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

Ryan Hall will be the first to break the 2 hour barrier, with a little help from Jesus Mother F-ing Christ.

math nerd wrote:

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.

I don't want to hurt your feelings, but actually, if you enter any date, your model is off by a significant amount of time.

math nerd wrote:

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

You don't know. No one knows.

There is a limit, we don't know what it is, we don't know when it will be reached. Why won't people admit that they don't know?

You CANNOT predict the future. Now That's impossible. I'm pretty sure scientists said a sub- 4min mile was impossible and you would die due to heart failure. Now hundreds of people do it every year. The sub 2hour marathon will be achieved. Records are mean't to be broken and as time goes on and we evolve even more as a species things will change. Predicting the future is always wrong. Another example was the first computer - hahaha!

I run in college wrote:

Forget notions about physiology or how much of an improvement it would take to go sub 2:00, those were the same arguments made against a sub 4:00 mile. Until the math disagrees, 2:00 is possible.

I'm sorry, but serious runners and coaches were NEVER in any doubt that 4:00 was within reach. Read John Bryant's book. Victorian professionals probably got close to it. And then when they were banned and it became a hobby for amateurs, they started getting close again in the 1930s, and would have cracked it much sooner if not for WWII. With two Swedes, in one country of just 8 million, racing each other month-in, month-out and getting down to 4:01 during the war, who on earth could maintain it was somehow impossible with 20x the population able to take part?

The tabloid newspapers had a great time hyping it up in early 1950s because it had all the ingredients to excite the readers - stereotypes, countries going at each other and so on.

And the guy who knew the most about the physiology actually went and DID it.

MAUI_krazy8 wrote:

BS, whomever the first guy is to bust the "2B" (2hour barrier) will live in INFAMY as "that guy" the same way Bannister did/is. NO ONE would pass that chance up.

He will be famous, as Bannister is, but maybe you should look up INFAMY in the dictionary before you use it again.

of course its possible.

2 h is def within grasp.

only a fool would say otherwise.

history shows it.

get in the game rojo.

But what if it was a marathon run on a track?

We're still in the stone age when it comes to injury prevention and treatment. What if there's a breakthrough that allows someone to run 200 hard miles a week.

kkkasjasbhsa wrote:

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.

I draw no lines. Times change, limits change.

sub 2:00 in year 2041

sub 1:00 in year 301,423

sub 30 in year 1,205,692

sub 10 in year 45,583,716,182

sub 5 in year 7.47E+14

sub 1 in year 2,24E+48 (over 2520 km/h (1570 mph), faster than current land speed record)

Of course the world will end in some 5 billion years (5,000,000,000) so we won't even see the sub 10 minute marathon.

Something went wrong, here's the correct years:

sub 2:00 in year 2041

sub 1:00 in year 301,423

sub 30 in year 1,205,692

sub 10 in year 308,657,152

sub 5 in year 1.26E+12

sub 1 in year 1.00E+41

So we will definitely see the sub 10 marathon.

This thread is a perfect example of how so many people lose money in the stock market.

not old yet wrote:

But what if it was a marathon run on a track?

Well thats just absurd. What would happen if someone were to be laped.?

B.M. Fartz wrote:

not old yet wrote:

But what if it was a marathon run on a track?

Well thats just absurd. What would happen if someone were to be laped.?

LAPE is no longer in operation.

If our man in year Infinity C.E. wishes to use a plane as a pacemaker for his 300+mph attempt at a 5-minute marathon, he must find a different airline.

Eurodonkey, what is the title of that book? All I have ever heared is that people thought the sub 4 was impossible. I still stand by my prediction, I think there will be statistical warnings before a barrier is reached and that I don't see any of those signs.

I am guessing one day they would provide a truck to drift all WR challengers to buy the last couple of sec on the clock. Mid race refueling, yada yada yada. Ryan Hall was wind aided in one race. I think they would have to get someone like Wanjiru. A guy that turned pro young, and been through the Japanese marathon system that milks ever ounce of aerobic potential out of him young.

Its definitely possible within in our lifetime. Does anyone here think the record will above 2:01 for 20 years? I see 2:02 being broken in the next 5 years. I don't think it will be as long as people think. And, they are some amazingly gifted runners being born everyday that will be stronger and faster than we've ever thought. I think it can be done in the next 15 to 20 years. We're due for a new generation of runners who come out of nowhere and redefine what is possible. In addition, things developing in science like nanotechnology and new medicines can dramatically change what is physically possible over night. And, I'm not talking drugs just a natural progression of tech.

Just like he said sub 2:04 was impossible?

For starters Wilson Kipsang did not look spent. I think his closing 3 km was pretty quick. Who's to say he couldn't have run 45 sec quicker? Do you think Bekele, in his prime, may have beaten Kipsang, by perhaps 45 seconds. Just throwing out ideas - if both are right we are under 2.02 already.

Keith Stone wrote:

He will be famous, as Bannister is, but maybe you should look up INFAMY in the dictionary before you use it again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infamy?s=t

TRUE, I thought "Notorious" was the bad context word. In other news... Back to the debate!