Ryan Hall Interview: "I wouldn't mind putting that time on a flat certified course"

007run wrote:

I meant don't make Ryan's run what it is not.

We know what you meant....and that's the problem. After 115 years with most all the best marathoners of all time, Ryan ran the fastest time ever, other than the 3 ahead of him yesterday. Huge props to one of the nicest guys you could ever hope to meet

ryan foreman wrote:

s criticism of Ryan's time being overrated misses what is important. He finished fourth. This after many said his career was toast after his performance in the New York half just weeks ago.

We get it that all the times were wind aided and it was a net downhill. Fine. He still finished fourth. Damn good performance.

It's a good performance but nothing out of the ordinary for Hall. Boston 2010 - 4th; NYC 2009 - 4th; Boston 2009 - 3rd; London 2008 (probably his best performance place and time) - 5th. He's not done but this seems to be as high as he will place in a major marathon.

I'm not going to do the usual and diss Ryan's faith or his craziness with god. I will leave that alone for a minute. What I'm saying is on a certified course Mutai and Mosop would have run about 2:05 and Ryan about 2:07. While Boston has had many great runners, its never had a field like London or Rotterdam. The top 2 or 3 are gonna be pretty good but then it separates a lot. Like he was 2 minutes from the winner. I think this is good for Ryan to hype (for sponsors and the American running community) but he is delusional if he now thinks of himself as a 2:04 guy so to speak.

007run wrote:

I think this is good for Ryan to hype (for sponsors and the American running community) but he is delusional if he now thinks of himself as a 2:04 guy so to speak.

So if you ran the 2012 marathon qualifying time for the Olympic Trials at Boston this week, let's say 2:17:30, you would petition to disqualify yourself based on the fact that you would be considered delusional if you called yourself a qualifier, registered, and toed the line? Or will they have a separate race for the 2:19 "so to speak" qualifiers too?

Another side note: Lukas V ran a sub 4 road mile a little ways back. It was in 3:57 or something like that; however, we don't give him credit for being a sub 4 miler in HS because the race was on the roads and it had too much downhill to make it real and it was point to point I believe. Same logic with Ryan's run.

say whats wrote:

007run wrote:

I think this is good for Ryan to hype (for sponsors and the American running community) but he is delusional if he now thinks of himself as a 2:04 guy so to speak.

So if you ran the 2012 marathon qualifying time for the Olympic Trials at Boston this week, let's say 2:17:30, you would petition to disqualify yourself based on the fact that you would be considered delusional if you called yourself a qualifier, registered, and toed the line? Or will they have a separate race for the 2:19 "so to speak" qualifiers too?

If I were in the that position, I would not run Boston in the first place because its not certified by the IAAF for records. Now if the USATF recognized Boston times for the trials then of course I wouldn't disqualify myself. I am not aware of whether Boston times are admissible for the trials. That is another issue entirely and only has to do with the USATF.

007run wrote:

Had he finished 4th in London I would be a little more impressed. In reality, on a normal world record certified course without the wind aids, he probably ran about 2:07 or 2:08. Also, he only ran 3 seconds under 2:05. People are acting like he ran 2:04.03 or something. And, he got beat by almost 2 minutes. It was an alright race but he hasn't improved at all when you consider all the factors in the race and his previous races. 2:07 or 8 and 4th sounds like standard Ryan Hall. Kinda boring without the wind to hype him up. Sorry to be a killjoy but we need to get real about what happened here.

No, actually a 207 or 208 on Boston's course would be faster than he's ever done there. That means he improved, idiot. Plus, you have to take into account the fact that he ran a 64 minute half just a few weeks ago. Obviously, this is a great improvement, and shuts up the naysayers who thought he would bomb.

Are you kidding or are you really that clueless? Repeat after me: "What I'm saying is on a certified course Mutai and Mosop would have run about 2:05 and Ryan about 2:07." Now note the difference with what you said, "No, actually a 207 or 208 on Boston's course would be faster than he's ever done there."

Having trouble with the difference between the "Boston course" and "a certified course"? I know that's a challenging concept but give it a whirl.

007's 2:07 on a certified course is more like 2:09 at Boston (in case you missed it Boston is generally considered a few minutes slower than the fast flat courses). A 2:09 at Boston is not a great improvement over previous Hall performances, but about on par with last year or perhaps not too far behind London 2:06 (just as 007 said or implied).

007run wrote:

That is another issue entirely and only has to do with the USATF.

No, you stated he would be delusional to consider himself a 2:04 guy, so wondering how you severely would treat yourself under those conditions.

And by the way, Boston is acceptable according to Dave Monti per this Letsrun article link:

"The new rules limit course elevation loss to a maximum of 3.25m/km for setting acceptable marks. That rules out courses like St. George (18.5m/km elevation loss), Top of Utah (7.6m/km), and Steamtown (6.83 m/km). However, marks achieved on slightly aided course like Boston (3.23m/km) and California International (2.45m/km) are acceptable. Although not explicitly stated, it appears that half-marathon courses must not exceed the 3.25m/km elevation loss for marks to count towards qualifying."

007run wrote:

That's like saying if Bolt runs 9.2 in the 100 with a super wind at his back, its a world record. It wouldn't be. Hall was not part of a world record run. He assisted in a very fast downhill marathon that was wind aided. Nothing more.

.

Except for the fact that, despite being downhill, Boston is not a fast marathon as evidenced by the sequence of times measure over the past century as compared to fast, flate courses. It was the wind.

not a doc wrote:

...a new world record was run yesterday

No, it wasn't.

I'm in agreement that the times should not be counted for record purposes because of the net downhill, but I'm not so sure about Hall's 2:04 only being worth a 2:08 on a course like Chicago or London. I mean, the hills in Boston are pretty significant and that has to slow the runners down a little. Boston really isn't known for being a fast course. Hall ran the course faster than anyone in the history of the race (except for the 3 guys in front of him Monday). So I really don't buy this 2:08 business.

007run wrote:

In reality, on a normal world record certified course without the wind aids, he probably ran about 2:07 or 2:08. [..] but he hasn't improved at all

1. Right: 2:07 to 2:08 sounds spot on and after all is still an AWESOME performance. But it's still way off 2:04.

2. In his defense, he has improved a lot from his form last year where he had this disaster run in Philly and then cancelled Chicago.

Yes but being a sub 4 high schooler is a track designation. Track is a whole different animal, its aim is to have people compete in basically identical conditions, thats why you can't have tailwinds for sprint records. Road running is a playing the cards you are dealt type situation.

007 is a sad person, you have to wonder about guys like that.

If the ONLY thing that impresses you is a first place finish then you dont understand distance running or the context of Hall's run, or the history of Boston.

Hall ran his @ss off wind or not, he was in the mix the entire way and is given credit for actually making it a race.

He showed all of us that doubted his self coaching method.

IF Hall had won Boston with a 210 he woulda said the field was weak and the win is meaningless.

If Hall runs crazy fast but comes in 4th it's the wind.

IF Hall runs crazy fast but comes in 2nd "he doesnt have the killer instict."

I guess he'd have to win and set a world record to get a head nod from the esteemed 007.

inventoryscanned wrote:

007 is a sad person, you have to wonder about guys like that...

No, not really. Seems like he is just trying to be realistic about the significance of the Boston times. I may or may not agree with his analysis but spouting the notion that he "is a sad person" is truly lame.

Up until 2010, Boston was considered a slow course. Robert (not K) Cheruiyot's 2:07 seemed superhuman. And while 2:07-08 would win Boston, lesser races were seeing 2:06s and lower for winning times. No one would have ever argued that Boston was anything other than a +1-2 minute marathon. The elevation drop is a sham statistic in that it treats a fast course with minimal uphills like Cal International the same as a tough course with tons of uphills and downhills like Boston.

Boston had a plus 2-3 min tailwind on a minus 1-2 minute course--net plus 1-2. Thus, Ryan Hall legitimately PR-ed on the course by at least two minutes. That is massive coming from a guy who was almost completely washed up six months ago. Hall definitely has the potential to be a 2:05 guy on a flat course. The big test for Hall is going to be learning how to pick up the pace the way the E. Africans have been doing late in races. The marathon is no longer a survival test. It is a flat out race.

Standing on the sidelines down playing someone else's great run is sad, so I think he is a sad person with a sad life.

Boston is not as fast as everyone seems to think. 204 is 204, just as 203 is 203. The pace still needs to be run.

100m. is a far cry from 26.2 miles.

Get over the fact Ryan Hall is at another level, both as an athlete and person.