Agree? Kipchoge compares breaking 2 hrs in the marathon to the moon landing: "“It’s like the first man to go to the moon."

Imagine if the Wright Bros. flew their plane at Kitty Hawk/Dayton/France just to prove that it could be done. Then no one pursued flying again until 50 years later even though the technology that humanity had at its disposal grew exponentially every year.

We have more computing power in our pockets today than the entire Apollo team had at their disposal in 1969...yet we haven't been "back" to the moon in nearly 50 years?

Yeah. It definitely happened.

HatOfTinFoil wrote:

Imagine if the Wright Bros. flew their plane at Kitty Hawk/Dayton/France just to prove that it could be done. Then no one pursued flying again until 50 years later even though the technology that humanity had at its disposal grew exponentially every year.

We have more computing power in our pockets today than the entire Apollo team had at their disposal in 1969...yet we haven't been "back" to the moon in nearly 50 years?

Yeah. It definitely happened.

Or one of their astronauts saying "we lost the technology". Nothing to see here.

All these paced races, track or road, should not be counted as world records, but just an oddity - like Ali vs. the Japanese kick boxer years ago.

Instead of all the $$ spent on training and strategy for the paced sub 2- why not just build a treadmill that can handle 5 people and put him on that at the exact pace that he needs.

because everyone knows the treadmill sucks

thoughts and prayers wrote:

It probably is the marathon equivalent of the moon landing or at least somewhere in that ball park.

It's just a throw away line to promote the event anyway. Does it really matter?

First rational post in this thread.

Have Tadese and Lelisa pace Kipchoge too!

So Nike spent millions of dollars for the research, but INEOS will reap the benefits?

Kipchoge's comparison doesn't make sense. People have been running the marathon distance for ages; all he is doing is improving the time slightly. The two-hour marathon is a based on a somewhat arbitrary unit of time (one-twelfth of a day?) to cover an arbitrary distance. Landing a man on the moon was a much less arbitrary accomplishment.

Beyond that, it's still laughable to compare the two. The moon landing was an epochal event; the 2-hour marathon would just be another sports record.

Finally, it's not a legitimate 2-hour marathon. The 2:01 he ran in Berlin is already probably equivalent to sub-2 in the conditions he'll encounter in the Ineos run. That's not very exciting.

Verdict: Kipchoge is wrong.

I'd rather see Kipchoge try to top Mutai's record at NYC.

A sub-2 is going to happen regardless, doing it this way is just stupid. Just get enough fast guys to Dubai and it's done.

Only if he can do it in a real marathon with competitors and not wearing carbon plated shoes.

Do you still think he is some kind of a running Zen master? This age&drug cheater is rapidly losing his mind and taking himself too seriously. Does he save somebody's life? Improves the quality of life of the poor? Or anything relevant? Nope. So, he shouldn't compare such a trivial activity as running to relevant achievements of the humanity. Besides, he's gonna run in a hilarious and superficially constructed "lab" environment under the banner of totally corrupt Ineos - "The Word for Chemicals." He's Chris Froome's friendo now.

Couple things here:

- The Moon Landing comment is more about breaking through barriers that were once thought impossible. I realize that runners are typically literal creatures but c'mon man.

- The 4 minute mile was, at the time, considered a moon shot as well so an apt comparison to the 2 hour barrier. Bannister, like Kipchoge, used every available resource to help in his bid to break 4 minutes. Just like the crusty ol' salts here on letsrun there were probably some naysayers that were complaining about him wearing spikes, pacers, etc. "The only true way to break four minutes would be barefoot, in buckskin pants, measured with an hour glass of sand!"

- If Kipchoge were to break the 2 hour barrier it would certainly be one of the, if not the, greatest running accomplishment in our collective lifetimes. If successful, Kipchoge will long be remembered for it, more than his championships, world records, wins, etc. That's what he means by comparing it to the moon landing.

- I don't care about the pacers, fuel, shoes, timing, location, etc. There was a time that marathons were run in leather boots or barefoot, with few to no water stations, inadequate training, in the heat of the day, etc. Where one draws the line on what is "legitimate" and what isn't has "Jumped the Shark" ages ago.

Disagree with the "runners are being too literal" accusation. Sub-2 and moon landing are just too categorically different to be compared. He had the perfect simile available: "it'll be like the first sub-4 mile". That would have made sense. But breaking an arbitrary time barrier is not really a valid concept to compare with a national/international effort to make massive improvements in many technological areas in order to expand human horizons, at considerable risk. It's not just a case of apples and oranges; it's more like comparing apples and particle accelerators.

Would somebody hitting 80 home runs in a baseball season be like the moon landing?

Would a running back rushing for 3000 yards in a season be like the moon landing?

Was Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game like the moon landing?

Would a woman running a sub-4 mile be like the moon landing?

No, no, no, and no. Neither will the sub-2 aided marathon be.

The first man to break any barrier is a pretty big deal, although obviously running vs leaving the Earth entirely to land somewhere else is a bigger deal.

Now what would really be impressive is if Kipchoge could go sub 2 and then become an astronaut and also land on the moon in a future launch. That'd be a feat that no one could ever match!

Count Jogula wrote:

Kipchoge's comparison doesn't make sense. People have been running the marathon distance for ages; all he is doing is improving the time slightly. The two-hour marathon is a based on a somewhat arbitrary unit of time (one-twelfth of a day?) to cover an arbitrary distance. Landing a man on the moon was a much less arbitrary accomplishment.

Beyond that, it's still laughable to compare the two. The moon landing was an epochal event; the 2-hour marathon would just be another sports record.

Finally, it's not a legitimate 2-hour marathon. The 2:01 he ran in Berlin is already probably equivalent to sub-2 in the conditions he'll encounter in the Ineos run. That's not very exciting.

Verdict: Kipchoge is wrong.

+1.

Kipchoge is a humble man while being the greatest marathoner ever. Or so I thought before he made this statement.

'The Moon' is the name of a cafe on the flanks of Mt. Kilimanjaro. He actually doesn't think it's that big of a deal. He's all "it's no biggie - like going to The Moon. For coffee."

The only similarity might be the crackly phone.

The achievement that trumps the moon landing is the provision of universal free internet porn.

The production of my screenplay is 10 times easier than going to the moon or running a sub 2 hour marathon.