Paul Tergat agrees with LetsRun - Sub-2 marathon is impossible

When people argued that sub 4:00 was impossible the majority of society was still worshiping 3000 year old texts about making water turn into wine and whatnot. Times are different now. We've advanced.

Oh wait...

ChunkyMunky who eats raw pork wrote:

OK what if a billionaire built a 26 mile "superloop" on the Bonneville Salt Flats using the same material as the Rieti track.

Then, you had a pace car that drove along said track at exactly 1:59:59 pace.

No drafting. Just a pace car that went at EXACTLY sub-two pace.

Then, you had perfect weather and an East African who had been training perfectly for the marathon since birth.

How much faster could a marathoner like Kipsang run if something ridiculous (and completely unrealistic, of course) that way?

The record would not stand because the course would be short

With all due respect to Wejo and Rojo and Paul Tergat, saying it will NEVER happen is crazy. NEVER is a damn long time.

In 1908, the world record was 2:55 (hey, that has a nice ring to it)

In 1947 it dropped to 2:25.

In 1967, it dropped to 2:09.

In 1988, Belayneh Dinsamo shocked the running world with his 2:06:50. I remember thinking this was unbelievable.

Now, in 2013, we're down to 2:03:23.

I wonder how impossible 2:03 seemed in 1908 or 1947 or 1967, or, or, or.

More people will continue to populate the Earth. Among billions and billions of people, freaks of nature emerge.

More and more people from which we get a freak of nature + improved nutrition in all parts of the world + even better training and (legal) medicine + eventually a chase for the 2:00 barrier = a sub 2:00 marathon one day.

For those who thinks it's possible, where do you draw the line? 30 minutes? I love this "anything is possible mentality" but stretched to its limits that same logic fails.

Interesting idea about the pace car and the 26 mile "superloop" but my sense of it is this would only get a small part of the time that needs to be dropped (but, I hear you, it might get a bit of it). My thinking on this: they are already pacing remarkably consistently; the Rieti track material would help a bit (better traction); might be some trade-offs w/ the pancake flat profile (perhaps a *little* variety is helpful muscularly?).

The posts about how far current WR is from 2:00 have definitely impressed me. I do think it's reasonable to look to physiology to estimate limits - just not sure exercise physiology is at a point as a science it can definitely say something like 2:00 is "impossible." But, for example, the comparison to half marathon times is revealing. It's just that, by analogy to Usain Bolt (or Michael Johnson, before him), I could *imagine* someone coming along who would smash both half- and marathon times.

Also, I keep thinking of certain things that surprised me and didn't seem part of the predictable evolution. For example, watching Ingrid Kristiansen, Joan Benoit, etc... try and fail to break 2:20, I was confident I would see a woman do so - but, if you had asked me about 2:15:25, that seemed in another world, like something I'd be lucky to live long enough to see - and then Paula Radcliffe did it. I also thought Michael Johnson's 200m WR was astounding (remember, he used to look like he was running a different race than all the other best 200m runners of the world), and didn't expect a Usain Bolt to come along.

So, my hunch is that 2:00 will be broken, but no time soon - I hope I live to see it!

hiyunwah wrote:

conspiracy theory here -- what if the kenyans are systematically lowering it by only a couple of seconds at a time so that they can maximize the number of 'world record bonuses'. it doesn't make sense to go blow the world record out of the water and get one bonus when you could lower it slowly over many years and get a lot of bonuses.

We call this 'slicing the bologna thinly'

I don't see 2:00 being broken.

How far do you think a current runner like G. Mutai or W. Kipsang could run at 2:00:00 (or 1:59:59, if you like) marathon pace? Would they even make it to 20 miles?

I'll add that Mosop's 30,000 (1:26:47.4) record from Eugene was about 2:02:05 pace

What if this discussion were about the sub-1:45 marathon? There are either limits or there are not (and, clearly, there must be). If there are limits, then it is reasonable to suggest that they reside this side of 2:00 (more than reasonable, when real, substantive factors-- i.e. rather than simple numbers-- are introduced). The math,in itself, means nothing; it merely describes prior events and processes which have real, underlying, substantive causes, any one of which could be subject to change, or which could be historically unrepeatable. In the real world in which athletic performance is achieved, there is absolutely nothing guaranteeing that rates of progression will continue as they have, and plenty of reason to suspect that they will not.

This has been pointed out before, but there is a ton more money in thoroughbred horse racing than in running-- and therefore, tons of selective breeding and scientific intervention, including doping; and yet, performance in horse racing has leveled off. What has happened is that the massive application of 20C science to the ancient sport of horse racing merely accelerated the apparent reaching of the limits of horse physiology. Actually, the only reasonable argument I can see for the possibility of a sub-2 is that not all of the fruits of modern science have been applied to distance running. Maybe, but this is an empirical argument. But even here, there are clearly legal and moral (to say nothing of practical) limits to the full application of science to any sport involving human athletes. These too, and not simply physiology in some abstract sense, must be counted as limits on human athletic performance. And I would say we are already up against some clear legal, moral, and practical limits to performance.

what if we put a deer singlet and a timing chip on a pronghorn and chased it in a car for 26.2 miles. I bet the antelope could break 2:00

great post. Maybe never in their life time, but it will eventually happen.

I predicted back in 2007 after Haile Gebrselassie's record that the limit would be a 1:57:28

The model I created was

time in minutes = 117.467 + 140.27* e^(-.02(Year-1858.327))

So 2059 would be the year that 2 hours is broken.

If you enter Sunday's date, you'll get 123.73, which is 20 seconds slower than Kipsang's time. This would indicate that my model is currently conservative(and has been for the other 2 records), so sub 2 might even happen sooner.

Keep in mind that the runner who breaks 2 hours isn't born yet.

The other thing to add to your argument is that there is money in the marathon and that attracts good runners away from the track. Popularity and money will only increase as the record gets closer to 2 hours.

it will happen quite soon (one or two decades). if you can run

sub-58 for the half, 60 is a stroll and so will be done once you find a Tadese type who figures it out.

Perhaps the bigger question is will anyone still run the marathon that competitively in 50 years? At what point does civilization stop providing youth with an incentive to train that hard?

rojo wrote:

Tergat: "Take it from me today; forget about it, it will never happen. It's impossible. Definitely maybe 2:03:10 but anything lower than that, it's going to a very uphill task."

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=170858

Unless that new google company drastically expands humans lifespans, it's not happening in my lifetime on a standard course with the current rules.

-Rojo PS. I say standard course and standard rules as i already think it's currently possible if they drive behind the lead pack with a machine that blows like 20 mph winds at the runners back for the whole race.

The idea that currently "we" are just 13 seconds away from something like a limit is just laughable. Any generation is saying something like that. Why on earth at this moment in history? We are far, far away from a limit. For sure there must be a limit which can't be bettered by humans as they are today. But this limit is not 2:03:10 and also not 2:00. This is not a question at all. Don't ask athletes about something like this.

Many years back a German sports scientist had an big article in a sports magazine. He made predictions about the limits which will never ("by 95% certainty") be bettered. I remember very well his time for the mens 10000m: 26:38 (the world record probably was 27:13,81 at the time, I'm not sure which year the article was published). Well, a few years later Salah Hissou ran this time. And Bekele has run 21 seconds faster just a few years later. I knew this article was laughable when I read it. As is a 2:00 "limit". No runner ever will really come close to the "limit", too many variables are involved. in a complex event like the Marathon there always will be much room for improvement. The limit might be in the 1:50 area, but probably no one will even come within 5 minutes of this in the next - say - 200 years. But sub 2 will come, definitely. Maybe even in the next 50 years.

Shoebacca wrote:

Perhaps the bigger question is will anyone still run the marathon that competitively in 50 years? At what point does civilization stop providing youth with an incentive to train that hard?

ridiculous. probably when we don't live on the Earth's ground anymore

I expect someone to run a marathon in under two hours within the next ten years.

RunAnnArbor wrote:

For the sake of clarity, and sobering reality...

A 1:59:59 marathon will require around about a 4:34/mile pace, using the calculator here:

http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/4/4_1/96.shtml

Wilson Kipsang's 2:03:23 worked out to around a 4:42/mile.

I realize that's an 8 seconds/mile difference. And, when I say it that way...8 seconds a mile doesn't sound like THAT much of a difference. So, then I think...what if a Haile Gebrselassie, or a Daniel Komen, or a Kenenisa Bekele...decided from the beginning of their career..."I am going to be a marathoner"...while still running 5 and 10Ks to hone their speed for the marathon.

Could any of them, in their prime, average 8 seconds a mile faster than Wilson Kipsang did in Berlin last Sunday?

I would say no, but they would run it close

Fairness Police wrote:

I'll add that Mosop's 30,000 (1:26:47.4) record from Eugene was about 2:02:05 pace

Perhaps the track is the place where sub-2:00:00 will finally happen!

If the pace makers go out too hard, he may even have to come back from a lap down.

And we must make sure the track doesn't spiral down more than one metre per kilometre to keep the course eligible.