Current record: 2:02:57
October 12, 2014 10:24 AM Subscribe
What Will It Take to Run a 2-Hour Marathon? (Warning: data viz, annoying design)
good question... i can't even break a two hour HALF marathon, much less fathom running a full marathon, much less fathom how one would do that in two hours. hurts to think about.
posted by cristinacristinacristina at 10:53 AM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by cristinacristinacristina at 10:53 AM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Whoa. I actively want to keep reading the article, but their flashy and aggressive layout is making it difficult.
posted by absalom at 11:02 AM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by absalom at 11:02 AM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I run a 2:04 half, which is the same time as the winner of the Chicago marathon this morning, so I can't even imagine what it feels like to run twice as fast at that distance. But I don't think we'll se a sub-2 marathon for many years, if ever.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:09 AM on October 12, 2014
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:09 AM on October 12, 2014
If you like this kind of thing, you might enjoy reading John Brenkus' The Perfection Point, which goes into a lot of these kinds of questions.
posted by box at 11:24 AM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 11:24 AM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Great article. My takeaway: we need sapient horses. We could dispense with the jockeys, then, too.
posted by maxwelton at 11:44 AM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by maxwelton at 11:44 AM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I ran a 1:59 half at the Toronto Marathon and the course is designed so that the half and the full share a course for about 15 kilometers, split off, and then remerge at the end.
I'll tell you that charging, gasping, across the finish line and seeing the elite marathoners (who started just ten minutes before me and then ran twice as far) crossing at the same time as me was very humbling. Humans are incredible.
posted by 256 at 11:48 AM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'll tell you that charging, gasping, across the finish line and seeing the elite marathoners (who started just ten minutes before me and then ran twice as far) crossing at the same time as me was very humbling. Humans are incredible.
posted by 256 at 11:48 AM on October 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
What are you guys talking about? I love these visualizations. I really liked how they went through and parameterized the elevations for each city into a 1D display. Very pretty.
posted by oceanjesse at 12:10 PM on October 12, 2014
posted by oceanjesse at 12:10 PM on October 12, 2014
I dunno, 30 years? These "unbreakable" milestones have a way of falling when you throw enough time and hypercompetitive elite athletes at them.
That layout wouldn't even be so bad if the designer wasn't obsessed with fade ins for some reason...
posted by mellow seas at 12:16 PM on October 12, 2014
That layout wouldn't even be so bad if the designer wasn't obsessed with fade ins for some reason...
posted by mellow seas at 12:16 PM on October 12, 2014
My takeaway: we need sapient horses.
Indeed!
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:49 PM on October 12, 2014
Indeed!
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:49 PM on October 12, 2014
just run 3 minutes faster - problem solved
no I didn't read the link, why do you ask?
posted by kokaku at 3:18 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
no I didn't read the link, why do you ask?
posted by kokaku at 3:18 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
I would settle for learning how to run a sub-four marathon. I would be over the moon for anyone who could get me to qualify for Boston. How to hit two hours to me is like asking what the preferred method for pooping gold ingots is.
posted by middleclasstool at 3:48 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by middleclasstool at 3:48 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Steroids and performance enhancing drugs.
we need sapient horses.
Horses cannot run at speed for as long as people can.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:44 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
we need sapient horses.
Horses cannot run at speed for as long as people can.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:44 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
This part isn't explained very well:
posted by clawsoon at 6:10 PM on October 12, 2014
...the $50 million jackpot promised by the heirs to the Hoka One One fortune.A $50 million jackpot for running a sub-2 hour time, I guess? Maybe? Or is that just a figment of the author's imagination?
posted by clawsoon at 6:10 PM on October 12, 2014
Isn't this doable today with the right marathon course? Like one that has some nice downhills, or has a nice springy track surface laid down in advance? We're talking about a 3% increase here, it seems doable.
posted by miyabo at 6:21 PM on October 12, 2014
posted by miyabo at 6:21 PM on October 12, 2014
Isn't this doable today with the right marathon course? Like one that has some nice downhills, or has a nice springy track surface laid down in advance? We're talking about a 3% increase here, it seems doable.
There are rules about what makes a course world-record eligible-- so it can't have too much downhill, and it can't be just a straight course in one direction, since that would lend itself to being wind-aided if the wind is blowing in the same direction as the runners are running.
Not sure if there is anything in the rules about a springy track surface.
It might only be an increase of a couple percent, but considering that you're already at the limits of human performance-- Take the athletes with the best genetic predisposition to the sport, raise them at altitude, start them running when they're in elementary school and start training them well as soon as they're ready for it, give them the best support systems, and set them on a flat course in cool weather with half a dozen pace setters acting as a wind break-- that's where we are now, and it's (for men) just under a 2:03. I'm not saying that 1:59:59 will never happen, but if it does, it won't be (IMO) for a while. Or it will happen and we'll find out later that there was some kind of performance enhancement going on that was too advanced for officials to test for.
posted by matcha action at 6:55 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
There are rules about what makes a course world-record eligible-- so it can't have too much downhill, and it can't be just a straight course in one direction, since that would lend itself to being wind-aided if the wind is blowing in the same direction as the runners are running.
Not sure if there is anything in the rules about a springy track surface.
It might only be an increase of a couple percent, but considering that you're already at the limits of human performance-- Take the athletes with the best genetic predisposition to the sport, raise them at altitude, start them running when they're in elementary school and start training them well as soon as they're ready for it, give them the best support systems, and set them on a flat course in cool weather with half a dozen pace setters acting as a wind break-- that's where we are now, and it's (for men) just under a 2:03. I'm not saying that 1:59:59 will never happen, but if it does, it won't be (IMO) for a while. Or it will happen and we'll find out later that there was some kind of performance enhancement going on that was too advanced for officials to test for.
posted by matcha action at 6:55 PM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
There are certain criteria a course needs to meet before being eligible for a world record (see here), one of which is that it can't be point-to-point, to eliminate downhill and tailwind advantages. So, it's plausible that someone's able to run 26.2 in 2 hours, but not in conditions that they need to set an official record.
Mr Fig is an accomplished marathoner (just ran Chicago today, finished at 2:43 and change), and at 5'2", really stands out among the runners who are at his speed. I'll have to show him that his height gives him advantages!
posted by Fig at 6:59 PM on October 12, 2014
Mr Fig is an accomplished marathoner (just ran Chicago today, finished at 2:43 and change), and at 5'2", really stands out among the runners who are at his speed. I'll have to show him that his height gives him advantages!
posted by Fig at 6:59 PM on October 12, 2014
Nice article. I liked the way the author basically said "for a man to run under 2 hours he'll have to be like Paula Radcliffe".
A $50 million jackpot for running a sub-2 hour time, I guess? Maybe? Or is that just a figment of the author's imagination?
It's a hypothetical scenario for the perfect situation to run sub-2 hours, yeah. Later on in that section he says "I’m saying the year is...2075—and they make it".
posted by Pink Frost at 7:54 PM on October 12, 2014
A $50 million jackpot for running a sub-2 hour time, I guess? Maybe? Or is that just a figment of the author's imagination?
It's a hypothetical scenario for the perfect situation to run sub-2 hours, yeah. Later on in that section he says "I’m saying the year is...2075—and they make it".
posted by Pink Frost at 7:54 PM on October 12, 2014
You see a similar size effect in boxing. Featherweights regularly bounce around for twelve rounds throwing flurries of punches the whole way through, while heavyweights generally start slower and tire more quickly.
posted by clawsoon at 8:04 PM on October 12, 2014
posted by clawsoon at 8:04 PM on October 12, 2014
I don't know much about running, but it sounds like many of the things the author describes (e.g., courses and scheduling and prizes designed to create records) are already happening--the biggest leap, it seems, would be the adoption of cycling-style drafting and domestiques.
If I was one of those ultra-rich people with an interest in sports, I would totally sell my dipshit yacht, or turn the Trail Blazers into a Green Bay-style community-owned nonprofit, and then build a running school in East Africa.
posted by box at 5:19 AM on October 14, 2014
If I was one of those ultra-rich people with an interest in sports, I would totally sell my dipshit yacht, or turn the Trail Blazers into a Green Bay-style community-owned nonprofit, and then build a running school in East Africa.
posted by box at 5:19 AM on October 14, 2014
annoying design
I would like to file my disagreement with that. I found the presentation to be rather pleasing and entertaining and wished more magazines started investing in less-than-stale web design.
I also would like to put money on names but I've bet on Germany winning the world cup this year and still didn't get paid (because, they said, overtime goals don't count), so perhaps sports betting isn't my thing after all.
posted by krautland at 9:08 AM on October 16, 2014
I would like to file my disagreement with that. I found the presentation to be rather pleasing and entertaining and wished more magazines started investing in less-than-stale web design.
I also would like to put money on names but I've bet on Germany winning the world cup this year and still didn't get paid (because, they said, overtime goals don't count), so perhaps sports betting isn't my thing after all.
posted by krautland at 9:08 AM on October 16, 2014
« Older Es ist eine kleine Welt, nachdem alle | Why don’t we all just play. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:31 AM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]