Hall said after Bolder Boulder that he was shooting for 4:50s today and he ran 4:48s. Considering he ran faster in the half today than he ran at Bolder Boulder, it's a good race for him. He's still getting back into shape. I know you want him to be the 59:XX guy, but he's heading in the right direction.
Ryan Hall wouldnt give PEDs to a fly.
collegexcrunner9 wrote:
Ryan Hall wouldnt give PEDs to a fly.
Someone will post that Francois deLambre did not intend to hurt a fly either.
Then someone will point out his coach was closely involved in the discovery of every PED (some would say He created them).
Then someone will reply pro or con.
and it spirals downward
until someone hits the report a post.
reed wrote:
hate to be THAT GUY
but 62:51 is not a good result from him.
i don't know the course...but guys ran 60:10 today.
No, you obviously don't hate to be that guy because you willingly chose to be that guy.
jjjjjjjjj wrote:
He's at an early stage in his preparation for a fall marathon, so I have no problem at all with this time. Sub 1:03 is quite good for him at this stage and he hasn't run much faster in years even close to a marathon, has he?
You have no problem with this time? Very big of you.
Your post is interesting. It shows that with average half marathon times historically , Hall is capable of sub 2:10 which puts him in the top tier of american marathoners.
Im not so sure by going to a big marathon and running sub 2:10 does much for him outside of collecting his appearance money. It would be nice to see him go to lesser marathon and win with a credible time.
Good result. He said he wanted to have an MP paced workout which is what he got. Good training effort.
King Arthur wrote:
62.51 is not bad.
In 2008 Hall ran the second half of the US marathon trials in 62:45, and he did it on the hilly central park course.
So, sorry, 62:51 sucks donkey balls for someone of his pedigree.
If he was just running a tempo well within himself, then that's a solid effort.
A Suck wrote:
How could anyone call this "solid"?
Because the bar of the past 3 years is low.
Did you not see his Boston?
This is a huge step in the right direction.
1:02 IS solid. Especially the way he has been racing.
You cant expect him to hop back into it at PR pace.
stupid.
r u kidding me! wrote:
In 2008 Hall ran the second half of the US marathon trials in 62:45, and he did it on the hilly central park course.
And Galen ran 13:18 for his second 5k of his race last Friday, even though he only raced a 13:19 a couple weeks ago. But he was obviously fine. Just an early season race that doesn't matter.
r u kidding me! wrote:
In 2008 Hall ran the second half of the US marathon trials in 62:45, and he did it on the hilly central park course.
Seriously, you're going to compare his fitness after running a 2:17 marathon vs. when he ran the most his most impressive marathon (maybe THE most impressive by an American) ever? It's a step in the right direction, that's all you can ask for every time out.
If you read what his targets where prior to the race, then you would know he was targeting 4:50 pace following from a 4:55 target pace at Bolder Boulder. He ran 4:48 pace, so I would call that a solid effort.
He was clearly not running half marathons fresh after that first one, because he ran 1:02:20 in the year of his 2:04:58 at Boston and 2:08:04 at Chicago. But this sub 1:03 has got him in the right direction, and just about a month and a half after his poor performance at Boston. It would be great if he could remain healthy all year and regain his sub 60 form before a fall marathon. Then he could well be competitive for quite a few majors.