What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?
rw.runnersworld.com
What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?
1–10 of 168 posts
Re: What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?
#2This is an interesting analysis of available data for runners and record-breakers, outlining what will have to happen to break the two-hour mark for marathon times. Dennis Kimetto set the marathon record this year at 2:02:57.
Cue complaints about scrolling behavior of this site, but the content itself is worth reading.
Re: What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?
#3This is an impressive amount of effort put into making the content unreadable. I sort of get what they're going for with the fade-in of content as you scroll down (although it's distracting as hell for actually reading rather than just looking at it), but what would possess someone to think that fading out text as I scroll down was a good idea? Crazily enough I like to be able to read more than two sentences without scrolling. I don't expect a site to use my monitor's full width, but I sure do expect it to use the full height.
Re: What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?
#4Here's the hypothetical scenario that the report describes in the end.
I've found reading the analysis after this story makes it an even better read:
The road is so flat and straight, you can see them coming from a mile away. Six runners flow in arrowhead formation around the Canadian city of Saskatoon. The early November air is still and dry, the sky overcast, and the temperature hovers a bit above freezing, just as predicted.
All in their early 20s, they’ve been training together for this moment for years; only in the last month did their coach select which three will go for the record. The remaining three form the front of the arrowhead, blocking the wind and enduring the mental effort of controlling the pace. Should one of them cross the finish line in two hours—or faster—all six will share equally in the $50 million jackpot promised by the heirs to the Hoka One One fortune. The pot of money is up for grabs, for any runner, anywhere in the world. The chase is on.
So, will they make it? And what year is this? We’ve cut the distance to the sub-two marathon in half since 1998, but it will get progressively harder to trim the remaining seconds. Still, the physiologists tell us that it’s not impossible, meaning it is possible. I’m saying the year is...2075—and they make it
Re: What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?
#5This is an impressive amount of effort put into making the content unreadable. I sort of get what they're going for with the fade-in of content as you scroll down (although it's distracting as hell for actually reading rather than just looking at it), but what would possess someone to think that fading out text as I scroll down was a good idea? Crazily enough I like to be able to read more than two sentences without…
Maybe it's time to update this for the second decade of the 21st century: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/design_hell
Re: What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?
#6This is an interesting analysis of available data for runners and record-breakers, outlining what will have to happen to break the two-hour mark for marathon times. Dennis Kimetto set the marathon record this year at 2:02:57. Cue complaints about scrolling behavior of this site, but the content itself is worth reading.
>'...the content itself is worth reading.'
It sure looks that way and I'm normally pretty tolerant of design flourishes, but I find this simply unbearable.
Still, I really wanted to read this, but neither Pocket, Readability nor Instapaper are able to pull more than a few paragraphs of usable text out of it.
The design isn't just bad or annoying it's hostile.
Re: What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?
#7This is an impressive amount of effort put into making the content unreadable. I sort of get what they're going for with the fade-in of content as you scroll down (although it's distracting as hell for actually reading rather than just looking at it), but what would possess someone to think that fading out text as I scroll down was a good idea? Crazily enough I like to be able to read more than two sentences without…
Digital Presentation by Daniel Fuehrer
There you go.
Re: What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?
#8This is an interesting analysis of available data for runners and record-breakers, outlining what will have to happen to break the two-hour mark for marathon times. Dennis Kimetto set the marathon record this year at 2:02:57. Cue complaints about scrolling behavior of this site, but the content itself is worth reading.
Your comment caught my attention, because I don't have any problem with the display of the content. Then, I immediately realized: I do not have Javascript enabled from runnersworld, thanks to the NoScript Firefox extension.
I temporarily turned it on, and saw the annoyances.
The static view without JS is just fine: the graphs and their labels are all there; nothing moves when you scroll.
Re: What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?
#9Data would suggest that 2-hour marathon record was already broken, but not recorded.
Re: What will it take to run a 2-hour marathon?
#10This is an interesting analysis of available data for runners and record-breakers, outlining what will have to happen to break the two-hour mark for marathon times. Dennis Kimetto set the marathon record this year at 2:02:57. Cue complaints about scrolling behavior of this site, but the content itself is worth reading.
>'...the content itself is worth reading.' It sure looks that way and I'm normally pretty tolerant of design flourishes, but I find this simply unbearable. Still, I really wanted to read this, but neither Pocket, Readability nor Instapaper are able to pull more than a few paragraphs of usable text out of it. The design isn't just bad or annoying it's hostile.
In addition to my observation that disabling JavaScript from runnersworld.com stops all the effects while evidently showing all the content nicely, I'd like to add that the page renders very nicely in the print view of the FireFox add-on known as "Print Edit". "Print Edit" lets you trim out superfluous junk from the document, and then print it or save a copy.