New marathon WR

Quoted message said:

Paul Tergat won the Berlin Marathon in the time 2:04:55, a new WR. The previous WR was Khalid
Khannouci's 2:05:38 from London last year. Paul Tergat had to outkick Sammy Korir for the win.
Their difference was just 1 second.

Boy, how would you like to be Korir, running 2:04:56 and finishing second?

Great run by both of them.

--
Brian P. Baresch Fort Worth, Texas, USA Professional editing and proofreading

If you're going through hell, keep going. --Winston Churchill

....and now for the contrary view to stir things up around here. hey, i'm bored. great time of
course...."world record"? compared to what? since courses and prize money (drawing elite runners)
varies wildly from marathon to marathon....you can't very well compare times and label one as a
"world record" as if there's integrity in the title...can you? if so, then my response is SFW, BFD.
Take that Berlin 2:04:55 "world record", ADD a FULL Minute to
it...and a 2:05:55 at Boston would be FAR FAR FAR more impressive than that faster Berlin time.

Berlin, London, Chicago...they're all fast tracks w/big money = fast times. Fact is 5 of the fastest
10 marathon times in the world come from the Chicago Marathon only illustrating it's not a "level
playing field" (pardon the pun) from Marathon to Marathon. No world record's well be set in Boston
or New York. Though winning them might bring a runner more prestige, prize money, and sponsorship
contracts than winning and setting a record at Berlin.

Since it's silly to compare times at Boston to times at Berlin for example...is it not a bit silly
to characterize any time as a "world record" when it should be moreso a course record?

Tucson Marathon. Official Boston Qualifier, USATF Certified, etc....nearly a straight run with a
single turn....the first half is all downhill....the total elevation drop in the race is 3,400 feet.
40 degrees at the start (weather)..up to mid/upper 60 degrees at finish.. Connect the dots.....this
is PERFECT for East African runners.....and there might be 100 East African runners that could run
Tucson and break 2:04:55 for crissakes.

One problem....there's no money in the race. The race does not attract an international field at
all. If Tucson had the $$ and sponsorship interest like Boston/Chicago/Berlin/London....you would
see sub 2 hour marathons....

OK..it's Sunday...taking a break from working on the computer....stirring it up a bit...that's all.
Yes, I have my bags packed for Tucson

Will anyone break 120 minutes in the foseeable future? The new record was a 0.6% improvement, which
is relatively a lot for a sport. Another 4.0% to go.

(Globaldisc) said:

....and now for the contrary view to stir things up around here. hey, i'm bored. great time of
course...."world record"? compared to what?

Is this a trick question?

Quoted message said:

since courses and prize money (drawing elite runners) varies wildly from marathon to
marathon....you can't very well compare times and label one as a "world record" as if there's
integrity in the title...can you?

Of course you can. Record = best recorded time in a given, agreed set of conditions; world = the
Earth, for the time being.

So a world record marathon time is the fastest time ever recorded to cover 42.195 kilometers, on
foot, unaccompanied by vehicles, without Wile E Coyote's Acme Rocket Running Pumps, over a course
that isn't substantially downhill and/or wind assisted.

Anything harder than that base, like running it backwards or having massive breasts, just makes the
exploit more awe-inspiring (particularly those breasts I mentioned) even though no-one actually
expects Dolly Parton to turn in a marathon PR of under the 2:36 she already did.

Never heard anyone complain about Bob Beamon BTW. American wasn't he?

Quoted message said:

if so, then my response is SFW, BFD. Take that Berlin 2:04:55 "world record", ADD a FULL
Minute to
it...and a 2:05:55 at Boston would be FAR FAR FAR more impressive than that faster Berlin time.

Why? And who cares? Please forgive any apparent rudeness, it's not aimed at you, but I mean, like, a
6h marathon across the Bayou with ball & chain & Shania Twain attached to your legs you would be
even better.

Then again, stick the ball & chain. You attach Shania Twain to me, I ain't going nowhere, bub.

The only way to avoid the difficulties you evoke would be to have only one course called "the
marathon" and you'd have to run it completely alone (except one-person aid stations) to qualify for
a record. To avoid climatic variations, we could do it where they do those world land speed trails.
You'd need all America's lovely technology to cool the desert down to a nice 10°C but hell! You guys
got men to the moon.

Then again with all the dough you're wasting in the middle east at the moment, we soon won't be able
to afford a decent electric fan.

Quoted message said:

Berlin, London, Chicago...they're all fast tracks w/big money = fast times. Fact is 5 of the
fastest 10 marathon times in the world come from the Chicago Marathon only illustrating it's not a
"level playing field" (pardon the pun) from Marathon to Marathon. No world record's well be set in
Boston or New York.

Good job too. At last they will be seen for what they are, a gigantic fun run. I don't really
mean this.

And while we're at it, what's all this "marathon" [censored] anyway? No-one knows the exact distance
between Marathon (and more precisely,the Greek general's jacuzzi, where he was relaxing after a hard
day's ordering people to go get themselves killed), and the exact spot where the poor messenger (the
numbnutz had forgotten to pay his union dues, and so had no-one to save him from doing back-to-back
ultras) dropped dead while whittering on about the draft, social reform and scientist's inability to
invent spEVA running pumps.

The first modern marathon was 40k but who knows who measured it, and with what? Bet it was 100 yards
short. Or long. The following marathon wasn't even the same distance. Boston's first was another.

Of course this finally got noticed and couldn't be allowed because nobody could set records, which
is inhuman, but it took the British monarchy, in all it's nonchalant glory, to lumber us with 26
miles and something yards, now officially converted to kilometers.

I mean honestly! Which wally would set a course which is 42194 meters? Only a Brit is capable of
that. Someone who'd have loved the Goon Shows if he were still around. Indeed it was probably
Eccles himself.

The point is, the whole of Sportsdom is as a big a heap of arbitrary parameters as the people
running marathons. That's why any marathon record is a good one. As long as we're not all
genetically re-engineered to have a VO2max of 90, perfect running form and orgasms which are
auto-synchronising with partner's Nirvana, we'll have to put up with comparing apples and pairs.

So you see it's no use getting all worked up about it. At least not until you've gone sub-3
<evil grin>

PS If it'll help, in the ladies races, I'd be happy to tie Paula R and Jenny E Fir to my bed to
give the others a fighting chance.

PP Note to self: never stop anti-depression treatments abruptly.

PPP Never post anything when you've felt the need for adding that PPS

Brian Baresch said:

Quoted message said:

Paul Tergat won the Berlin Marathon in the time 2:04:55, a new WR. The previous WR was Khalid
Khannouci's 2:05:38 from London last year. Paul Tergat had to outkick Sammy Korir for the win.
Their difference was just 1 second.

Quoted message said:

Boy, how would you like to be Korir, running 2:04:56 and finishing second?

Ask Tergat, he knows! Andy Hass

Globaldisc said:

....and now for the contrary view to stir things up around here. hey, i'm bored. great time of
course...."world record"? compared to what? since courses and prize money (drawing elite runners)
varies wildly from marathon to marathon....you can't very well compare times and label one as a
"world record" as if there's integrity in the title...can you? if so, then my response is SFW,
BFD. Take that Berlin 2:04:55 "world record", ADD a FULL Minute to
it...and a 2:05:55 at Boston would be FAR FAR FAR more impressive than that faster Berlin time.

--But no one's running 2:05:55 on Boston. And just because Boston doesn't have the prize money to
draw them doesn't mean you can't compare times!

Quoted message said:

Berlin, London, Chicago...they're all fast tracks w/big money = fast times. Fact is 5 of the
fastest 10 marathon times in the world come from the Chicago Marathon only illustrating it's not a
"level playing field" (pardon the pun) from Marathon to Marathon. No world record's well be set in
Boston or New York. Though winning them might bring a runner more prestige, prize money, and
sponsorship contracts than winning and setting a record at Berlin.

---Nothing says it HAS to be level from marathon to marathon. Even some tracks have a reputation for
being faster than others. It's the distance that matters...so what if one is flatter and faster. If
you're trying for a WR, then go there!

Quoted message said:

Since it's silly to compare times at Boston to times at Berlin for example...is it not a bit silly
to characterize any time as a "world record" when it should be moreso a course record?

---In the marathon, it is actually a "world best" for the distance, not a world record. Those are
only in track.

Quoted message said:

Tucson Marathon. Official Boston Qualifier, USATF Certified, etc....nearly a straight run with a
single turn....the first half is all downhill....the total elevation drop in the race is 3,400
feet. 40 degrees at the start (weather)..up to mid/upper 60 degrees at finish.. Connect the
dots.....this is PERFECT for East African runners.....and there might be 100 East African runners
that could run Tucson and break 2:04:55 for crissakes.

---But it is ineligible for world best because of these reasons. No record will be certified by the
IAAF unless it meets certain criteria. Among these are a maximum drop in elevation, and the
start/finish must be pretty close together.

Quoted message said:

One problem....there's no money in the race. The race does not attract an international field at
all. If Tucson had the $$ and sponsorship interest like Boston/Chicago/Berlin/London....you would
see sub 2 hour marathons....

---Maybe so, but all record-ineligible 😉 > OK..it's Sunday...taking a break from working on the
computer....stirring it up > a bit...that's all. Yes, I have my bags packed for Tucson ---If you're
running there, good luck. Let us know how the downhill treats your legs. That's one thing that makes
downhill marathons (of which Boston is one) harder than they appear on paper. Andy Hass

[email hidden] (Globaldisc) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

....and now for the contrary view to stir things up around here. hey, i'm bored. great time of
course...."world record"? compared to what? since courses and prize money (drawing elite runners)
varies wildly from marathon to marathon....you can't very well compare times and label one as a
"world record" as if there's integrity in the title...can you? if so, then my response is SFW,
BFD. Take that Berlin 2:04:55 "world record", ADD a FULL Minute to
it...and a 2:05:55 at Boston would be FAR FAR FAR more impressive than that faster Berlin time.

Put it in the perspective of "who ran 26.2 miles in the least amount of time."

Every course has its own profile so there will always be this argument. Taking it even further who
can say that 2:04:55 in Berlin is faster than Matt Carpenter's times in the Pikes Peak Marathon?
There are even some tracks that are faster than others.

Every runner has their own strengths and will run better on a course suited to their strengths. My
pr 10 and 5 mile races are on hilly courses and better than races run on flat courses by 20 seconds
or so. My 5k pr is on a pancake flat course.

I recall seeing that some folks prefer to say "World Best" rather than "World Record".

It all boils down to this: if you want your name next to the fastest time anybody has run a marathon
you're going to go to the fastest course that is certified by the organizing body. Let everybody
else argue about which is really faster than the other but Tegrat's name is on the top of the list
of those who have run marathons.

It will be a fun argument though.

Andy

(Globaldisc) said:

....and now for the contrary view to stir things up around here. hey, i'm bored. great time of
course...."world record"? compared to what?

Fun with stats: Episode MCMLIX

To date, there have been 81 official best times of under 2:08:00 recorded by the IAAF

By Venue
=================
14 Berlin 12 Rotterdam 11 London 10 Chicago 6 Amsterdam 6 Otsu 4 Beijing 4 Boston, MA 4 [censored] 4
Paris 2 Hamburg 2 Tokyo 1 Torino

By country of attachment at race date
====================================
34 KEN
8 ETH
8 JPN
7 ESP
3 FRA
3 ITA
3 POR
3 RSA
3 USA
2 KOR
1 AUS
1 BEL
1 BRA
1 DJI
1 GBR
1 MAR
1 MEX

Multi-performance runners:
========================
4 Paul Tergat 3 Khalid Khannouchi 3 Hosephat Kiprono 2 Gezahegne Abera 2 Japhet Kosgei 2 Antoni Peña
2 Stefano Baldini 2 William Kiplagat

By year
=======================
2 1985 3 1986 4 1988 2 1994 2 1995 5 1997 5 1998 14 1999 3 2000 8 2001 17 2002 16 2003 ( to date)

In article said:

Will anyone break 120 minutes in the foseeable future? The new record was a 0.6% improvement, which
is relatively a lot for a sport. Another 4.0% to go.

Hmm. If I remember an old note of mine, I think I estimated that the Marathon WR was typically 4.7
times the 10k WR (over the last 40 years or so, it was a higher proportion before then). In that
case, 120 at marathon corresponds to 25:32 at the 10k, or about a minute faster than the current
10k WR. 4.7 time
26:40 (current 10k record, iirc) is 2:05:20. If 10k is 26:20 instead (honest, I forgot) then that
comes out to marathon of 2:03:45.

Either way, it looks like the marathon record is now pretty much in accord with the 10k record,
given the recent history's ratios. So now either marathoners drop the ratio to the 10k _again_
(this has been done a lot in the last century, particularly in the first 50 years of the 20th), or
the 10k starts putting together consecutive
27:07 miles (12:46 5k's). As I said back then, I think the 5k record might be more amenable to
revolution. So who knows.

In the mean time, Tergat _averaged_ approximately
28:45 per mile
29:47 per 5k
30:34 per 10k
31:36 per 10 miles

Wow!

--
Robert Grumbine radix.net~bobgOpen ↗ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this
great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more
abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

marathonguide.comindex.cfmOpen ↗

How long did it take to go from 2:10 to 2:05 ?

Dec 3, 1967 - Men's World Record Derek Clayton (Australia) - 2:09:36 [censored] Marathon,
[censored], Japan

Sept 2003, Paul Tergat Berlin Marathon 2:04:55

It took 36 years to go from 2:10 to 2:05.

I would guestimate that it will take twice as long, due to the law of diminishing returns, to get
from 2:05 to 2:00.

Thus, the 2 hour mark will fall in 2075.

Only treadmill records should count. Everything else has hills and people and weather and other
unfair stuff. :-)

This marathon record, by the way, is the same pace as a 71 second lap around the track...done 105
times or so.

I can run a 71 second lap.

I can run 105 of them.

But it would take me two months to do it.

"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Globaldisc) said:

....and now for the contrary view to stir things up around here. hey,

i'm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bored. great time of course...."world record"? compared to what?

Is this a trick question?

Quoted message said:

since courses and prize money (drawing elite runners) varies wildly from

marathon to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

marathon....you can't very well compare times and label one as a "world

record"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as if there's integrity in the title...can you?

Of course you can. Record = best recorded time in a given, agreed set of conditions; world = the
Earth, for the time being.

Technically speaking, IAAF denotes the fastest marathon performance as a world best, not
record, since courses vary so much. The road bests are just that, bests, not records. There
are guidelines such as start/finish being no more than 30% of the race distance apart. The
race cannot have a drop greater than 1% (I think). There are others as well. You can check
the IAAF rulebook.

Quoted message said:

So a world record marathon time is the fastest time ever recorded to cover 42.195 kilometers, on
foot, unaccompanied by vehicles, without Wile E Coyote's Acme Rocket Running Pumps, over a course
that isn't substantially downhill and/or wind assisted.

Often there are vehicles accompanying the lead runners. They are supposed to stay a
distance away to reduce the potential for reducing air resistance.

Quoted message said:

Anything harder than that base, like running it backwards or having massive breasts, just makes
the exploit more awe-inspiring (particularly those breasts I mentioned) even though no-one
actually expects Dolly Parton to turn in a marathon PR of under the 2:36 she already did.

Never heard anyone complain about Bob Beamon BTW. American wasn't he?

There is no adjustment for altitude. Even without altitude Beamon would have broken
the record, just not by as much. Biomechanists did an analysis years ago. Since then
the record has been broken, at sea level, albeit with a nice, fast Mondo runway 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if so, then my response is SFW, BFD. Take that Berlin 2:04:55 "world record", ADD a FULL
Minute to
it...and a 2:05:55 at Boston would be FAR FAR FAR more impressive than

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

faster Berlin time.

Why? And who cares? Please forgive any apparent rudeness, it's not aimed at you, but I mean, like,
a 6h marathon across the Bayou with ball & chain & Shania Twain attached to your legs you would be
even better.

Then again, stick the ball & chain. You attach Shania Twain to me, I ain't going nowhere, bub.

The only way to avoid the difficulties you evoke would be to have only one course called "the
marathon" and you'd have to run it completely alone (except one-person aid stations) to qualify
for a record. To avoid climatic variations, we could do it where they do those world land speed
trails. You'd need all America's lovely technology to cool the desert down to a nice 10°C but
hell! You guys got men to the moon.

Then again with all the dough you're wasting in the middle east at the moment, we soon won't be
able to afford a decent electric fan.

Quoted message said:

Berlin, London, Chicago...they're all fast tracks w/big money = fast

times.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fact is 5 of the fastest 10 marathon times in the world come from the

Chicago

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Marathon only illustrating it's not a "level playing field" (pardon the

pun)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from Marathon to Marathon. No world record's well be set in Boston or

New

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

York.

Good job too. At last they will be seen for what they are, a gigantic fun run. I don't really
mean this.

And while we're at it, what's all this "marathon" [censored] anyway? No-one knows the exact distance
between Marathon (and more precisely,the Greek general's jacuzzi, where he was relaxing after a
hard day's ordering people to go get themselves killed), and the exact spot where the poor
messenger (the numbnutz had forgotten to pay his union dues, and so had no-one to save him from
doing back-to-back ultras) dropped dead while whittering on about the draft, social reform and
scientist's inability to invent spEVA running pumps.

The first modern marathon was 40k but who knows who measured it, and with what? Bet it was 100
yards short. Or long. The following marathon wasn't even the same distance. Boston's first was
another.

Of course this finally got noticed and couldn't be allowed because nobody could set records, which
is inhuman, but it took the British monarchy, in all it's nonchalant glory, to lumber us with 26
miles and something yards, now officially converted to kilometers.

I mean honestly! Which wally would set a course which is 42194 meters? Only a Brit is capable of
that. Someone who'd have loved the Goon Shows if he were still around. Indeed it was probably
Eccles himself.

The point is, the whole of Sportsdom is as a big a heap of arbitrary parameters as the people
running marathons. That's why any marathon record is a good one. As long as we're not all
genetically re-engineered to have a VO2max of 90, perfect running form and orgasms which are
auto-synchronising with partner's Nirvana, we'll have to put up with comparing apples and pairs.

So you see it's no use getting all worked up about it. At least not until you've gone sub-3
<evil grin>

PS If it'll help, in the ladies races, I'd be happy to tie Paula R and Jenny E Fir to my bed to
give the others a fighting chance.

PPS Note to self: never stop anti-depression treatments abruptly.

PPPS Never post anything when you've felt the need for adding that PPS

"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You attach Shania Twain to me, I ain't going nowhere, bub.

Nor I.

What *is* it about that girl? She can't sing, can't dance, and most definitely has all the stage
presence of a dead Mackerel, yet I would happily sell what's left of my soul for one evening in
her company.

Ms Twain, I am yours to command.

Respectfully,

Roger.

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Boy, how would you like to be Korir, running 2:04:56 and finishing second?

Quoted message said:

Ask Tergat, he knows!

He sure does:-)

(In Chicago 2001, the designated pacesetter Ben Kimondiu finished the course and won four seconds
ahead of Tergat.)

Anders

"seve common" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<lengthy statistics snipped>

Steven, are you having - how shall I put it - problems in the bedroom? I so, I'd be happy to offer
my counselling skills to resolve this issue.

Roger.

Matilda Zuckerman said:

I can run a 71 second lap.

I can run 105 of them.

But it would take me two months to do it.

Nice thought ;-) 2'57" per km is a little above my vVO2max (read, I can't do it for more than about
a mile, maybe less)

sydenhams chorea said:

"seve common" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<lengthy statistics snipped>

Steven, are you having - how shall I put it - problems in the bedroom? I so, I'd be happy to offer
my counselling skills to resolve this issue.

Sorry rogiepoo, he "bats for the other team", or more clearly, he's a

seve common <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(Globaldisc) said:

....and now for the contrary view to stir things up around here. hey, i'm bored. great time of
course...."world record"? compared to what?

Fun with stats: Episode MCMLIX

To date, there have been 81 official best times of under 2:08:00 recorded by the IAAF

[]>

Quoted message said:

By country of attachment at race date
====================================
34 KEN
8 ETH
8 JPN
7 ESP
3 FRA
3 ITA
3 POR
3 RSA
3 USA
2 KOR
1 AUS
1 BEL
1 BRA
1 DJI
1 GBR
1 MAR
1 MEX

No German winners? Surprising.

With the increasing formation of the E.U., is it a powerhouse with Kenya?

Quoted message said:

1 GBR 1 AUS (Austria?) 1 BEL 7 ESP 3 FRA 3 ITA 3 POR

The combined total of 19 for Europe (18 if that was AUStralia), would put them in solid
second place.

--- More fodder for the "USA is in decline" crowd. 8^)

Ed

sydenhams chorea said:

Steven, are you having - how shall I put it - problems in the bedroom?

No no. My right & left hands and I are in perfect synergy and they have been very kind to me for the
past year or so, thanks.

Quoted message said:

so, I'd be happy to offer my counselling skills to resolve this issue.

If you know how long it's going to take for all the weird symptoms - caused by snap withdrawal from
4 Anafranil/day - to stop bugging me, it'd probably help me to relax

Either that or I may end up looking very upset in handcuffs on TV, faster than you can google for
"Noir Désir".