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

asdfaafdafasd wrote:

Yep someone will run 2:02:30 and then over the next 10000 years nobody will ever run faster. There will be zero changes in training, nutrition, equipment, and so on that will let them run even 1 second faster.

Eventually we will hit limits. But trying to call them is a foolish game.

Gamera wrote:

Also, for those who think we are on a nice, neat progressive curve towards a time somewhere under 2 hrs, keep in mind that some similar curves have been like that in the past, only to suddenly fall apart.

Take the women's 100m. It seemed to be experiencing a steady progression throughout most of the 20th century. I imagine there were observers at various points in time who thought it would never get any faster, but it always did....until it didn't. Here are 20 years of progression from 1968 to 1988(from Wikipedia):

11.07 1.2 Wyomia Tyus October 15, 1968[1]

11.07 0.2 Renate Stecher September 2, 1972[1]

11.04 0.6 Inge Helten June 13, 1976[1]

11.01 0.6 Annegret Richter July 25, 1976[1]

10.88 2.0 Marlies Oelsner July 1, 1977[1]

10.88 1.9 Marlies Göhr July 9, 1982[1]

10.81 1.7 Marlies Göhr June 8, 1983[1]

10.79 0.6 Evelyn Ashford United States July 3, 1983[1]

10.76 1.7 Evelyn Ashford United States August 22, 1984[1]

10.49 0.0* Florence Griffith-Joyner United States July 16, 1988

Some might argue that the FloJo record was due to a faulty wind-reading, and that her second-best time of 10.61 should stand as the record. OK, fine. Many will argue that she blew the old record apart due to PEDs. Fine, I'm with you. However, it doesn't change the fact that, even if you completely remove FloJo from the argument, women's 100m times improved steadily through 1984, when Evelyn Ashford ran 10.76. Since then, there has been virtually no progression except for FloJo, who ran the still-existing record 25 years ago. I think a couple or three of ladies have run high 10.6/low 10.7 since FloJo (one of whom was Marion Jones, so we can dis-count her).

The point is, around the time of FloJo, you wouldn't have sounded too crazy to say that women would someday run under 10 for the 100m. Look at how the record has progressed!! you might say. Why, only 20 years ago (1968), the record was over 11 seconds - it's coming down over 2 tenths per decade!! But that argument wouldn't sound so good now. I don't see any likelihood of women breaking 10 sec for 100m in anything like the current format (i.e. it could be done by women of uncertain gender, women using mega-powerful PEDs, etc, but not by what we currently consider a "woman" with PEDs that have been invented thus far).

The same phenomenon seems to be happening in the women's marathon. Weren't women supposed to be on a curve that would see their record surpass the men's pretty soon? That argument is not heard much anymore, but anyway, Paula Radcliffe's 2:15 has already put a 10-year halt on further record progression, with no threats in sight.

My guess is that someone will bust out a 2:02:xx in the next few years, and that will be the end.

Old Trackster wrote:

The Brojos are wrong...again.

The elite runners are likely running an extra .3 miles in the marathon. I arrive at that estimate from the following observations:

Every elite marathon I watch, I see very very inefficient route running. Rarely do the leaders hit the tangents and often they'll be on the wrong side of the road a hundred meters before a turn. Then they often go through the turns about 10 feet from the apex. When running in a pack the runners on the side to the outside of the turn are often 15-20 feet from the apex. Additionally, there is often security staff standing on the inside edge of a turn if there is a fence or just spectators three feet into the course blocking the inside of the course. At Berlin I saw a bike consistently riding exactly to the inside of Kipsong keeping him from hitting the apex in the last 3 miles.

So let's see what .30 mile at WR marathon pace converts to in time: 1 minute 24 seconds.

So the actual WR pace would be right at 2:02:00.

If the course organizers were diligent about keeping people off the course by moving barriers back from the course edge 5 feet and keeping bikes, motorcycles, etc off the course and if pacers were compensated not only for pace but to work the tangents properly, the WR could easily be 2:02 with absolutely no other changes.

Additionally, to say sub-2 would never happen would ignore some easily predictable technological changes:

1) Shoe technology will continue to improve over decades. If nothing else, a 1-2 oz lighter shoe with the same cushioning could easily shave a minute or two off. Some new tech with better energy return could knock even more time off.

2) Better fueling. Runners can easily gain from being able to restore glycogen more quickly during a race.

3) Changes to the course surface. There may be a more ideal surface than the currently used mix of asphalt. Surely a course made out of all weather track material would be worth a minute or two or more. If the course material were just right perhaps runners could run with less cushioning or even barefoot with the same protection as shoes and that would easily save multiple minutes due to weight.

4) Better understanding of the human body will positively affect training methods.

With just population growth, imagine instead of the last 4-5 miles where Wilson Kipsong was running solo, there were 3 guys just like Kipsong pushing each other. Would that not be worth another 15 seconds?

In summary the Brojos once again have made fools of themselves. As to when it will be, who can predict, but in light of the above, it seems not only possible, but highly probable.