Meb is going to beat Hall in New York

Jesus is his composer.

1) If you are not saying Meb will beat Hall, then you and I are in agreement.

2) I don't see how anything I've said about Meb's marathon in Athens (in 2004!) is stupid. His win then has nothing to do with how he'll do NOW. His recent half marathon has more to do with how he'll do than his silver medal does.

3) You keep mentioning what Meb HAS done. I know what he HAS done. As usual, I'm looking ahead and determining what he WILL do, kind of like how I said Ritzenhein would break the AR in the 5,000 and everyone and their brother told me I was a dumbass, or how I said Michael Aish would run 2:19 in his debut marathon (which he did) or how I said Alan Webb would break the AR in the mile when he was sucking eggs at Michigan. There is no evidence to support that Meb is a better marathoner than Ryan Hall. And, let's not forget that Meb has run at London too, so it's not like he only runs slow and challenging courses. I say Hall will beat Meb at New York. Let them race, and we'll see if I'm right or not.

So, if Hall beats Meb, does that mean I know something about marathons? You're silly if you think I don't know the difference between a Chicago time and a New York time. I'm well schooled on it all brother. Regardless, Hall is better. He should win. And, it's NOT just about PRs either. I've maintained forever that no american-born runner (not Meb either) is more talented that Ritzenhein, so if he were to run against Hall in a marathon today, I'd have to closely look at their preparation and some pre-race race times, but I could pick Ritz to beat Hall even though Hall currently has a better PR. Ritz's AR in the 5,000 is just scratching the surface of what he will do. Some more jaw-dropping times from the 10,000 on up will come from him...though not jaw-dropping for me...I KNOW he will run some super fast times.

I disagree Meb is on the down swing in his career. He is only 34, I would say he's there in a couple of years, but not now. People think Meb is on the down swing because he has had injury problems since 2004 when he did the Olympics/NY marathon combo which caused his injury spiral.

Meb seems to have gotten healthy and is enjoying training and racing again. Hall should be able to beat him, but it will be a lot closer than 2-3 minutes.

IMO, I think Hall will continue to get slower since he races nothing but marathons, unless he dips down to the shorter distances like Ritz. He will continue to run 2:08-2:09 but that won't you many victories.

From The Stands wrote:

I disagree Meb is on the down swing in his career. He is only 34, I would say he's there in a couple of years, but not now. People think Meb is on the down swing because he has had injury problems since 2004 when he did the Olympics/NY marathon combo which caused his injury spiral.

Meb seems to have gotten healthy and is enjoying training and racing again. Hall should be able to beat him, but it will be a lot closer than 2-3 minutes.

IMO, I think Hall will continue to get slower since he races nothing but marathons, unless he dips down to the shorter distances like Ritz. He will continue to run 2:08-2:09 but that won't you many victories.

Well, "downside" is subjective, but to me it doesn't mean he's done running some decent times...just that his best is behind him. In a couple of years, he will be in the twilight of his career and likely will consider retiring from competitive running.

I'd say your first quote from above comparing Meb's silver from 2004 to the gold won by some guy in 1904 is fairly "stupid." It's an absurd analogy Flagpole. You are acting like 2004 was an entirely different era than it is now!? A medal in 2004 was as good as one in 2008, but Ritz and Hall could not sniff the medals in 08. I was comparing accomplishments from runners FROM THE SAME ERA, not a runner of today to one of some bygone era.

Anyway, of course I fully understand that accomplishments and ability are two different things, however one's ability has a pretty big effect on one's accomplishments. And if one never cashes in their ability for some real accomplishments, then that ability is pretty worthless. If Ritz had not stepped up and made that jump this year to 6th at Olympics and AR in 5k, and stayed at the level he was at (due to injury, or poor training/coaching, whatever), the comparison of his ability to Meb's or anyone else's would have been a moot point (maybe only important to you). If Ritz somehow never runs faster than 2:10, his "potential" or "ability" in the marathon will be meaningless to me. Ability might be fun for trying to predict what will be or could have been, but accomplishments is all that matters in the end.

I was only stating what the current measure of Ritz's, Hall's, and Meb's accomplishments are at this time, fully aware that all three runners, and especially Ritz and Hall, have time to add more accomplshment to their total.

And as far as your comment that "Meb's silver medal will have no bearing on the outcome of the race", that is partly untrue. What one accomplished before is certainly a better indicator of what they might accomplish again than any other arbitrary standards you or anyone might come up with. The silver shows what he is capable of when having his best day. AND, it gives him confidence that he can beat almost anyone. So it has some bearing on how he CAN run and how he MIGHT run again. True, it was 5 years ago, but some other recent top races show he could be back near that top shape.

I don't know whether or not Hall will beat Meb or vice versa. I'd say Hall has the edge right now. But I wouldn't be surprised if Meb pulls it off, and I base this off recent AND not-so-recent accomplishments by each.

I made the comparison not to say that 2004 is much different from 2008 (I wasn't talking of the Olympics in 2008 anyway...I've been talking of the 2009 New York Marathon), but to show that ANY accomplishment in running doesn't necessarily make you a better runner. The fact that Meb won his silver in 2004 still has NOTHING to do with how he will fare against Ryan Hall in this year's New York Marathon.

I agree that accomplishments are all that matter. The trick though is determining which accomplishments are the most worthy. I, for example, don't put as much stock in a silver medal over a career filled with American records and super fast times. Of course most runners would prefer an Olympic medal of course (even I might depending on the circumstances), but that doesn't negate superior times and loads of greats races in other arenas. We've seen the body of work so far by Ritz and Hall and Meb, and judging all of it, silver medal included, it should be clear to everyone that Ritz and Hall are better than Meb. Meb has a silver. Good for him. The dude from 1904 has a gold. Good for him. Hall is faster. Ritz is faster at 5,000 and has more talent at every distance on up than does Meb. Meb's 10,000 AR is Ritz's for the taking...a softer record even than the 5,000 was, and Ritz for sure has a faster than 2:09 marathon in him. All in due time. It will happen, and I will be proven right just as I was about his 5,000 AR.

You'd say Hall has the edge right now. Well then, you and I agree.

Unless Meb carries that silver medal with him during the race and hits Hall with it in the knee, it has NO bearing at all on this race. Meb has been in and out of shape since 2004 and is now 5 years older...any confidence he might have from a race 5 years ago is just bogus and manufactured, and if he really is getting comfort from that, then he himself knows it's bunk. If he's smart (and I believe he is) he'll get any confidence about his running from recent training and racing, not a race 5 years ago.

blip wrote:

The only way Meb could beat Hall @ NYC 2009 is IF Meb has the best race of his life and Hall falters doesn't regain his composer.

Sounds like a prerace excuse.The point is, Meb finishes before Hall.

Flagpole

"I agree that accomplishments are all that matter. The trick though is determining which accomplishments are the most worthy. I, for example, don't put as much stock in a silver medal over a career filled with American records and super fast times". Of course most runners would prefer an Olympic medal of course (even I might depending on the circumstances), but that doesn't negate superior times and loads of greats races in other arenas. We've seen the body of work so far by Ritz and Hall and Meb, and judging all of it, silver medal included, it should be clear to everyone that Ritz and Hall are better than Meb.

Flagpole, I am trying to understand your logic. Meb has run faster than Hall in the 5k, 10k, Faster than Ritz at 10k (Ritz only has 1 faster time than Meb at 5k). Meb's won numerous national titles, and made more US teams than probably Ritz and defintely more than Hall. Meb has a silver medal. Hall has a couple of fast marathons and 1 fast half marathon to his credit..period. Ritz has has a little bit of everything, like Meb. How do you see them as being better?

I would agree both

blip wrote:

The only way Meb could beat Hall @ NYC 2009 is IF Meb has the best race of his life and Hall falters doesn't regain his composer...

Bach? Beethoven?

Meb's had a great year. He looks like he's in shape to have a chance at 2:08 on a flat course, so 2:10 should be realistic in New York.

xxxrunnerxxx wrote:

drop Hall like turd droppings from a pigeon

excellant turd reference

I hope that Hall wins for one reason. Meb has never been capable of winning a marathon (even US only races). Meb is one of the slowest closers from 40k to the finish. This means that he will always lose if it comes down to a kick. He is living proof that a better 10 or 5k or 1500 has nothing to do with finishing speed in the marathon.

So if Meb beats Hall, neither will win the race outright. Therefore I want Hall to win.

Ritzenhein has that faster 5,000 AR, and that's not even his best race. He would take down (and eventually will) Meb's 10,000 AR if he ran it today. He WILL run a faster marathon than Meb has, and he's a better cross country runner too. As I was saying with Ritz since his PR in the 5,000 was just 13:27, no American-born runner (not Meb either) is more talented than Dathan Ritzenhein. People here scoffed at me when I said he'd break the AR in the 5,000..."don't you know that only 3 white people have ever broken 13:00"..."he doesn't have the speed to do it"..."he needs to run a 3:35 1500 first"..."you know nothing about distance running." All BS as was proven. Ryan Hall has significantly faster times in the half marathon and marathon than Meb. He likely will never run faster than Meb's 10,000 AR, but he doesn't need to. His AR in the half marathon and his 2:06 in the marathon, AND given the fact that he's still young with years to improve...tells me all I need to know. He's better. Both Ritzenhein and Hall are better than Meb.

Meb has been awesome, and props to him for a silver medal in the Olympics, but his career is coming to and end, and he's not proven to have the talent of Ritzenhein or Hall. He runs 2:07 or faster at New York or someday busts a low 2:06 or faster at London or Chicago or Berlin, and I'll amend my statement, but it will have NOTHING to do with his silver medal at the Olympics. To date, Ritz and Hall have proven to be better. As Meb is 34, his time to proven anything is running out. Perhaps he will prove he's as good. I hope he does.

meb's history is relevant because he has shown that he rises to the occasion in championship meets, at least against Americans, and against the world in 2004, AND he is in as good shape at this distance as he has ever been, having just run the third fastest ever for an American at the half. If the 2:06 Hall shows up (at NYC that would be maybe 2:08), then it's Hall, but if Meb maintains his form from the 1:01, I think that he will beat the lesser form of Hall that we have seen since the 2:06.}"

"}"}

meb's history is relevant because he has shown that he rises to the occasion in championship meets, at least against Americans, and against the world in 2004, AND he is in as good shape at this distance as he has ever been, having just run the third fastest ever for an American at the half. If the 2:06 Hall shows up (at NYC that would be maybe 2:08), then it's Hall, but if Meb maintains his form from the 1:01, I think that he will beat the lesser form of Hall that we have seen since the 2:06.

jjjjjjjjjj wrote:

meb's history is relevant because he has shown that he rises to the occasion in championship meets, at least against Americans, and against the world in 2004, AND he is in as good shape at this distance as he has ever been, having just run the third fastest ever for an American at the half. If the 2:06 Hall shows up (at NYC that would be maybe 2:08), then it's Hall, but if Meb maintains his form from the 1:01, I think that he will beat the lesser form of Hall that we have seen since the 2:06.

1:01 shows very good fitness. I hope Meb busts a PR. I'm not rooting against him. Race day will tell. I think Hall beats him, but that's why the run the race.

I still disagree that the silver medal from 2004 has any bearing at all.

Oh give it up flagpole. Your constant comparison of Meb's silver to someone who won a gold in 1904 is just flat out silly.

Flagpole wrote:

To date, Ritz and Hall have proven to be better. As Meb is 34, his time to proven anything is running out. Perhaps he will prove he's as good. I hope he does.

a) No, Ritz and Hall have not proven to be better yet. We already have hashed this out. Meb has 10k and 20k AR's, multiple national titles, and a silver in the Olympics. His career stats taking in total (pr's, national titles, AR's, medals in major championships) SO FAR are at least as good, and probably better than Hall and Ritz. If Ritz and Hall quit today (injuries or whatever), I would not say that they had better careers than Meb. HOWEVER...... yes, Ritz and Hall have a very likely chance, because of their age, to end up with better careers. It just hasn't happened yet.

b) You do not hope Meb proves he is "as good as" Ritz and Hall, because then you'd have to admit you were wrong if he does.

Flagpole, you had faith in Ritz more than most, and I have given you props for that. But pretty soon you will have to get over that. Because you've also been wrong about TONS of things related to Ritz and others. Want a sampler??

1) guaranteed Ritz would run 26:50 and 12:50 by around 2007 (trust me, I've quoted this post of your before. I think in 2005 you said: within 2 years he'd definitely run those times). As good as 12:56 is, he still isn't near the level you guaranteed he would be at by now.

2) Ritz debut marathon. I predicted 2:14, you said you thought he could run 2:08/9. He ran 2:14. He still hasn't broke 2:10

3) you said there would be no way Webb would beat Ritz in 10k. You were wrong.

4) you said that to put Teg or Hall in the same category of talent as Ritz was insane (this was prior to their big breakthroughs)

and on and on.

So Flagpole, I think Ritz's 12:56 has over elevated your belief in your prognosticating ability. Time to dial that back a bit.

Sir Lance,

Even though I've mentioned this before, you still do not get where I'm coming from. Meb to date has had a better CAREER than Ritz and Hall, because he's been at it longer; I agree with you there. This though does NOT tell you that he is a better runner. Frank Shorter had a better career than Ritz has had so far, but Ritz is the better runner. No race that Meb has run is equivalent in time to the 5,000 AR Ritz just ran (that I predicted of course), or the half or marathon that Hall has run, and his silver medal just does not trump everything else. That was one race. It simply can't top faster times; not in my opinion it can't.

Things change over time, and I put Tegenkamp in the same realm with Ritz even before he ran that 13:04 let alone the 12:58. I was shocked by Hall's half marathon AR and said so at the time. I honestly never thought he would ever run that fast, and prior to that amazing run of his, he had been very sporadic and had done nothing to show he could run such a fast half marathon. I don't mind being wrong here and there (most of you think I do, but that's only because YOU all would hate to be proven wrong; I see things and make predictions, more than anyone else here, and so sometimes I'm wrong; if I cared about being wrong I'd never make a prediction...like most of you who don't). I'm also right a lot of the time, and I was with Ritz (and with him and breaking that AR in the 5,000, it wasn't just a simple prediction...I was adamant about it and said he would do it for sure...and he did). Also, regarding Ritz and the 5,000, I said he for sure would break Kennedy's AR because he had stated it was a goal of his, but I also said he likely would not run 12:50 if he went to the marathon -- this was before he went to the marathon, and now he has. When training for the marathon, he just doesn't have as many opportunities to run the 5,000. He may never run another 5,000 for all we know. I maintain he has the talent level to run 12:50 though if he were to focus on it for a bit. I don't think he will though as he will next attack the 10,000 AR and marathon. I see 2:05 for him in the marathon if he can stay healthy.

You guys are amazing. We had half a page of good discussion, then Flagpole chimes in with a fairly reasonable post, and you all go bananas trying spilt hairs with him.

Let's take a step back for a second, and evaluate Flagpole's argument from a more general perspective. It seems to me that he's arguing mostly (or originally anyway) that an athlete's recent accomplishments are more useful for making performance predictions than their career accomplishments. Is this really that controversial an idea? Does anyone here really think Peter Snell could go out there, train his ass off for a year, and then run 1:44? It's an extreme example, but I hope you see my point. You could likewise make an argument that Webb is more likely to run 3:33 next year than 3:30 given his performances over the last two years. How about Ramaala? The Brojos always mention him as a possible winner in the marathon, but his best is just under 2:07 at London, and his best in NY is 2:09, 5 years ago. If he's run NY since, he hasn't finished. In fact, he hasn't finished any Marathon except London since that run either.

Personally, I think we should have a statute of limitations on personal bests. If you're writing a prediction article for some event, you should ignore accomplishments and personal bests that are, say, more than 4 or 5 years old. If the athlete has run close to that time since, you could mention it then, but otherwise just acknowledge that result has little bearing on the upcoming race and move on.