When Geb ran that 2:04:26, the third fastest man of all time was only 30 seconds back (also, before 2008 ended Geb dropped the world record another 27 seconds pushing Hall even further back). Today, the third fastest man is 66 seconds back (and happens to be Kenny B). In the years after Geb ran 2:04:26, guys routinely were within one minute of his best time (even after he broke 2:04). We’re now two years removed from Kiptum’a WR and no one is within 1:30 of his time. The comparison you are trying to make simply doesn’t hold true. Everyone today is way back of Kiptum. There is no reason to think Hall would still be closer to Kiptum than Mantz is.
Okay, we can take the difference between Hall's 2:06:17 and Geb's 2:03:59. That difference is 2:18. If Kiptum is too much of an outlier, then add 2:18 to Kipchoge's 2:01:09. The result is 2:03:27.
Change whatever you want, it’s all still just made up. The fact that Hall was (pick any time you want) close to Geb has no bearing on how close Mantz is to Kiptum, and certainly is no help in comparing Hall to Mantz. Apples to oranges. The fact that Kiptum is more of an outlier than Geb shows this. Now if you want to compare how Hall and Mantz ran on similar courses, in similar conditions, etc., then go right ahead. But the comparison of how close each was to times set by completely different runners from different countries coached by different coaches using different training regimes wearing different shoes on different courses in different conditions years apart, is lazy at best and certainly not weighty as evidence of anything.
Okay, we can take the difference between Hall's 2:06:17 and Geb's 2:03:59. That difference is 2:18. If Kiptum is too much of an outlier, then add 2:18 to Kipchoge's 2:01:09. The result is 2:03:27.
Change whatever you want, it’s all still just made up. The fact that Hall was (pick any time you want) close to Geb has no bearing on how close Mantz is to Kiptum, and certainly is no help in comparing Hall to Mantz. Apples to oranges. The fact that Kiptum is more of an outlier than Geb shows this. Now if you want to compare how Hall and Mantz ran on similar courses, in similar conditions, etc., then go right ahead. But the comparison of how close each was to times set by completely different runners from different countries coached by different coaches using different training regimes wearing different shoes on different courses in different conditions years apart, is lazy at best and certainly not weighty as evidence of anything.
Re-read my post. We can use Kipchoge as the point of comparison because he's more analogous to Geb.
Or compare to the 3rd/4th/5th/6th/7th/8th/9th/10th however many you want. Hall was much closer to everyone in the top 10 than Mantz.
You’re still just picking two completely different runners as your comparison point (Geb to Kip). It doesn’t help your analysis any better.
I mean, if we are going to use your approach then a better example would be to compare Hall’s fastest Boston to Mantz’s (at least it’s the same course in this scenario). Hall ran 2:04:58 with a massive tailwind but finished 1:56 back of the winner, whose fastest non-Boston marathon was a 2:04:15 in Berlin. Mantz, on the other hand, ran 2:05:08 with super shoes but was only 23 seconds back of the winner, whose fastest non-Boston time is 2:02:44 in Chicago. Seems like Mantz’s performance at Boston was significantly better than Hall’s using your criteria. And if Mantz’s performance at Chicago is even better still, then he would clearly beat Hall even if Hall had supershoes, according to your analysis.
This post was edited 58 seconds after it was posted.
You’re still just picking two completely different runners as your comparison point (Geb to Kip). It doesn’t help your analysis any better.
I mean, if we are going to use your approach then a better example would be to compare Hall’s fastest Boston to Mantz’s (at least it’s the same course in this scenario). Hall ran 2:04:58 with a massive tailwind but finished 1:56 back of the winner, whose fastest non-Boston marathon was a 2:04:15 in Berlin. Mantz, on the other hand, ran 2:05:08 with super shoes but was only 23 seconds back of the winner, whose fastest non-Boston time is 2:02:44 in Chicago. Seems like Mantz’s performance at Boston was significantly better than Hall’s using your criteria. And if Mantz’s performance at Chicago is even better still, then he would clearly beat Hall even if Hall had supershoes, according to your analysis.
Mantz was able to finish within 30 seconds of Korir in Boston because Korir waited until mile 20 to make a big move. He didn't run as fast as he could have in the first 19 miles.
My comparison is better because I'm looking at everyone on their best day on a fast course.
His best races were not always time trials late in his career.
59:47 probably improves a minute
Surely maps to 2:04:00 a marathon oriented guy. He’d need the right race. He would definitely aim for 2:02 high 2:03 x and might not find the right race
Doubters, consider the runners who competed before and after supershoes:
Times improved for everyone, and the same guys finished in front as when they wore slow shoes.
You’re still just picking two completely different runners as your comparison point (Geb to Kip). It doesn’t help your analysis any better.
I mean, if we are going to use your approach then a better example would be to compare Hall’s fastest Boston to Mantz’s (at least it’s the same course in this scenario). Hall ran 2:04:58 with a massive tailwind but finished 1:56 back of the winner, whose fastest non-Boston marathon was a 2:04:15 in Berlin. Mantz, on the other hand, ran 2:05:08 with super shoes but was only 23 seconds back of the winner, whose fastest non-Boston time is 2:02:44 in Chicago. Seems like Mantz’s performance at Boston was significantly better than Hall’s using your criteria. And if Mantz’s performance at Chicago is even better still, then he would clearly beat Hall even if Hall had supershoes, according to your analysis.
Mantz was able to finish within 30 seconds of Korir in Boston because Korir waited until mile 20 to make a big move. He didn't run as fast as he could have in the first 19 miles.
My comparison is better because I'm looking at everyone on their best day on a fast course.
And there aren’t variables or things that are different about world record times? Yes, it is everyone going fast but that doesn’t mean a world record set by one guy is as good as one set by another. By its very definition, a world record is an outlier among outliers. Thus, each one is unique. I would also argue that comparing a WR set by Geb, who was past his prime as an athlete, isn’t comparable to the time run by Kiptum (presumable a few years before his peak) or even Kipchoge (the greatest marathoner in history). Looking to times run by one group of athletes on different courses years apart just isn’t helpful when determining how fast times would be for two completely different athletes who never raced each other.
The fact is there simply is no way for us to tell how Hall would have done with supershoes. We don’t know how his training would have been different, how his racing would have been different, or how he would have responded to the shoes compared to someone like Mantz. Any attempts to compare two athletes from such different eras is pointless.
2009 - 2:10 New york (4th), 2:09 Boston (3rd), 1:01:52 / 1:02:35 halfs
2008 - 2:12:33 Olympics, 2:06:17 London (5th place)
2007 - 2:09:02 OT win, 2:08:24 London (7th place), 59:43 Houston
I believe 2007 was his debut, before that we have a 3rd place finish at USA champs in 5k which ended in 16th place at worlds in Helsinki (his PR is 13:16 at 5k)
From these results I would look at this stretch from 2007-2011 where he is getting those 4th/5th place finishes to try and get a picture of where he would be at today. 4th/5th these days is worth 2:04 - 2:07 today based on a cursory glance of the last few year's worth of data (that 2:06 in london would have gotten him 5th in 2023, 3rd in 2024, and 8th in 2025).
I think that the 2:04:58 in Boston, the 2:06:17 in London and the 59:43 in Houston were definite outliers (seems like he was more of a 2:08/2:09 guy all things considered).
Probably the most likely benefit of super shoes would be more races below 2:08 or even 2:07, it's possible he wouldn't have been able to run much faster than those flash-in-a-pan performances. Maybe with a perfect storm (so, same level of outlier + super shoes), that 2:06:17 in London would become a 2:04:30, but would require a lot of things to go right on a given day
This reads his career wrong. his debut was leading London past halfway, 59:43, and closing a hilly OT in 62 in a fast race.
Years after were tactical and consistently competing for podiums. He was a 5000 champ and could handle paces for faster shoes.
You expect better potential after early career for marathoners. 2:02 is reasonable for any guy consistently racing for wins / medals in WMMs. No reason to think Hall would not do this with shoes when he did without.
Mantz was able to finish within 30 seconds of Korir in Boston because Korir waited until mile 20 to make a big move. He didn't run as fast as he could have in the first 19 miles.
My comparison is better because I'm looking at everyone on their best day on a fast course.
And there aren’t variables or things that are different about world record times? Yes, it is everyone going fast but that doesn’t mean a world record set by one guy is as good as one set by another. By its very definition, a world record is an outlier among outliers. Thus, each one is unique. I would also argue that comparing a WR set by Geb, who was past his prime as an athlete, isn’t comparable to the time run by Kiptum (presumable a few years before his peak) or even Kipchoge (the greatest marathoner in history). Looking to times run by one group of athletes on different courses years apart just isn’t helpful when determining how fast times would be for two completely different athletes who never raced each other.
The fact is there simply is no way for us to tell how Hall would have done with supershoes. We don’t know how his training would have been different, how his racing would have been different, or how he would have responded to the shoes compared to someone like Mantz. Any attempts to compare two athletes from such different eras is pointless.
We can't pinpoint to the second, but we can make educated guesses based on each runner's standing relative to the best guys in their day and what we know about super shoe effects.
And there aren’t variables or things that are different about world record times? Yes, it is everyone going fast but that doesn’t mean a world record set by one guy is as good as one set by another. By its very definition, a world record is an outlier among outliers. Thus, each one is unique. I would also argue that comparing a WR set by Geb, who was past his prime as an athlete, isn’t comparable to the time run by Kiptum (presumable a few years before his peak) or even Kipchoge (the greatest marathoner in history). Looking to times run by one group of athletes on different courses years apart just isn’t helpful when determining how fast times would be for two completely different athletes who never raced each other.
The fact is there simply is no way for us to tell how Hall would have done with supershoes. We don’t know how his training would have been different, how his racing would have been different, or how he would have responded to the shoes compared to someone like Mantz. Any attempts to compare two athletes from such different eras is pointless.
We can't pinpoint to the second, but we can make educated guesses based on each runner's standing relative to the best guys in their day and what we know about super shoe effects.
Unless the guys competing today are better by comparison than those during Hall’s day. Different training, different nutrition, (different pharmaceuticals?), etc., seem to be creating more fast guys than ever. In Hall’s day, you ran marathons when you couldn’t cut it on the track anymore. Kipchoge and, to an even greater extent, Kiptum blew that notion out of the water. The eras are just too different. No guess would be educated because of how many variables exist.
And how is each guys standing relative to the top runners of their day a better benchmark than the standing of each guy relative to each other (looking at their comparative Boston performances)? It’s not. Any guess is simply a guess and nothing more.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
We can't pinpoint to the second, but we can make educated guesses based on each runner's standing relative to the best guys in their day and what we know about super shoe effects.
Unless the guys competing today are better by comparison than those during Hall’s day. Different training, different nutrition, (different pharmaceuticals?), etc., seem to be creating more fast guys than ever. In Hall’s day, you ran marathons when you couldn’t cut it on the track anymore. Kipchoge and, to an even greater extent, Kiptum blew that notion out of the water. The eras are just too different. No guess would be educated because of how many variables exist.
And how is each guys standing relative to the top runners of their day a better benchmark than the standing of each guy relative to each other (looking at their comparative Boston performances)? It’s not. Any guess is simply a guess and nothing more.
I don't think guys competing today are better than those during Hall's day. They just have better shoes.
Your athletics history is fuzzy. Kipchoge is one of many runners who switched to the marathon when they couldn't cut it on the track anymore. A better example of someone who started running marathons at a young age and changed how we perceive that event is Sammy Wanjiru. He won the Olympic marathon in 2008, the same year Hall ran 2:06 in London.
Men's marathon times across the board have fallen by 2 to 3 minutes since super shoes came out. A 2:09 today is what 2:12 was 10 years ago.
It stands to reason that Hall could have improved by at least 2:00 to 2:30 with super shoes in his 20's. That puts him in the 2:03:47 to 2:04:17 range. Faster than Mantz.
Unless the guys competing today are better by comparison than those during Hall’s day. Different training, different nutrition, (different pharmaceuticals?), etc., seem to be creating more fast guys than ever. In Hall’s day, you ran marathons when you couldn’t cut it on the track anymore. Kipchoge and, to an even greater extent, Kiptum blew that notion out of the water. The eras are just too different. No guess would be educated because of how many variables exist.
And how is each guys standing relative to the top runners of their day a better benchmark than the standing of each guy relative to each other (looking at their comparative Boston performances)? It’s not. Any guess is simply a guess and nothing more.
I don't think guys competing today are better than those during Hall's day. They just have better shoes.
Your athletics history is fuzzy. Kipchoge is one of many runners who switched to the marathon when they couldn't cut it on the track anymore. A better example of someone who started running marathons at a young age and changed how we perceive that event is Sammy Wanjiru. He won the Olympic marathon in 2008, the same year Hall ran 2:06 in London.
Men's marathon times across the board have fallen by 2 to 3 minutes since super shoes came out. A 2:09 today is what 2:12 was 10 years ago.
It stands to reason that Hall could have improved by at least 2:00 to 2:30 with super shoes in his 20's. That puts him in the 2:03:47 to 2:04:17 range. Faster than Mantz.
That’s complete nonsense! You are literally pulling numbers out of the air. Nobody knows how Hall would have done with supershoes in is prime. Not even Hall himself. The fact that not every athlete responds the same to them is definitive proof of that. You don’t like the Kipchoge example? Fine, I’ll use Kiptum (for the third time), Korir, and Sawe as further evidence of the difference in eras.
And please tell me you understand the very basic notion that a 2-3 minute decrease in a WR time (going from 2:03 to 2:00) is not the same as a 2-3 minute decrease going from 2:12 to 2:09. They are not the same thing at all.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
I don't think guys competing today are better than those during Hall's day. They just have better shoes.
Your athletics history is fuzzy. Kipchoge is one of many runners who switched to the marathon when they couldn't cut it on the track anymore. A better example of someone who started running marathons at a young age and changed how we perceive that event is Sammy Wanjiru. He won the Olympic marathon in 2008, the same year Hall ran 2:06 in London.
Men's marathon times across the board have fallen by 2 to 3 minutes since super shoes came out. A 2:09 today is what 2:12 was 10 years ago.
It stands to reason that Hall could have improved by at least 2:00 to 2:30 with super shoes in his 20's. That puts him in the 2:03:47 to 2:04:17 range. Faster than Mantz.
That’s complete nonsense! You are literally pulling numbers out of the air. Nobody knows how Hall would have done with supershoes in is prime. Not even Hall himself. The fact that not every athlete responds the same to them is definitive proof of that. You don’t like the Kipchoge example? Fine, I’ll use Kiptum (for the third time), Korir, and Sawe as further evidence of the difference in eras.
And please tell me you understand the very basic notion that a 2-3 minute decrease in a WR time (going from 2:03 to 2:00) is not the same as a 2-3 minute decrease going from 2:12 to 2:09. They are not the same thing at all.
It's truth. Empirical evidence shows that men's marathon times have dropped 2 to 3 minutes across the board since super shoes. You can't argue against facts. The only question is if Hall would be closer to 2 minutes or 3 minutes faster.
That’s complete nonsense! You are literally pulling numbers out of the air. Nobody knows how Hall would have done with supershoes in is prime. Not even Hall himself. The fact that not every athlete responds the same to them is definitive proof of that. You don’t like the Kipchoge example? Fine, I’ll use Kiptum (for the third time), Korir, and Sawe as further evidence of the difference in eras.
And please tell me you understand the very basic notion that a 2-3 minute decrease in a WR time (going from 2:03 to 2:00) is not the same as a 2-3 minute decrease going from 2:12 to 2:09. They are not the same thing at all.
It's truth. Empirical evidence shows that men's marathon times have dropped 2 to 3 minutes across the board since super shoes. You can't argue against facts. The only question is if Hall would be closer to 2 minutes or 3 minutes faster.
It’s not true because a general trend does not mean a specific athlete will respond exactly the same way. This is also a very basic concept. Here’s a primer for you:
An ecological fallacy (also ecological inference fallacy or population fallacy) is a formal fallacy in the interpretation of statistical data that occurs when inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from infere...
And by your reasoning, Mantz would be a 2:07+ guy without supershoes. His performance in the marathon so far (multiple top 10 finishes including the Olympics), blows that notion out of the water.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
It's truth. Empirical evidence shows that men's marathon times have dropped 2 to 3 minutes across the board since super shoes. You can't argue against facts. The only question is if Hall would be closer to 2 minutes or 3 minutes faster.
It’s not true because a general trend does not mean a specific athlete will respond exactly the same way. This is also a very basic concept.
Right. That's why I'm telling you the range is 2 to 3 minutes. It's because the response is not the same. 2 to 3 minutes is a big range. But make no mistake. The range is 2 to 3 minutes. Hall would be running no slower than 2:04:17. Most likely he'd be between 2:03:30-2:03:47.
It’s not true because a general trend does not mean a specific athlete will respond exactly the same way. This is also a very basic concept.
Right. That's why I'm telling you the range is 2 to 3 minutes. It's because the response is not the same. 2 to 3 minutes is a big range. But make no mistake. The range is 2 to 3 minutes. Hall would be running no slower than 2:04:17. Most likely he'd be between 2:03:30-2:03:47.
A range you made up. You may have missed my edits above but you cannot use general data to say a specific athlete will respond the exact same way. It’s a fallacy. It’s laughable. And it’s ridiculous to claim all the improvements have been solely from supershoes.
You also don’t know that Mantz is getting a 2-3 minute benefit from the shoes.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
Right. That's why I'm telling you the range is 2 to 3 minutes. It's because the response is not the same. 2 to 3 minutes is a big range. But make no mistake. The range is 2 to 3 minutes. Hall would be running no slower than 2:04:17. Most likely he'd be between 2:03:30-2:03:47.
A range you made up. You may have missed my edits above but you cannot use general data to say a specific athlete will respond the exact same way. It’s a fallacy. It’s laughable.
You also don’t know that Mantz is getting a 2-3 minute benefit from the shoes.
I didn't make up the range. It's empirical observable evidence.
I repeat, not everyone responds the same exact way. For some, it's closer to 2 minutes. For high responders, it's closer to 3 minutes. That's the difference. A big difference.
Work on your arithmetic for Mantz. A super shoe effect range of 2 to 3 minutes means Mantz would be between 2:06:43-2:07:43 in regular shoes. That sounds right. Ritz ran 2:07:47 in Chicago. Mantz is better in the marathon than Ritz was on their best days, but not by more than 64 seconds. Mantz is probably between 45 and 60 seconds faster than Ritz in the same type of shoes on the same course.
A range you made up. You may have missed my edits above but you cannot use general data to say a specific athlete will respond the exact same way. It’s a fallacy. It’s laughable.
You also don’t know that Mantz is getting a 2-3 minute benefit from the shoes.
I didn't make up the range. It's empirical observable evidence.
I repeat, not everyone responds the same exact way. For some, it's closer to 2 minutes. For high responders, it's closer to 3 minutes. That's the difference. A big difference.
Work on your arithmetic for Mantz. A super shoe effect range of 2 to 3 minutes means Mantz would be between 2:06:43-2:07:43 in regular shoes. That sounds right. Ritz ran 2:07:47 in Chicago. Mantz is better in the marathon than Ritz was on their best days, but not by more than 64 seconds. Mantz is probably between 45 and 60 seconds faster than Ritz in the same type of shoes on the same course.
You did make it up because you are saying the 2-3 minute improvement is solely from supershoes. That’s not empirical evidence. It’s nonsense! Training has changed, nutrition has changed, many things have changed. For you to be correct that all improvements are solely from supershoes would mean the world record would still be the same as when Hall ran if we took the shoes away. That’s absurd!
My arithmetic’s for Mantz saying he is a 2:07+ guy under your analysis is exactly what you just posted. Work on your reasoning and reading comprehension.
Bryan Hall was in an insane shape when he demolished the AR in Boston. Canovo has spoken at lengths in these forums that the wind did not provide any benefit that year and that the hills still made it more difficult. Tbh, using the 3% Alpha-Flies rule and adjusted for hills, I think with gods help he could have run 1:58:55, not only becoming the first man to break 2h in a Marathon but also take more than a full minute off.
I'll provide more detailed calculations later, for now, you will have to take my word for it.