View Full Version : Sub-2:00 hr marathon?
A very good article by the BBC on the possibility of a sub-2:00 hr marathon. I doubt that I'll live long enough to see it, but some of you here should.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12933932#story_continues_2
Coincidentally, today's Boston marathon was won in a new world record time, 2:03.2, by Geoff Mutai (Kenya). That time totally shattered Gebrselassi's 2008 record of 2:03.59 in the Berlin. But today's time isn't recognized as a world record because of a strong tail wind. Still, it was cool to see.
When JenPharr sets the new AT record, we'll have to check weather maps to see if she had an unfair tail wind advantage. ;)
Pedaling Fool
04-18-2011, 16:38
The other day I saw a guy that runs a lot of marathons, he was freakin' tiny. Not just in height, but in total body composition. He definitely had leg muscles, but just small. Looked just like one of them little Kenyan/ethiopian runners on TV. You really don't get a full appreciation of how small they are by watching on TV.
A very good article by the BBC on the possibility of a sub-2:00 hr marathon. I doubt that I'll live long enough to see it, but some of you here should.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12933932#story_continues_2
Coincidentally, today's Boston marathon was won in a new world record time, 2:03.2, by Geoff Mutai (Kenya). That time totally shattered Gebrselassi's 2008 record of 2:03.59 in the Berlin. But today's time isn't recognized as a world record because of a strong tail wind. Still, it was cool to see.
When JenPharr sets the new AT record, we'll have to check weather maps to see if she had an unfair tail wind advantage. ;)
Not because of the tail wind, but because of the net downhill elevation at Boston. Nevermind that there are a few uphills too, but the net downhill voids the world record. Outstanding performance though. I could maybe keep up with them for 1 mile when I was 18 and in high school track!
Pedaling Fool
04-18-2011, 17:08
Whatever the reason, wind/hills, what if the guy did do a sub-two hour, would that have been thrown out also? I mean how do they compensate for these things? If Gebreselassi's record-breaking run was done in similar circumstances and on the same course as this run by Mutai what would have been the result?
So is the Boston marathon course not an appropriate course for setting records? So many questions...
flemdawg1
04-18-2011, 17:18
So is the Boston marathon course not an appropriate course for setting records? So many questions...
Yes. But its considered one of the Big 5 Marathons (New York, Chicago, London & Berlin are the others), with a nice cash prize, so it'll continue to attract the best talent.
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Why-the-fastest-marathon-ever-won-8217-t-be-con?urn=oly-wp98
Pedaling Fool
04-18-2011, 18:12
Yes. But its considered one of the Big 5 Marathons (New York, Chicago, London & Berlin are the others), with a nice cash prize, so it'll continue to attract the best talent.
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Why-the-fastest-marathon-ever-won-8217-t-be-con?urn=oly-wp98
Thanks, this statement from your link basically turns many of my questions into simply acamdemic questions vice practical, but still very interesting problems, but they took the easy way out:)
"A tailwind accompanied the race and doubtlessly aided in Mutai's time, but the wind was irrelevant given the start-to-finish elevation decrease. Even if Mutai had run the course in a hurricane headwind, the world record still wouldn't have counted."
berninbush
04-18-2011, 21:22
He should come to the Houston Marathon... the ground here is flat as a pancake! I'm no runner, but I had a friend in it this year so I went to cheer him on, and I was impressed by the thousands of people running in it. They do it in January so heat's not an issue.
Read 'em and weep. Mutai's splits were:
5k: 14:32
10k: 29:08
half: 1:01.58
Average pace: 4:42
Faster than I can run 400m.
Trailbender
04-19-2011, 10:32
Coincidentally, today's Boston marathon was won in a new world record time, 2:03.2, by Geoff Mutai (Kenya). That time totally shattered Gebrselassi's 2008 record of 2:03.59 in the Berlin. But today's time isn't recognized as a world record because of a strong tail wind. Still, it was cool to see.
I wouldn't call being beaten by 40 seconds "record shattering", especially in regards to a marathon.
I wouldn't call being beaten by 40 seconds "record shattering", especially in regards to a marathon.
I know that you wouldn't, but the editors of Runners World and Running Times do. I look forward to your cites demonstrating that shaving 40 seconds isn't a big deal. Here are a few others I found:
"...surreal achievement..." USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2011-04-18-bostonmarathonwomen18_N.htm
"...smashed the course record..." Peter May, NY TIMES. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/sports/19marathon.html
"... he blistered the Boston Marathon course... a stunning performance ..." ESPN. http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/news/story?id=6381520
" I can't believe this is happening right now. I'm running a 2:04 pace, and I can't even see the leaders It was unreal." Ryan Hall, American marathon record holder, on Mutai's time. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-boston-marathon-20110419,0,4012652.story
"We had a stunning performance and an immensely fast time here today," Tom Grilk. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-boston-marathon-20110419,0,4012652.story
"The time — nearly a minute faster than the recognized global best — seemed impossible.... There has never been a day like it, here or anywhere else " John Powers. http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/articles/2011/04/19/a_stunner_by_any_measure/
“You might only once in your lifetime have the opportunity to see someone do something better than it has ever been done before,” http://bostonmarathon.runnersworld.com/2011/04/kenyan-geoffrey-mutai-runs-20302-marathon-the-fastest-ever-ryan-hall-fourth-in-american-fastest-20458.html
Trailbender
04-19-2011, 11:34
I know that you wouldn't, but the editors of Runners World and Running Times do. I look forward to your cites demonstrating that shaving 40 seconds isn't a big deal. Here are a few others I found:
"...surreal achievement..." USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2011-04-18-bostonmarathonwomen18_N.htm
"...smashed the course record..." Peter May, NY TIMES. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/sports/19marathon.html
"... he blistered the Boston Marathon course... a stunning performance ..." ESPN. http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/news/story?id=6381520
" I can't believe this is happening right now. I'm running a 2:04 pace, and I can't even see the leaders It was unreal." Ryan Hall, American marathon record holder, on Mutai's time. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-boston-marathon-20110419,0,4012652.story
"We had a stunning performance and an immensely fast time here today," Tom Grilk. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-boston-marathon-20110419,0,4012652.story
"The time — nearly a minute faster than the recognized global best — seemed impossible.... There has never been a day like it, here or anywhere else " John Powers. http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/articles/2011/04/19/a_stunner_by_any_measure/
“You might only once in your lifetime have the opportunity to see someone do something better than it has ever been done before,”http://bostonmarathon.runnersworld.com/2011/04/kenyan-geoffrey-mutai-runs-20302-marathon-the-fastest-ever-ryan-hall-fourth-in-american-fastest-20458.html
What they think really doesn't matter to me. 40 seconds in a long run like that could be due to not tripping, a loose shoelace, or any number of other things.
Read 'em and weep. Mutai's splits were:
5k: 14:32
10k: 29:08
half: 1:01.58
Average pace: 4:42
Yep, I ran a 4.38 competition mile in my High School senior year in the 1960's (good but no where near great). When I hit the finish (2nd place) my legs were rubber and I fell to the track. Today I could not run a marathon in twice his time.
That is so amazing that this guy could run 4:42 pace for 26+ miles.
The human has evolved into such an incredible creation!... however, I have to believe that this guy has reached his peak. It is a short lived sport.
Trailbender
04-19-2011, 11:51
Yeah, I do understand the competitiveness with sports, even a few seconds seems to make a huge deal. Back when I played regularly, around 2002-2003, I had the world record in Soldier of Fortune DM, 56 kills in 37 seconds, and that was with the spawning 9mm. It was debated among many people, depending on what map we were on, and the general concensus was that closer quarters maps enabled me to target enemies much faster than having to hunt people down, and the headshot quadrant factor was a significant multiplier as well.
flemdawg1
04-19-2011, 12:43
What they think really doesn't matter to me. 40 seconds in a long run like that could be due to not tripping, a loose shoelace, or any number of other things.
Then go out and beat it. :rolleyes:
Trailbender
04-19-2011, 12:53
Then go out and beat it. :rolleyes:
I don't run marathons, so i wouldn't be able to beat them. It would be like getting one of the marathon runners a computer and having them try to beat me in a first person shooter. Different sports, different abilities.
Monkeywrench
04-19-2011, 13:23
What they think really doesn't matter to me. 40 seconds in a long run like that could be due to not tripping, a loose shoelace, or any number of other things.
40 seconds for a duffer like me that runs 4 hour marathons is nothing, but 40 seconds at the level world-class runners compete at is a LOT.
Trailbender
04-19-2011, 14:19
40 seconds for a duffer like me that runs 4 hour marathons is nothing, but 40 seconds at the level world-class runners compete at is a LOT.
I see your point, and understand it. In my sport, I am at the world class level, and a quarter second can mean the difference between living or dying. I don't compete in tournaments at the moment, as I have not found a game I like, but I have been ranked pretty highly in all the games I have played. At that level, everyone is about the same, top notch, and a slight mistake either way is what separates winners from headless chunks of flesh. This one shooter, STALKER, is renowned for it's difficulty and mercilessness, and I play it on the hardest skill level, using only a handgun.
I mentioned that different sports have different rules, and abilities. Asking that question is like asking who will win a 100 yard dash, a runner or a world class weightlifter. You put any of the top class athletes in most other sports besides computer gaming in with me, and play a shooter, they are going to get destroyed. Doesn't mean they are worse than me, it just means they are very skilled in other areas.
Pedaling Fool
04-19-2011, 18:17
Here's a scenario, what if a guy does a sub-2 hour marathon on an approved course for world records. But he does it with a 20-mph tailwind. Is there an asterix* placed next to the guy's name?
I remember watching a time-trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_time_trial in the TdF and the guys that started earlier had a very good tail wind, but the the guys that started later missed out on the tailwind, and tail winds on the bike is a much bigger advantage, but it doesn't matter. All times are recorded as completed w/o concern with environmental conditions, despite everyone knowing that some had a much bigger advantage.
BTW, if any of you'll have US (Universal Sports channel) tonight at 7pm they will be airing: Indulgence: 1000 miles A profile of ultra marathoner Anton Krupicka as he prepared for the leadville race in 2007.
max patch
04-19-2011, 18:35
3 facts and I'm gone.
1. I can state with certainty that if a sub 2 hour marathon is run it won't be by me. There is a good chance that my days of sub 4 hour marathons are also in the past.
2. 40 seconds in a marathon is huge.
3. A video game ain't no sport.
Here's a scenario, what if a guy does a sub-2 hour marathon on an approved course for world records. But he does it with a 20-mph tailwind. Is there an asterix* placed next to the guy's name?
John, this is just a guess, but I'm thinking that the wind speed wouldn't matter so much if it's a loop course in that you'd be hitting headwind as much as tailwind? Still, I'm sure there's an upper limit on windspeed. I dunno... I'm going to try to find the correct answer, though.
And I agree with Max on all points. Personally I'd toast with champagne if I do a sub 3:50.
Trailbender
04-19-2011, 19:03
3. A video game ain't no sport.
It is.
http://www.gotfrag.com/
http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/
From dictionary.com: an athletic activity requiring skill OR physical prowess and often of a competitive nature (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature)
split second decisions, competitive nature, hand-eye coordination, lightning reflexes, I could probably go on. Look up gaming LANs and competitions, and tell me it isn't.
It's staggering to me that he runs 13 miles an hour. That's faster than I ride my bike around town, for heaven's sake. Totally amazing.
Trailbender
04-19-2011, 20:13
It's staggering to me that he runs 13 miles an hour. That's faster than I ride my bike around town, for heaven's sake. Totally amazing.
Yeah. I'm not much for running, but I can walk all day.
John, that's a great article. What struck me looking at the graph were the "trigger point years" where the marathon times made noticeable decreases.
It would be interesting to try and determine what caused these dramatic decreases- running shoe technology, end of a World War, Space program initiatives, etc.
I suspect you could do the same with long distance hiking records if you could find them.
Ladytrekker
04-19-2011, 20:18
We came fairly close to seeing a sub yesterday my friend ran the Boston so I watched it pretty close.
Just saw a fascinating doc on TV about Anton Krupicka a 100 mile ultramarathoner he runs 160-200 miles a week when training. Not sure where is head is at to have that kind of commitment.
fiddlehead
04-19-2011, 21:00
I think if you want to finish Leadville, you must train at least 140 miles/week.
At altitude.
I trained for it for 8 months and 2 of those months were in CO.
I did so because I remember the stories from good ultra-runners during my thru of the CDT 3 years earlier who came only a week before the race and bonked.
Anyway, most of us won't live to see a sub 2 minute marathon IMO.
Unless it's downhill.
I don't run marathons, so i wouldn't be able to beat them. It would be like getting one of the marathon runners a computer and having them try to beat me in a first person shooter. Different sports, different abilities.
Running is a sport, video games are....games.
Trailbender
04-20-2011, 00:32
Running is a sport, video games are....games.
No, I already explained how videogames were a sport, read my post above. It is competitive, team oriented, takes athletic ability, and great hand-eye coordination, more than tennis does, at top tier levels. I'm not talking about some fat guy in his mother's basement playing xbox, I am talking world class gamers, the competition is fierce. I know, I have played close to that level years ago.
tigerpaw
04-20-2011, 00:43
the fierceness of the competition does not make it a sport! regardless of their gaming prowess, and no one is saying that you or any other gamer is not excellent, it is not a sport. competitive cooking, food eating contests, etc. are not sports, in basements or not, and regardless of girth. get real!
Trailbender
04-20-2011, 09:33
the fierceness of the competition does not make it a sport! regardless of their gaming prowess, and no one is saying that you or any other gamer is not excellent, it is not a sport. competitive cooking, food eating contests, etc. are not sports, in basements or not, and regardless of girth. get real!
It is a sport, by the very definition of what a sport is.
I noticed all the older people are saying it is not a sport. I bet many people my age and under would disagree. I am 31, I grew up building computers and playing games, back when it wasn't "cool". Now everyone has an xbox or ps3, I still prefer computers. I played Doom 2 multiplayer in 1994, over a dial up modem.
I could give you a billion webpages to look up to verify what I have been saying, but I figure everyone here knows how to use google.
A running thread had the following from the IAAF rulebook regarding marathon courses certified for world records:
"5. For all road records:
a. The course must not have a net decrease in elevation from start to finish exceeding 1 part per thousand (i.e., 1m per km).
b. The start and finish of the race must lie no more than 30% of the race distance apart as measured along the straight line between them, except when it can be shown that the average component of the wind direction at the head of the race (the lead runner) did not constitute a significant tailwind.
NOTE: A tailwind shall be deemed to be significant if it prevails consistently throughout more than fifty percent (50%) of the course during the race."
There are a bunch of other rules, but those stood out. I'm guessing that the course judges have guidelines to determine the 50% rule.
If some would like to discuss the merits of computer games and "headless chunks of flesh," I really wish they'd start another thread in a different forum.
Trailbender
04-20-2011, 09:45
If some would like to discuss the merits of computer games and "headless chunks of flesh," I really wish they'd start another thread in a different forum.
We were discussing world record sports times, ect. It is within the subject matter, which was why I brought it up. Then everyone was going back and forth, discussing whether or not it is a sport, which is what sidetracked the thread.
Pedaling Fool
04-20-2011, 10:24
And I thought it was just a matter of running down the road:) Lot of thought went into the rules for a marathon.
Trailbender
04-20-2011, 10:38
And I thought it was just a matter of running down the road:) Lot of thought went into the rules for a marathon.
Yeah, best run I ever did was 4 miles in 26 mins in the Army, not much for longer than that, might be able to do a mile today.
Ladytrekker
04-20-2011, 12:04
Supposedly April is action month on Universal TV and I have been watching all these old documentaries on human endurance marathons, expeditions, etc.
After watching Indulgence chronicling Anton Krupicka (Ultramarathoner and two time winner of the Leadville) I watched "Pedal to the Midnight Sun" made in 2006. Josh and Ben cycle 1200 miles across Alaska, they are pretty funny. At the beginning of the film they were asked how they met and they said they met while hiking the AT and became great friends and then they also did a "Paddle to Seattle" which is sea kayaking from Alaska to Seattle.
I am sure they have been discussed before on Whiteblaze but I found them fun to watch they so have the hiker mentality and doing what they love.
flemdawg1
04-20-2011, 12:26
It is a sport, by the very definition of what a sport is.
I noticed all the older people are saying it is not a sport. I bet many people my age and under would disagree. I am 31, I grew up building computers and playing games, back when it wasn't "cool". Now everyone has an xbox or ps3, I still prefer computers. I played Doom 2 multiplayer in 1994, over a dial up modem.
I could give you a billion webpages to look up to verify what I have been saying, but I figure everyone here knows how to use google.
I've done 2 marathons, 6 half-marathons and a handful at shorter distances, I also play video games (Call Of Duty: Black Ops is my currnet fave). I would consider video gaming as a sport in the same vein that 9-ball pool is a sport.
max patch
04-20-2011, 12:43
EA Sports just announced that the 2012 version of "Hiking The Appalachian Trail" will feature "Baltimore Jack" Tarlin on the cover. The game will be compatible on all major gaming systems and pc's as well as most smart phones. Those that beat the game by "hiking" past all the white blazes will receive a facsimile "completion certificate" from the ATC.
Trailbender
04-20-2011, 14:20
EA Sports just announced that the 2012 version of "Hiking The Appalachian Trail" will feature "Baltimore Jack" Tarlin on the cover. The game will be compatible on all major gaming systems and pc's as well as most smart phones. Those that beat the game by "hiking" past all the white blazes will receive a facsimile "completion certificate" from the ATC.
Forget it. Trying to convince people that gaming is a sport is like arguing evolution with a creationist. They don't listen to facts, and their opinion is meaningless.
Whether or not you think it is a sport is irrelevant. It is, by definition.
travisap
04-20-2011, 14:53
Yep, I ran a 4.38 competition mile in my High School senior year in the 1960's (good but no where near great). When I hit the finish (2nd place) my legs were rubber and I fell to the track. Today I could not run a marathon in twice his time.
That is so amazing that this guy could run 4:42 pace for 26+ miles.
The human has evolved into such an incredible creation!... however, I have to believe that this guy has reached his peak. It is a short lived sport.
Doubtful. Geoffrey Mutai is only 30 years old. He still has a few good years in him yet. Haile Gebrselassie was 35 when he ran his 2:03:59 Berlin Marathon.
Tenderheart
04-20-2011, 15:36
Where on earth but on this site could an achievement such as running a 2:03 marathon evoke such a profusion of crap. I'm certainly proud to be a member.
litefoot
Nice article in the New York Times on this very subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/sports/22iht-ARENA22.html?src=me&ref=sports
One quote I found interesting. In regard to Mutai's shaving time from his PR, which of course resulted in a world best if not world record:
"Such gains might not sound daunting to those who are not elite marathoners, but those at the top know what kind of math (and oxygen debt) they are up against. It required 24 years, after all, to move the marathon mark — incrementally — from 2:08:05 to just under 2:04."
Finally, there is a physiologist and statistician, who is also a marathon fanatic, who uses multiple regression analysis and some other statistical methods to predict when marathon records will be broken. He's remarkably accurate. To quote him,
" and projected that someone — probably an Ethiopian, Kenyan, Moroccan or Eritrean — would go under two hours in the spring of 2015.
That is much earlier than the projection of around 2030 that Martin said he came up with when he first crunched the numbers in 1996. That year, using the same methodology, he also predicted that a woman would break through the 2:20 barrier by the spring of 2001."
The Counselor
04-25-2011, 00:26
No offense but anybody who has convinced themselves that sitting at a computer pressing buttons is an athletic activity has stared at one too many LED screens. Now cross-stitch? There's some real hand-eye coordination! Knit one, pearl two.....
Pedaling Fool
06-10-2011, 20:28
Interesting article on why humans keep improving, but horses not so much. http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201106/humans-keep-getting-faster-why-not-horses
Humans Keep Getting Faster; Why Not Horses?
In a fifty-year span, the four-minute mile went from a human milestone to a starting point for elite runners. The record for the mile has dropped a whopping 17 seconds since Roger Bannister first broke four minutes in 1954.
But in horse racing, the two-minute mile-and-a-quarter is still the holy grail, almost 30 years after Secretariat ran 1:59.40 at the Kentucky Derby in 1973. Only one other racehorse, Monarchos in 2001, has broken the barrier at Churchill Downs since then.
Why?
Harness horses have gotten faster, but not thoroughbreds. In fact, if Secretariat somehow trotted onto your TV screen at the Belmont Stakes this weekend, he wouldn't look much different than the other horses. But if the fastest man in the world in 1984, American sprinter Carl Lewis, time-traveled and lined up next to the fastest man in the world now, Usain Bolt, he'd look kind of small. Lewis was 6'3" and 180 lbs.; Bolt is 6'5" and 207. Granted, bigger doesn't always mean faster. Maurice Greene was only 5'9". But over time, humans get taller and their strides get longer. Not so with horses.
Cynics will say the difference in human performance is drugs -- illegal drugs. And although that can't be ruled out completely, that charge is not necessarily fair and not necessarily true. And besides, there are rumors about horse juicing as well as human juicing. So it's best to look at some indisputable differences.
Like shoes. Track shoes have advanced rapidly over the years, and now weigh mere ounces. Michael Johnson's famous golden spikes from 1996 weighed a quarter-pound and would be considered on the heavy side next year at the London Games. But the horseshoes worn at the Belmont this weekend are basically the same as those worn decades ago. "Aluminum shoes have been around for 50 years now," says longtime racetrack veterinarian Luis Castro.
Now go beneath the shoes. Olympic runners a century ago, in the Chariots of Fire era, ran on the equivalent of loose gravel. Now the tracks are so advanced that they almost feel like trampolines beneath your feet. Horses run on dirt tracks, then as now. Put a horse on a polyurethane track, though, and watch times plummet.
But there's a reason horses still run on softer surfaces like grass and dirt, and that brings us to the biggest reason horses haven't gotten faster: their legs.
"A horse's legs can't really take the torque and pounding that a human leg can," says Castro. "It's like running on your middle finger and the hoof is the fingernail. The human foot is so complex, with multiple bones. The horse foot is one digit, one ligament, one tendon. There's a limit to what the horse can do without injuring itself."
And while a human leg injury can heal over time, racehorses who suffer serious leg injuries must often be put down. So while human racing is a win-or-lose affair, horse racing can be a life-or-death situation. Since so much money and time is invested in every top thoroughbred, it's not worth the extra risk to break a track record.
And let's remember, human runners are in their teens and 20s. Triple Crown contenders are age three. Humans want to be known as the "G.O.A.T." -- greatest of all time. Horses just want to run faster than the next horse -- when they want to run at all. A human is driven by the desire for fame and riches. A horse is motivated by a whipping and perhaps a feeding.
"People have tried interval training, like on humans," says Castro. "The problem is these horses are pretty young developmentally. A lot of times when you find something that works and doesn't hurt the horse, it's hard to change."
So although there are always rumors of performance enhancing drugs, it's not like horses can make incremental improvements like switching their diet. Don't expect the next Breeder's Cup contender to start eating lean chicken and turkey instead of oats. And racehorses are bred from only six percent of the total stock anyway, so the small gene pool doesn't really lend itself to generational change.
"We have made advancements," says Animal Kingdom trainer Graham Motion, "but there's only so much you can do with a horse."
fiddlehead
06-13-2011, 02:30
Ran the Laguna Phuket marathon (half) yesterday and although I thought my training was going so poorly that I switched to the half about 2 weeks before the race, I ended up having my best time in 5 years. 2:22 for the half.
I know it's not fast by any means but, keep in mind a cool day here is in the 80's.
Don't really know why I did better this year except perhaps because I didn't worry about it too much, and I trained a little EVERY day rather than normally I train hard 3-4 days a week. (this is in the month or month and a half leading up to any marathon or half)
Now, I am thinking about getting back into ultras again as I felt great at the end. (almost ran the 2nd half as fast as the first)
Problem is, it's so hot here, they only have one that I can find. a 100km next Feb.
Don't know if I want to start with the 100k but, well, if it's the only one................