NYC had all the makings of a fast finish after no one wanted to take charge in the first 2/3rds of the race.
The final 10K was covered in a blazing 28:35 by Biwott, which was faster than the final 10K of Kimetto's WR (29:00)
28:35 is 2:00:47 pace.
It's going to be 15 years or more until we see someone split sub-60 for either the first or last half of the race. Even when that happens, we will still be WAY off.
Interesting though that Biwott split 28:35 for the last 10k (and a bit) and that included Central Park's undulations.
NYC is not a fast course. Do you even follow the sport?
Yeah. I know the course.
In hindsight, it may have been a convoluted premise for a thread. But for some reason the Sub-2 hour marathon people drive me a little bonkers.
IMO, if a sub-2 were possible, we would see some tactical races end with a final 1/4 of the race at 1:59 pace. It perhaps has something to do with dialing into the pace earlier, and that it is harder to shift gears later in a marathon.
At least in the 5K, we see guys go well under WR pace in the final mile after a slower opening.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
for some reason the Sub-2 hour marathon people drive me a little bonkers.
Why? The record is only 3 minutes away and came down more than 2 minutes between 1998 and 2014?
More than 3 mintues from 1998 to 2014, not 2.
If you want to make a case for sub 2 hour being impossible, fine. Just don't use NYC as an example of why or why not.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
In hindsight, it may have been a convoluted premise for a thread.
That's the LetsRun motto!
Oh believe me, I've got a litany of reasons of why I don't expect to see it any time soon. And I have weighed in when the topic comes up.
This will be Exhibit 35 or so.
The motto is, or was, "where your dreams become reality" and one of mine is to see a sub 2 hour marathon in my lifetime. I'm pretty sure it will happen.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Oh believe me, I've got a litany of reasons of why I don't expect to see it any time soon.
Go on then, let's hear em.
My biggest reasons for being a negative nelly on the sub-2 discussion:
1. No one has ever run sub-2 hour pace for even 90 minutes.
2. Only 130 men have ever broken 60 in the half. Only 14 have broken 59.
3. Even though the WR in the marathon has improved 2 minutes in 11 years (When Tergat brought back the East African dominance in the event), the half WR has only improved 43 seconds in that time.
Currently, the WR for the full is the half WR x 2.106. The same was more or less true in 1988. In order for that to jibe with a 1:59:59 marathon, there would need to be some sub-57 half guys out there (sub-27 10K pace for 13.1 miles).
If there were as much interest and MONEY in the half marathon as the marathon, you would probably see a lot faster times there.
but why?>?>? wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:for some reason the Sub-2 hour marathon people drive me a little bonkers.
Why? The record is only 3 minutes away and came down more than 2 minutes between 1998 and 2014?
Amusingly, the fastest marathon split time in history has only dropped by 11 seconds in the last 17 years. Renaldo da Costa ran the second of of Berlin in 61:23 for his WR, and Kimetto ran 61:12 for his WR (obviously Kimetto ran much closer to even splits).
If a flat 5k loop marathon course was laid out somewhere where there was no wind, 55deg temps, and the 5k of road had a synthetic track surface laid over it . . . essentially making the marathon an 8 lap track race + 2.2k . . . then maybe, possibly, someone somewhere at sometime could break 2 hrs.
However, running on a track surface probably would not count for marathon record purposes.
Otherwise, baring future illegal performance-enhancing genetic engineering, don't look for the marathon record ever to drop below 2:02.
MarathonWatch wrote:
Otherwise, baring future illegal performance-enhancing genetic engineering, don't look for the marathon record ever to drop below 2:02.
The IAAF isn't going to enforce a ban on those things as long as there are bribes to be paid. Look at how strictly they monitor Kenyans and Russians.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
But for some reason the Sub-2 hour marathon people drive me a little bonkers.
Same here. I am quite confident that it won't happen in my lifetime (or substitute that for the next 50 years). The extent of the argument that I have seen I'm favor of a sub 2 can be summed up as - it took X years for the marathon WR to drop 3 minutes, therefore it will take X years to drop 3 more. That and the "nobody ever thought a sub 4 minute mile was possible" argument. Neither of those are very compelling IMO.
MarathonWatch wrote:
If a flat 5k loop marathon course was laid out somewhere where there was no wind, 55deg temps, and the 5k of road had a synthetic track surface laid over it . . . essentially making the marathon an 8 lap track race + 2.2k . . . then maybe, possibly, someone somewhere at sometime could break 2 hrs.
However, running on a track surface probably would not count for marathon record purposes.
Otherwise, baring future illegal performance-enhancing genetic engineering, don't look for the marathon record ever to drop below 2:02.
Disagree. Marathon can definitely get down into 2:01, maybe even 2:0x range as it is. However, I doubt the race necessary for that to come together will ever occur.
The reason being is drafting. At the 12-13mph pace of 2:00 territory there is between 1-2% savings to be gained following. 1% gets you to 2:01:45, 2% gets you to 2:00:30.
Now, there is usually decent pacing till 20-25km so really you're only looking at half those savings, but that still have us looking at 2:01:xx, with the very outside potential of 2:00:xx if an even more talent, special athlete comes along that could run 20-30s better than Kimetto.
The problem obviously is getting this to happen. Ideally you'd want to get the pacemaker to 30km+, which would mean you would need to have several strong pacemakers working together sharing the work at the front to carry through 30km. From there, there would need to be sufficient incentives to get the top guys all working together taking turns at the front cycling through till say 40km or 41km, at which points its no holds barred racing to the end.
Are we going to see this? 1 in a billion maybe. Being generous. It would require either huge incentives or some massive effort toward collaboration AND would require each of the top guys to be having a solid enough day to help rotate through up till 40km.
Sub 2 is totally out of the picture, as most agree.
Lenny Leonard,
I respect your reasons for being a negative nelly. I remain optimistic that it will happen...eventually.
1. I think the event will remain popular and sub-2 only adds to the popularity. There will be money and opportunity for the next 50 years, maybe 100?
2. I believe in innovation. Shoes, training, nutrition, etc. Over time new technology can help endurance.
3. Look at the half marathon records from 30-40 years ago. Crazy to think the full pace is faster than those today.
I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but have some faith that it will happen and could even be within my lifetime.
Lenny, watch Kimetto in his 2.02.57 record run last year:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh2dwJ80Edo
He is running with his teeth clenched, so he is not exactly sucking in huge amounts of oxygen, he is running economically. That is the key to running fast and it's the area where further improvements will be made, as they always have been and will be for a very long time to come.
Your imaginary limits of human performance are the stuff of cynical closed mindedness.
