It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO.
Long but fascinating article though...
I agree. Anything other than a 26.2 mile race in footwear common in the classical hellenistic period that terminates in the ancient town of Marathon in Greece is a little insulting to REAL marathon runners.
/s
What if it was an official marathon where they run with very strong winds at their back. Would you consider that achievement worse than perfect lab like conditions?
It's a certain distance, by foot. That's it. I also see snobbishness and even anger toward run-walkers. Even if they do the same distance in the same conditions.
The courses need to follow certain rules to mitigate the effect of tailwinds, slopes and things like that. That's why Boston isn't eligible for world records.
Here's the rule: "The start and finish points of a course, measured along a theoretical straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance." (http://www.aims-worldrunning.org/world-records.html)
But just to address the original comments: "It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO.".... We do consider the Boston Marathon to be a marathon, right?
Boston is a real marathon, run on a hilly course in whatever the weather is on the day of the race. This has meant rainstorms, 80+ degree weather, and everything in between.
Nike's WR attempt is an experimental marathon, run on a track shielded from the wind, on a date and time chosen based on the temperature, cloud cover, and wind forecasts to be ideal for human long-distance performance running.
The course of the Boston marathon is notable in that it is not record-eligible. It is not a loop, and there is a net elevation drop. In 2011, there was a tailwind at Boston, resulting in abnormally quick times, including Ryan Hall's 2:04:58, which would have been an American record, but is not due to the course [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Hall_(runner)#Sub-2:05:00...
The most undeniable difference between the Breaking2 event and what would be allowed in an record-eligible marathon is the pacers used. In Breaking2, they swapped in different groups of 6 people to run in a carefully-engineered triangle formation directly in front of the main runners. In a real race, the winner cannot draft behind others the whole way. Because at some point obviously the winner must pull ahead, and the rules disallow drafting behind anyone who isn't running the same race. So the rules specifically forbid exactly what Nike did with pacers.
When you change the rules in a way that you know has a quantifiable effect on the outcome (and I'm sure Nike can tell you the numbers since they used computational fluid dynamics and wind tunnels to select the best pacer formation), it's not comparable anymore.
Now personally I don't have any problem with Nike's event. It was a fun exhibition thing that inspired and challenged people. Probably some good research even came out of it. But it's still fair to point out how the results on this don't really count.
Which they didn't publish, so it can only help Nike and their friends. That's the least good kind of research.
You're clever, but the IAAF is thorough. Rule 144.3 says:
"For the purpose of this Rule, the following examples shall be considered assistance, and are therefore not allowed: (a) Pacing in races by persons not participating in the same race, by athletes lapped or about to be lapped or by any kind of technical device (other than those permitted under Rule 144.4(d))."
> He drove onward, breaking the tape in two hours and 25 seconds.
I just ran a marathon two weeks ago in 3:15:24. I'd only wanted to break 3:20 that day so I was more than satisfied. Yet I still found myself going over my race wondering why I couldn't find just one second per mile to go under 3:15. Just one second! The mental aspect of the marathon is my favorite part of running.
When I ran Chicago last year my Garmin lost the GPS signal so I just went with the pace group runners. Usually only the mid-size to large races have pacers, and you never know how good they are, but at Chicago the pacers may as well be professionals.
Regardless, yes, running even effort is critical to the best performance. This can be tricky depending upon terrain, wind, and temperature. Also, personally do best going out a bit slow (the first 5K or so). Being able to pass runners as the race wears on is a huge psychological boost for me.
Well, the guys participating were three of the best marathoners in the world, probably one (Kipchoge) who is the best ever, so I doubt whether they or anybody involved were concerned about "insulting" marathon runners. Everybody was well aware that the conditions were different and would help create a faster time than possible in a regular marathon race.
Baby steps. Once they have achieved sub-2 in "artificial" conditions, the idea of going sub-2 in an actual marathon race will seem easier, and will be the next item to check off.
For me, this was confirmation that humans do indeed have room to push the current world record further down.
Surprised this thread has the legs it has - I was merely pointing out the sterile (and arguably Nike marketing oriented) attempt at a sub 2 hour 26.2 mile effort was, despite being a super human effort, not a 'marathon' per se. This has been beaten to death elsewhere online in running forums. Yes it is a little 'snobby' to say that, but formally a 'marathon' is a race and not a time trial...and more importantly a mass participation activity where finishing is considered a triumph for the average Joe or Jane.
I happen to think the Nike record attempt hijacks the everyday heroism of all those folks grinding out winter training after or before work right now, but I do agree the superhuman element of the athletes involved in the Nike event was incredible...
Rock climbing jumps to mind.
(genuine question) is there only one official body in the world that determines what a "marathon" is?
My understanding is that the Boston Marathon (which certainly seems to be a marathon) isn't considered a "real" marathon because of various reasons (weather, elevation, non-loop nature of the course etc.)
Marathon running isn't necessarily a track and field sport in the way the 100 meter sprint is.
The story takes place after Athenian Hoplites pushes back a Persian army into their ships at the Marathon shores, after which this ship sails to Athens to wreak havoc. Hoplites make the run from Marathon to Athens just in time to defend against Persians and successfully discourage them against further attacks.
After the Battle of Marathon, hoplites who were in the war referred it to as "the run", "we ran", or had "he ran" carved in their tombstones etc. So Marathon became synonymous with running.
Here's the mention of "we ran" in Hansen: https://books.google.com/books?id=lAWEPUkz5sIC&pg=PT164&lpg=...
The story of Pheidippides running from Marathon to Athens (and dying on arrival) is certainly apocryphal, but it's nevertheless the origin of the modern marathon.
"The Persians saw them running to attack and prepared to receive them, thinking the Athenians absolutely crazy, since they saw how few of them there were and that they ran up so fast without either cavalry or archers.
"So the foreigners imagined, but when the Athenians all together fell upon the foreigners they fought in a way worthy of record. These are the first Hellenes whom we know of to use running against the enemy. They are also the first to endure looking at Median dress and men wearing it, for up until then just hearing the name of the Medes caused the Hellenes to panic.
-
It's also interesting to note that the Spartan army arrived at Marathon a day late "having marched (140 mi) in only three days."
A single man runs from Marathon to Athens, says only “we are victorious”, and then dies. That’s the legend, but it’s confusing two events. Pheidippides actually ran from Athens to Sparta to request reinforcements. The Marathon to Athens run has the hoplites getting there just in time to see the Persians leave Athens.