Everyone knows the modern day marathon consists of an endurance run covering a little over 26 miles. And most people also know it has it's origins in ancient Greece. Some messenger ran naked for 26 miles to carry news, then promptly dropped dead after delivering it. But I dare say there is so much more that most don't know (and yours truly didn't either until he looked it up) about how this race evolved over the centuries. Ever wonder where the name "marathon" itself came from, or how the extra 385 yards after 26 miles of running came to be? I strongly suggest you Google "The first marathon run. The history of Phidippides". It's a condensed version of the fascinating history of the marathon leading up to the present.
Sadly, even today, the marathon itself doesn't get all that much publicity. The recent one in Boston was big news, but only because a couple maniacs blew up bombs near the finish line. If that hadn't happened, likely few would have even paid attention. Don't believe that? OK, who won it? See what I mean?
In the world of track and field -- at the Olympic level or otherwise -- the greatest amount of hype continues to be bestowed on those that turn in the quickest times in the shortest events (see 100 meter dash). We have often heard the phrase "fastest man/woman in the world" bandied about to great fanfare, and certainly these athletes deserve kudos for being the best at what they do. Even in swimming, the biggest hype is reserved for those that triumph at the shortest distances (see 50 and 100 meter freestroke). But what about all the others that are also the fastest in the world at what they do at greater lengths, which requires more stamina to boot? Shouldn't they get equal recognition?
And who's to say which "fastest in the world" is more important? After all, top fuel dragsters and funny cars routinely break the 300 MPH barrier but, after a single quarter mile run, if they haven't blown up already, they need their engines rebuilt before they can run again. Much like sprinters, they're very fast, but have no stamina.
If the decathlon can safely be regarded as the true benchmark of an athlete's all-around skills (over a few days) then surely the marathon can be considered the ultimate test of endurance which, once started, does not stop -- no breaks -- hot or cold -- rain or shine -- until 26.2 grueling miles later.
Yet unlike the mile or 100 meter dash times mentioned in the previous post, perhaps a major barrier in the marathon will be broken soon. The 2 hour mark.
[It should be noted that yours truly has the ultimate respect for anyone who can even complete a marathon. In and of itself, be it 3,4,5, hours, whatever, this is an amazing feat that requires unbelievable training and dedication.]
Certainly there are many that run a marathon for their own reasons. While they know going in they have no chance at winning --it might be to prove to themselves they can actually complete it, or sometimes even for charitable causes. More power to them, and keep on keeping on. But like any other sport, world-class is world-class. After perhaps 10, 15, and certainly 20 miles, the cream will rise to the top, while the also-rans fade far behind, just trying to finish.
The world-class milers these days aside, in my humble opinion, anyone that can run a single mile in under 5 minutes is impressive. But that pales in comparison to what competitive marathoners do. These days, they run ALL the miles, 26+ of them, in under 5 minutes a pop. That's incredible if you think about it.
It's no big secret that east Africans, particularly Kenyans, have dominated marathon running for the last several years. Why that is -- I have no idea.
Just recently a Kenyan named Wilson Kipsang set a new world record in the marathon while posting a time of 2:03:23. This eclipsed the former mark of 2:03:38 held by his countryman Patrick Makau by 15 seconds. Granted, over 26 miles, 15 seconds doesn't sound like a lot, maybe the length of a football field, but hey, a world record is a world record, and beating one by a hundredth of a second is notable, let alone 15 seconds. That's SHATTERING a record.
In that regard, yours truly crunched some numbers. Over the course of the entire marathon, Kipsang ran an average of 4.69 minutes per mile, or roughly 4 minutes and 41 seconds.
So what would it take to crack the 2 hour marathon barrier? Depends on how one looks at it. The record times have come down a lot over the years, and keep coming down. Indeed, a half century ago, 2:20 was considered a barrier. Now it's down to 2:03:23. For that matter, just 2 years ago in the 2011 Boston Marathon, yet another Kenyan named Geoffrey Mutai ran a then world-record of 2:03:02, a full 21 seconds faster than Kipsang's current mark. But it was disallowed because the course itself was determined not up to snuff when it came to such things as elevations and point to point measurements -- whatever that means. You'd think the Bostonians would have used their beans and taken that into account while planning the layout of such a big race, but evidently not.
Still, even over the course of 26.2 miles, to shave off another 3 minutes and 23 seconds from Kipsang's current mark to reach the magical barrier of 2 hours appears formidable in a different way. To accomplish that, a runner would have to average 4 minutes and 34 seconds per mile, a full 7 seconds per mile faster, all 26 of them. And that's a whole bunch. Looked at from another perspective, that would necessitate such a runner finishing about 3/4 of a mile ahead of the current record.
Will the 2 hour mark ever be broken in the marathon? Beats me. Never say never. This humble writer could even, gasp, cough, wheeze, wind up getting married again someday. Nothing's impossible.
But I'm pretty sure yours truly wouldn't set any world record speed marks heading to the altar. I've already run a couple of those marathons and, like Phidippides, was damn near dead by the time it was all over.
No comments:
Post a Comment