Reply With QuoteHas only proved that sub 2 hr is physically possible under those artificial conditions.Originally Posted by walkerwek1958
I can remember when 2:10 was broken, that seemed incredible at the time!
Running one mile at 4.34 pace is well beyond what the vast majority of runners can do, I find the current marathon best times incredible.
I agree that this feat shouldn’t be ratified as a record, but it’s proven that the sub 2 hr marathon is physically possible. The significance is similar to the four minute mile, but back in the 1940s/ 50s the training methods were primitive and much has been learned about conditioning that simply wasn’t understood in those days. The human body is capable of far more than was ever believed possible......well, some human bodies are.
Has only proved that sub 2 hr is physically possible under those artificial conditions.
It's a phenomenal achievement.
Except that he has done just over that (2.01.39) in normal race conditions. Now that it's know that the 2hr barrier can physically be broken, how long before he, or someone else, manages that in race conditions?
Dave E
Skating away on the thin ice of a new day
I don’t doubt it will eventually be broken but this is not proof.
This is a bizarre view - how is this NOT proof? This is a concentrated effort for one reason - to prove a man can run under 2 hours for a marathon. Race conditions are not ideal for record breaking for several reasons -
- the terrain may not be ideal (and let's make it clear the course design for the major marathons are arbitrary)
- needing to get your own supplies from a table is only a limitation of practicality for the number of competitors.
- race conditions can mean a very different pace setting.
- as a concentrated effort, i see no issues with lasers to guide and to maintain the two hour pace. As been discussed, the required pace is fast, even the greatest need to see what they need to maintain.
- wind protection - you still run in a group in race conditions, albeit less structured. This is probably the most contentious aspect I think.
We also need to remember, he couldn't do it on the first attempt - so we need to remember the advantages are all minor, the greatest aspect is still the man himself. No one else in the world with all the 'help' would be able to run sub 2 hour. Dwell on that. Amazing achievement.
Perhaps, like in cycling, there should be an opportunity for 'record-braking-only' events like this one.
M.
I’m sorry but I just don’t get this. It wasn’t a race so how can there be a record? And as others have said, he benefited from considerable slipstream benefit. Plenty of records are broken in training/out of competition.
As to being compared to Armstrong, I can’t believe any credible journalist would actually write that without understanding the implications.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I would describe the conditions as ‘optimised’ rather than artificial, the guy still ran the correct distance in the target time so it’s still a remarkable achievement.
I don’t know what the current regulations are with regard to pacing, they became far more relaxed in the 80s but this us taking it to the extreme.
With the advent of accurate running watches it could be argued that everyone can get advantages that weren’t possible 20+ years ago, optimum performance depends on pace judgement and once you’re getting ‘help’, even if it’s just an accurate digital watch that you check at each kilometre, you’ve crossed the line and moved into a realm where you’re getting assistance.
It’s hard to remember the days before the digital watches, but in those days you’d no idea how fast or slow you were running, it was all down to individual judgement. With practice you got good at it on the track, but it’s much harder on the road.
I don't deny that it's a great physical achievement but is this really a better performance than Kipchoge's race WR of 2:01:39? 26.1 miles paced by teams of fresh runners at an incredibly steady & even pace made possible by a non-competition scenario are massive benefits.
I predict that some time in the future, sub 2 hour Marathons will be common place. In the same way that sub 4 minute miles are now. There's always some barrier to be broken. That's the nature of records.
I hope that the first real sub 2 hour Marathon, which may well be by Kipchoge, is not too diminished by this.
Last edited by trident-7; 13th October 2019 at 18:09.
I'm not so sure we'll see the sub 2hr marathon very often in the future, I genuinely think we're getting close to the limits of human capability at the event. Training and sports science has advanced so much over the past 40 years, I question how much more there is to go at without resorting to cheating.
It's an established fact that the East Africans are naturally amongst the best runners on the planet; combined with the socio-economic incentives in the region to be successful at running I think we're already getting a large enough sample size of runners with great natural ability who are training very hard with the best available coaching.
It'll be interesting to see how it pans out over the next few years, I could be wrong!
I read it cost £15 million to put this together!
I think all this has proved to me is what a remarkable time 2.01.39 was. He had to get his own drinks, didn’t have the benefit of a laser beam marking the route to the nearest inch, and didn’t have a slipstream to run in, reducing air resistance by 85%, that is a massive benefit.
I've been reading up on his shoes now too as there's some discussion regarding them and performance advantages there. Seems to be along the lines of some of the things we've seen in swimming and cycling with advanced materials giving performance gains and whether they should be allowed, though no idea of the rules and regulations in the running world.
https://www.runnersworld.com/gear/a2...ipchoge-shoes/
When you get to the real elite performance level it is all about those marginal gains and it becomes a bit grey as to what is and isn't in the rules and being driven competitors they will push the limit in any way they can. With the new women's record just set for the marathon by Brigid Kosgei she had two male pacers for the race which doesn't sit overly well with me but the record stands. As we like to say here in Australia "does it pass the pub test?" and a few of these advantages start to distract from the spirit of the events, but in such a hyper commercial world I think we're beyond the spirit of sports as results, headlines and ultimately money are now what drives it and if we want role models for "spirit" lets look elsewhere.
But even with these advantages there is a level of training, hard work and commitment beyond anything I can comprehend. The dedication and achievements of these elite athletes is extraordinary and, in this case, they're doing it with grace and dignity and inspiring others in the process so more power to them.
It's NOT proof because these are different conditions to those for an official record (which I was referring to).
TBH seems bizarre that people are talking about proof at all - two hours is only an arbitrary time, not as if a physical law is being broken.
Neil....not Lance.
Can hardly be a massive benefit if it only makes him about 2 minutes faster over 26 miles.
I've just watched Roger Bannister's sub 4 minute mile. While that may have been a qualifying 'race', at no point was he near any of the three other competitors. He had two pace makers, and for about 80% of the race he was slipstreaming someone. You might argue that those were artificial conditions; certainly it's pretty fine distinction.
Ah, of course. That makes much more sense. Context is everything! Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
When Bannister broke the 4 minute barrier the rules were much stricter with regard to pacemakers. Records also had to be set in bona fide competitive events, not just stage managed attempts. Bannisters performance met those criteria by the letter of the law, but it was clear to see that a plan had been worked out beforehand with Brasher and Chataway setting the desired pace and thus jeopardising their own chances of winning the race. That happens, it's part of the sport, but it was stretching the boundaries of the pacemaking rules and arguably was against the spirit of the rules. I don`t know what the current rules are, but for many years it's been commonplace to see blatant pacemaking where athletes step of the track with no intention of finishing the race!
The slipstream advantages in running can be significant, particularly in windy conditions, but owing to the much slower speeds involved these effects are far smaller than in cycling. However, running behind others allows a runner to relax slightly more, safe in the knowledge that they only have to keep up with the guys in front and all will go to plan.
I skimmed over the Nike shoes article, couldn't be bothered to read the whole lot in detail, but the principle of energy return has been established for a long time. Perhaps Nike have refined it to a new level?...........that's what I took from a quick read. It does start heading into the realms of whether certain shoe designs are capable of providing a tangible advantage.
I recall owning a pair of the first Nike Air shoes, after a short while the 'air capsule' in the heel split and the shoes ended up in the bin.......I wasn`t pleased!
Logically, it follows that we'll see more sub 2hr marathons eventually, but the fact that it's taken a very talented athlete running under 'optimised' conditions proves what a difficult challenge it represents. Unless there's a breakthrough in training techniques IO don`t think we'll see it very often. Apart from the convenient round numbers involved there's little validity in comparing this to the 4 minute mile, I read Bannisters book and the training they did (or lack of) was laughable compared to what was commonplace in the mid-late 70s. Bannister's limitations were exposed when he was unable to run 3 hard races in 3 days a championship due to his limited conditioning. Had Bannister trained better he would've gone significantly quicker, of that there's little doubt, but it was different era and the hard intense training that todays athletes follow was very much in its infancy.
Anyhow, I still think a marathon is too long for most runners, the body really doesn`t like it. I ran much shorter distances, never saw the appeal of running 26 miles. Longest I ever did was 17 miles in training........... once! That was to help a guy who was training for the marathon in the late 70s, very few runners ran that far in those days, it was considered to be a crazy event by most.
Running blades (as worn by Oscar Pistorius) certainly offer an advantage, so there is definitely a point where footwear would become unfair. I'm not claiming we've reached that point.
Yeah, but if folks don`t have their 'proper' legs we should cut them some slack........they're not choosing to use this equipment!
This became a contentious issue when Pistorius was deemed to be capable of beating top level able-bodied athletes, until then I don`t think anyone bothered.
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 14th October 2019 at 12:25.
Does anyone know the effect the slipstream actually had? Must be someone that has worked out the time differential?
I suppose you could argue (if he has run in a fast enough pack) he would have had benefits from that during a race. But obviously there becomes a time when he needs to break away from the pack to go faster but does this acceleration negate the benefit he had in the first place.
I do agree it’s an amazing achievement but I do also agree with the people saying it’s somewhat hollow. Would have been better off training with the laser without a V of runners in front surely. But maybe he’d done that (you’d imagine long training using pace would have come way before this) reached the max and realised the only way forward was with long term aero assistance?
If the aero has X benefit in drag then really it’s as impressive as Usain Bolt running a 7.9 sec 100m with a giant drag negating fan blowing behind him, chasing him down the runway (yes I know I could have said tailwind but trying to give a human created assist) Theres a reason why tail winds over a certain speed make records illegal.
I've deliberated over this and I have an issue with it. Firstly, the bloke ran 26 miles in less than two hours which is a phenomenal achievement. However I agree that the IAAF are correct not to recognise it due to the advantages created for him in what was a vanity project. My issue is this; could he run a marathon in that time again without all of the tech around him?
I'm pretty confident the answer is no and therefore what was the point? Did it prove that man can run 26 miles in under two hours? No it didn't. It proved that it can be achieved with the help of science, technology and other humans. Distance running is a solo sport. He won't go down in history in the way he'll have hoped he would. The first person to run sub two hours in race conditions and ratified by the IAAF will though and that is the key difference for me.
Posting Permissions
