Forums >Racing>What will it take to run a 2 hour marathon?
not bad for mile 25
It's a kind of cool, live infographic; I could have posted it in the infographics thread, but yeah, it's about racing.
http://rw.runnersworld.com/sub-2/
An earlier take on the subject, also from Runner's World:
http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/why-a-sub-200-marathon-wont-happen-soon
The Pocatello Kid.
Concludes Tucker, "Bottom line is that talking about a sub-2 hour performance after seeing a 2:03:38 improve to a 2:03:23 is just not feasible. The next barrier is 2:03, and I'm sure will go within five One years. Then we can begin to work towards 2:02, which will take another ten years, perhaps."
Latent Runner
Read the other article, the current record is 2:02:57; happened earlier this year in Berlin.
Fat old man PRs:
That's what Scully was saying, I think.
I read the article in the latest RW, as it had such nice graphics, but can't say I'm much interested. As it is, these times make a mockery of my best running efforts, lol.
It will take big cajones to run a <2:00 marathon. Any other questions?
Dude.
Runners run
an amazing likeness
Any one have insights into what software might have been used to generate their web page / infographic ? There are some Adobe tags in the page source, but it wasn't obvious to me.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
Yes. You cant get a hit off Clayton Kershaw. You cant dunk on Lebron James. And you cant beat Dennis Kimetto in a footrace. But those facts don't make following professionals uninteresting.
And we run because we like itThrough the broad bright land