ttc wrote:
ttc wrote:Hall never had good speed. His mile & 1500 PR's are slower than Todd Williams'.
Plus, it's obvious w/o looking up PR's. He's no speedster.
You don't know much. He ran 1:49 or 1:50 for 800m in HS. He went about it the wrong way, but he was trying to break 4:00 for the mile as a junior in HS. He had much faster times in the 800m-1600m-3200m in HS than T-Will did.
Agree with newname. You don't know too much do ya?Hall had a lot of leg speed in high school. Why do you post things ttc that you know nothing about?
newname wrote:
ttc wrote:Plus, it's obvious w/o looking up PR's. He's no speedster.
You don't know much. He ran 1:49 or 1:50 for 800m in HS. He went about it the wrong way, but he was trying to break 4:00 for the mile as a junior in HS. He had much faster times in the 800m-1600m-3200m in HS than T-Will did.
I don't get why people are using his 2:04 as a reference point. That time came out of the massive tailwind race in Boston back in 2011.
Dewey_Runner wrote:
I don't get why people are using his 2:04 as a reference point. That time came out of the massive tailwind race in Boston back in 2011.
What!? Hold the phone. That's the first I'm hearing of this!
Even though he's getting a little old he still has some speed.
yourmom.com wrote:
Dewey_Runner wrote:I don't get why people are using his 2:04 as a reference point. That time came out of the massive tailwind race in Boston back in 2011.
What!? Hold the phone. That's the first I'm hearing of this!
That wasn't wind; 'twas the rosey breathe of God!
I can see placing an asterisk beside a freakish long jump performed with the support of a powerful tailwind or for a 100m run with a strong prevailing tailwind...but when you run 26 miles in 2:04...man, you run 26 miles! I could argue that from a physiological standpoint it's HARDER running a marathon with a strong tailwind than with a weak one or without any wind. The tailwind pushes you to run faster than you were prepared or physically capable of running without it. That means your body is forced to sustain an effort beyond your capability for 2 HOURS! That's not physiologically equivalent to a 10 second sprint effort or a single effort of seconds in the long jump pit. If you run for 2 hours, you run for 2 hours. Period. Don't tell me about increased efficiency - and don't tell me about drafting, this isn't the same as drafting. This is a physical force pushing your body forward faster than your body is able to push itself. It increases impact load, increases aerobic demand, and increases dozens of stressors on muscles, connective tissues, blood vessels and nerves. Despite all of those factors, Hall ran a marathon in 2:04. If any one of you had done so, you'd certainly use it as a point of reference. In a heart beat. And I'd support you. We dismiss Hall's 2:04 like he did it on a bicycle. He ran it. In sneakers. Against gravity. It was hard. That didn't stop him. He had the talent, toughness and tenacity to do it. Nobody can take that away from him because the wind was blowing.
Dewey_Runner wrote:
I don't get why people are using his 2:04 as a reference point. That time came out of the massive tailwind race in Boston back in 2011.
His 2:06:17 from London in 2008 is a better guide, and that grades out to a 26:55 10K, which would still be good enough for second best all-time in the US. But the year before that, in 2007, he was only running 28 on the track. I think the truth is just that Hall was a better marathoner than 10,000 runner.
Michael C wrote:
I can see placing an asterisk beside a freakish long jump performed with the support of a powerful tailwind or for a 100m run with a strong prevailing tailwind...but when you run 26 miles in 2:04...man, you run 26 miles! I could argue that from a physiological standpoint it's HARDER running a marathon with a strong tailwind than with a weak one or without any wind. The tailwind pushes you to run faster than you were prepared or physically capable of running without it. That means your body is forced to sustain an effort beyond your capability for 2 HOURS! That's not physiologically equivalent to a 10 second sprint effort or a single effort of seconds in the long jump pit. If you run for 2 hours, you run for 2 hours. Period. Don't tell me about increased efficiency - and don't tell me about drafting, this isn't the same as drafting. This is a physical force pushing your body forward faster than your body is able to push itself. It increases impact load, increases aerobic demand, and increases dozens of stressors on muscles, connective tissues, blood vessels and nerves. Despite all of those factors, Hall ran a marathon in 2:04. If any one of you had done so, you'd certainly use it as a point of reference. In a heart beat. And I'd support you. We dismiss Hall's 2:04 like he did it on a bicycle. He ran it. In sneakers. Against gravity. It was hard. That didn't stop him. He had the talent, toughness and tenacity to do it. Nobody can take that away from him because the wind was blowing.
finally someone gets it.
Michael C wrote:
I could argue that from a physiological standpoint it's HARDER running a marathon with a strong tailwind than with a weak one or without any wind.
You could, but it would be a stupid argument.
Halleluja wrote:
What champions do wrote:I have always wondered why hall never made a serious attempt at 10000m.
According to McMillan Calculator, his 2:04 translates to a 26:26. So even if he doesn't have the raw speed, he should still easily be able to run ~26:40.
FWIW, for the 5k, McMillan has 12:44 for him. So, certainly sub 12:50 if he "jogs it out".
I don't get it.... If he runs a 12:44... He's breaking the world record... I don't think so... And if he can run a sub 12:50 that would place him in top 15 of all time, which would be nice...
But am I getting something wrong? I don't think he can do it...
Michael C wrote:
I could argue that from a physiological standpoint it's HARDER running a marathon with a strong tailwind ...
I agree I think that times get faster when there is a tailwind because it's more difficult.
Michael C wrote:
I can see placing an asterisk beside a freakish long jump performed with the support of a powerful tailwind or for a 100m run with a strong prevailing tailwind...but when you run 26 miles in 2:04...man, you run 26 miles! I could argue that from a physiological standpoint it's HARDER running a marathon with a strong tailwind than with a weak one or without any wind. The tailwind pushes you to run faster than you were prepared or physically capable of running without it. That means your body is forced to sustain an effort beyond your capability for 2 HOURS! That's not physiologically equivalent to a 10 second sprint effort or a single effort of seconds in the long jump pit. If you run for 2 hours, you run for 2 hours. Period. Don't tell me about increased efficiency - and don't tell me about drafting, this isn't the same as drafting. This is a physical force pushing your body forward faster than your body is able to push itself. It increases impact load, increases aerobic demand, and increases dozens of stressors on muscles, connective tissues, blood vessels and nerves. Despite all of those factors, Hall ran a marathon in 2:04. If any one of you had done so, you'd certainly use it as a point of reference. In a heart beat. And I'd support you. We dismiss Hall's 2:04 like he did it on a bicycle. He ran it. In sneakers. Against gravity. It was hard. That didn't stop him. He had the talent, toughness and tenacity to do it. Nobody can take that away from him because the wind was blowing.
So I'm assuming you take David Torrence's college mile PR as 3:46 then, right? He DID run it, in sneakers and everything...
Michael C wrote:
I can see placing an asterisk beside a freakish long jump performed with the support of a powerful tailwind or for a 100m run with a strong prevailing tailwind...but when you run 26 miles in 2:04...man, you run 26 miles! I could argue that from a physiological standpoint it's HARDER running a marathon with a strong tailwind than with a weak one or without any wind. The tailwind pushes you to run faster than you were prepared or physically capable of running without it. That means your body is forced to sustain an effort beyond your capability for 2 HOURS! That's not physiologically equivalent to a 10 second sprint effort or a single effort of seconds in the long jump pit. If you run for 2 hours, you run for 2 hours. Period. Don't tell me about increased efficiency - and don't tell me about drafting, this isn't the same as drafting. This is a physical force pushing your body forward faster than your body is able to push itself. It increases impact load, increases aerobic demand, and increases dozens of stressors on muscles, connective tissues, blood vessels and nerves. Despite all of those factors, Hall ran a marathon in 2:04. If any one of you had done so, you'd certainly use it as a point of reference. In a heart beat. And I'd support you. We dismiss Hall's 2:04 like he did it on a bicycle. He ran it. In sneakers. Against gravity. It was hard. That didn't stop him. He had the talent, toughness and tenacity to do it. Nobody can take that away from him because the wind was blowing.
1973 Boston Marathon (DNF)
1973 Bay State Marathon (2:28:12) 1st Course Record (CR)
1974 Boston (2:19:34) 14th
1974 New York City Marathon (NYC) (2:36:00) 5th
1974 Philadelphia Marathon (2:21:57) 1st CR
1975 Boston (2:09:55) 1st American Record (AR)
1975 Enschede Marathon, Holland (DNF)
1975 Fukuoka Marathon (2:11:26) 3rd
1976 Olympic Trials (2:11:58) 2nd
1976 Montreal Olympics (2:25:14) 40th
1976 NYC (2:10:10) 1st CR
1976 Sedo Island, Japan (2:08:23) 1st CR (200 meters short)
1976 Maryland (2:14:28) 1st CR
1977 Kyoto, Japan (2:14:25) 1st
1977 Boston (DNF)
1977 Amsterdam, Holland (2:12:46) 1st CR
1977 Waynesboro (2:25:12) 1st
1977 NYC (2:11:28) 1st
1977 Fukuoka (2:10:55) 1st
1978 Boston (2:10:13) 1st
1978 NYC (2:12:12) 1st
1978 Fukuoka (2:12:53) 6th
1979 Boston (2:09:27) 1st AR
1979 Montreal (2:22:12) 15th
1979 NYC (2:11:42) 1st
1980 Boston (2:12:11) 1st
1980 Toronto (2:14:47) 1st
1980 NYC (2:13:20) 5th
1981 Houston-Tennaco (2:12:10) 1st CR
1981 Boston (2:10:34) 3rd
1981 Atlantica-Boavista, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2:14:13) 1st CR
1981 Stockholm, Sweden (2:13:28) 1st
1981 Bank One, Columbus, OH (2:17:34) 7th
1982 Houston (2:14:51) 5th
1982 Tokyo (2:24) 301st
1982 Boston (2:12:38) 4th
1982 Atlantica-Boavista, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (DNF)
1982 Melbourne, Australia (2:11:08) 1st
1983 Orange Bowl, FL (2:15:08) 1st
1983 Boston (2:11:58) 10th
1983 Beijing, China (DNF)
1983 Chicago (2:21:40)
1984 U.S. Olympic Trials (2:13:31) 8th
1985 New Jersey Waterfront (2:14:46) 2nd
1985 NYC (2:15:31) 7th
1986 Boston (2:13:35) 4th
1986 Chicago (2:15:31) 11th
1987 Phoenix (DNF)
1987 Boston (2:18:18) 15th
1987 NYC (2:25:01) 54th
1988 Phoenix (DNF)
1988 Los Angeles ( 2:20:27) 2nd masters
1988 Boston (2:18:17) 2nd masters
1988 NYC (DNF)
Look at the list of high-level marathons Bill Rodgers ran over 16 years. Out of the 11 years that he finished the Boston Marathon, he ran his fastest marathon of the year 10 TIMES. Only in 1982 (when he ran 2:12:38 and placed 4th compared to Melbourne in 2:11:08) did he not run his fastest marathon of the year in Boston. 10 out of 11 years.
Rodgers has two 2:09:XX times ... both are at Boston.
Rodgers has FOUR 2:10:XX times ... two of them are at Boston.
Greg Meyer ran a 2:09:00 at Boston and his second fastest was 2:10:59, and third was 2:13:07. All three were wins. Only the 2:09 was at Boston.
DeCastella was the fastest marathoner in the world in three separate years. He has run one in 2:07, several in 2:08 and 2:09, many in 2:10. His fastest in his long career was his 2:07:51 in Boston in 1986.
For men, in the last 40 years, the fastest marathon of the year has come in Boston FIVE times. Which is surprising in this age of big-money super-fast marathons with waves of pacers.
For women it is EIGHT times since 1980. EIGHT out of 35 years.
Are you starting to think that a tailwind might NOT make you slower?
Confused in Ohio wrote:
Agree with newname. You don't know too much do ya?
Hall had a lot of leg speed in high school.
Why do you post things ttc that you know nothing about?
newname wrote:You don't know much. He ran 1:49 or 1:50 for 800m in HS. He went about it the wrong way, but he was trying to break 4:00 for the mile as a junior in HS. He had much faster times in the 800m-1600m-3200m in HS than T-Will did.
Hall in HS was closer to his pro peak than Todd was, is all. You're considering only junior age group HS times. I'm taking lifetime racing & PR's.
Nick Symmonds was a 1:53 800M & 4:24 1600M guy in HS.
Your logic then says Hall's speed >> Symmonds'.
I know Todd Williams pretty well. I raced against him indoors, outdoors and in XC. I also know his PRs.
He won the indoor and outdoor 3200 in my state both his junior and senior year. And I was a 2miler. Won in 9:21 and 9:11, then 9:07 and 9:01. Amazing.
Todd tried to win the 1600 at State Meet and lost both years. by .3 the junior yr and by .10 the senior yr.
He ran 13:20 one yr, then 13:19, then 13:21, then 13:20. He was maxed out at that pace. He was a great runner.
Your arguments are stupid.
You said Hall shouldn't run on the track because he "His mile & 1500 PR's are slower than Todd Williams'."
Hall won the CIF 1600 as a junior and senior in 4:06 and 4:02. He also won the 3200 as a junior in 8:55.
Hall never ran the 1500 seriously after his freshman yr in college when he ran 3:43.
Williams NEVER ran the mile seriously as far as I can tell after losing the State Title to Cliff Dwelle.
But he was slower at every level than Hall. Hall was a more talented runner than almost everyone that has ever run. He has not had a lot of success on the track (since 2005) because he has run mostly road races (and mostly marathons) since 2007 ... eight years ago. But his lack of success was not because he was maxed out at 3:42.
Had he been managed differently many felt that he would have achieved close to what Rupp has by now. Top-10 finishes at WC meets and times around 7:30/13:00/27:00.
But 2:06:17 is pretty damn good too.