pace. In June 2007 he set the hour mark on the track at 21.285 km, or 2:49.1/km pace.

You could argue that his pace got slower simply because he got slower in the year and half between, but the hour mark was still set before he set the first of his 2 marathon WRs (or I guess you could argue he didn't run as fast in the hour attempt because his real focus at the time was on the marathon).

Honestly I would argue that they are close enough that unless someone can show me the conditions were better for one or the other they're virtually the same. On a 400m track the benefit you get from the being totally flat is counteracted by the number of turns you have to make.

mondorondo wrote:

it would be slower.

I can't imagine why. The road 5K and 10K records are slower than the track records. A half marathon was first covered in under an hour on the track. Why would a marathon be slower?