Talk:Marathon world record progression

Follow Up on New Edits

Removed chronological (implied in progression), called for citations, made punctuation edits, made “Women Only” category a new paragraph, deleted portions based on WP: Relevance and WP: Notability, reorganized paragraphs, adjusted pictures, removed weasel word based on WP: Manual of Style/Clarity, inserted Oxford comma as a stylistic choice, removed the first version’s opening sentence to avoid redundancy MountainsCalling (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Super shoes

I think there should be at least a mention about super shoes. Maybe a paragraph. Records have been shattered since the introduction of shoes like Vaporfly. Even the Radcliffe record. Beekeela (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Progression?

Sure, modern athletes and athletics - the technology and the training - are superior to those of yesteryear. The problem I have with this is it completely ignores the other, significant, variables. That is, just because a record is broken does NOT mean that the new record holder would have been as fast in different conditions. Weather, altitude, trail (track?) condition and seemingly small differences in level all have important effects on the winning times. Why isn't that mentioned here? In the case of indoor tracks, the variables are much better controlled, but even there atmospheric conditions - temperature and humidity, assuming no air movement (which from what I've seen is incorrect), are important in long distance running performance. Not to mention track conditions - traction, rebound, etc. Outdoors on normal streets, the variables are even more important. How important? IDK! And that's another point - shouldn't this article mention the research results quantifying the various variables impact on performance?98.19.179.27 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

ARRS relevance/ validity

“Criteria for eligibility” section references a organisation called ARRS.

This organisation, which was essentially a one man organization from its own webpage information, no longer seems to be functional following the passing of its said founder. Its world record standards, the very thing this article references, are inaccessible on its webpage.

Citation 39 leads to a dead page: the archive copy of the link leads to an editorial article expressing personal opinions on several related topics, but does not actually support the text in the Wikipedia article or give criteria for world records in marathon or other running formats.

I therefore question the relevance of an inclusion referencing it as an organisation with differing standards for marathon record progression accordingly as: a) it appears to be no longer functional at present except in an archival form b) its standards , which are the reason for inclusion on this article, cannot be viewed in any public forum c) the lack of significance /relevance of the organisation in question in determining world record standards for marathons in the present day.I.e. no race organiser is likely referring to ARRS as a verifying or approving body. 195.213.43.200 (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

(To add to my prior comment above: I have not made any edit as this organisation is referenced throughout on the record progression and so would require a broad change to the article.)

Regarding the non-IAAF recognised records listed in record progression that are taken from ARRS list, where records are recognised post 2002 by IAAF / World Athletics in the table of progression, the recognition (or lack thereof) by ARRS is arguably irrelevant (as a world record would still stand on IAAF recognition alone regardless of ARRS position) - but also doubling confusing now due to the non-functional nature of the organisation since 2018 means that no records after that date will ever be recognised.

I propose the article is edited to:

1) Remove ARRS as a reference for world record criteria (as per 1st comment above).See also comment 4 below.

2) Removal of references to ARRS on IAAF recognised runs as irrelevant (caveating remarks can remain if seen as still relevant)

3) Amend record progression text to indicate ARRS recognition as past tense. i.e. " Was historically recognized by the Association of Road Racing Statisticians (ARRS)"

4) If desired to keep ARRS relevance, then better performed by creation of a separate short article for the ARRS to document the organisations existence, then move all text related to ARRS world record criteria that is in this article to that location, to preserve historical information while keeping this article concise. 195.213.43.200 (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)