Allright Letsrun - Who wins, Ryan Hall 2007 or Galen Rupp in 2017

based on your own mile splits, Rupp actually AVERAGED just over 14:10 for his last five miles, so while we knew that Hall had a great, great run in his legs that day in 2007 and he validated that in the coming years, after destroying that field on a very hilly course, Rupp didn't just get one 14:25. He ran 22:51 for his last five miles to 26. That's also about 28:20ish 10k pace.

xvcvxcvxcv wrote:

He ran 22:51 for his last five miles to 26. That's also about 28:20ish 10k pace.

This is really quite jaw-dropping. 22:51 for 5 miles. At the end of a marathon, even.

Gotta bee wrote:

He's beat a 2:02:57 guy

Sorry, I wasn't clear -- I was referring to the times in that race. A guy ran 2:06:30 in London 2008, and Hall beat him that day (along with a couple guys who ran 2:08).

Just pointing out that while it's easy to say that Rupp would find a way to beat a guy running a 2:07 or 2:08, he's never done that. Rupp looks good at the end of his marathons because he's barely breaking 2:10 -- I want to see what he looks like after 22 miles at 2:06 pace...

Rupp fanboism on this site is crazy. I beat Henry Rono the same number of years after his epic 1978 season as Rupp beat Dennis.

By logic on LR, Rupp is better than a 2:02.57 marathoner.

I am not, and never was better than Henry Rono, other than on that one particular day. He was having issues, I was not (having quite as many).

Until Rupp runs a time that guys in canvas shoes ran in the 1960s, any talk of comparing him to what Hall ran is insane.

Rupp.

Hall's Olympic Trials race was incredible, but it also proves the point. While he was on fire that day, he didn't need to go that fast. I suspect Rupp would have treated that race as business-as-usual, locked up the victory, and saved his "going to the well" for when it really matters.

Hence, Rupp seems always to step it up big time when it counts -- Olympics, Chicago, etc. So if, for whatever reason, a Rupp vs. Hall grudge match was deemed as Super Important, I'm pretty positive Rupp would lock his eyes on crossing the finish line first, come hell or high water, while Hall might blow up.

You could probably thanks Al Sal for a lot of this thoughtful career planning. It makes me wonder whether Hall (and Ritz, Webb, etc.) could have stayed at the top of their game a lot, lot longer if they'd navigated their career with the end in mind from the start

Raysism wrote:

Gotta bee wrote:

He's beat a 2:02:57 guy

Sorry, I wasn't clear -- I was referring to the times in that race. A guy ran 2:06:30 in London 2008, and Hall beat him that day (along with a couple guys who ran 2:08).

Just pointing out that while it's easy to say that Rupp would find a way to beat a guy running a 2:07 or 2:08, he's never done that. Rupp looks good at the end of his marathons because he's barely breaking 2:10 -- I want to see what he looks like after 22 miles at 2:06 pace...

So your point is that Hall was able to run 2:06 on the same day that others were able to run 2:06? I would think that is evidence that there were favorable conditions more than any indication of Hall's fitness.

But I would agree that calling Kimetto 2:02 guy in this year's Chicago is a joke.

Das.Wetter.Stinkt wrote:

Rupp.

Hall's Olympic Trials race was incredible, but it also proves the point. While he was on fire that day, he didn't need to go that fast. I suspect Rupp would have treated that race as business-as-usual, locked up the victory, and saved his "going to the well" for when it really matters.

This is total hindsight rationalization. Ritz's second place time in 2008 was faster than Rupp's winning time in 2016. Hall had to go fast. He was racing a loaded field in 2008 -- literally no one thought he was anything other than genius on that day.

Also, Hall's next race was a 2:06 for 5th place in London, so I'm pretty sure that 2:09 wasn't him "going to the well".

Look, I think Rupp's the greatest US distance runner ever, and totally appreciate the idea that he could come up big against Hall if it mattered. But Hall's marathon resume is far, far superior to Rupp's (he broke 2:08:40 five times -- twice in his first three marathons!), and Rupp has won exactly one race of note. If Hall was the better marathoner at his peak, I think he beats Rupp 6 or 7 out of 10 times.

peekay wrote:

I said Rupp would do what it took to win against Hall.

Do you honestly think Hall, in the best shape of his life, would have won that 2:08 race at the Olympics in 2016?

And I'm too lazy to look, were there actually only 2 2:06 guys in the Olympic Marathon in 2016? Is that why he got bronze? Of all the Africans in that race only 2 had run 2:06:30?

No, I count 10

peekay wrote:

So your point is that Hall was able to run 2:06 on the same day that others were able to run 2:06? I would think that is evidence that there were favorable conditions more than any indication of Hall's fitness.

But I would agree that calling Kimetto 2:02 guy in this year's Chicago is a joke.

My point is just that Rupp hasn't beaten a guy who has run a fast marathon.

He couldn't beat a 2:08 or a 2:09 performance when it mattered in his first two marathons, so I don't know why it's such a given that he'd beat Hall if he ran a 2:07.

But totally agree about the conditions part. Hall ran in some nice, cool, fast races. Would like to see if Rupp could do the same.

I would love to see that race.

I think the way Hall would win is if he was at his peak or near it and dropped Rupp in the last miles. I don't know that a "peak Hall" would be capable of that because I don't think we have seen Rupp's best time yet. But I agree with those who think that if they were to hang together Rupp would likely win. And we are talking about Hall on a very good to great day. I think Rupp is more consistent and that says something.

I am a Hall fan - it was so exciting to see those times he ran back in 2007. And his passion for the sport and the distance was inspiring. I like seeing Rupp doing well and everything but when he talks about the training for the marathon being boring it just doesn't make me like him more. I'm a sucker, I want to see the guy who loves it win.

I agree with all this, but if Rupp was more consistent than Hall, it's not by much. At the end, Hall was a broken down used car, but he was remarkably consistent for a marathoner -- he had a much longer career than all but a handful of the top Africans:

Spring 2007: 2:08:24

Fall 2007: 2:09:02

Spring 2008: 2:06:17

Fall 2008: 2:12:33

Spring 2009: 2:09:40

Fall 2009: 2:10:36

Spring 2010: 2:08:40

Fall 2010: DNS

Spring 2011: 2:04:58

Fall 2011: 2:08:04

Spring 2012: 2:09:30

Just look at that list. If a non-Rupp American ran a 2:10:36 this year, we'd be really excited -- and that was Hall's 9th best marathon...

Quite the contrary, with an Olympic medal (which was just his second marathon and preceded by a 10k final) and a WMM win, while Hall has never (and will never) won either. Time-wise, his 2:09 with a 1:03 second half under warm condition indicates he could have run much faster (and this also showed that Rupp can cope with adverse weather as well),

When it comes to the marathon (actually distance running in general) I'd rather have the career of Rupp than Hall.

Agreed. Hall is more passionate and hard-working, but Rupp just has more talent, however despicable he is.

George213 wrote:

Agreed. Hall is more passionate and hard-working, but Rupp just has more talent, however despicable he is.

Hall may be more "passionate" but I don't know if there is anyone more "hard-working" than Rupp. Does any American live a more dedicated life than him?

Don't think you can say he is more talented either. Just a more engineered career.

I don't disagree that he can be "despicable" in some people's eyes

George213 wrote:

Quite the contrary, with an Olympic medal (which was just his second marathon and preceded by a 10k final) and a WMM win, while Hall has never (and will never) won either. Time-wise, his 2:09 with a 1:03 second half under warm condition indicates he could have run much faster (and this also showed that Rupp can cope with adverse weather as well),

When it comes to the marathon (actually distance running in general) I'd rather have the career of Rupp than Hall.

I agree that Rupp has an Olympic medal, that Rupp could run faster than 2:09, that Hall never won a big race, and that I'd rather have his career. But that's not the question. The question is whether Rupp could beat a guy who has a long, long track record of being faster than him at races longer than 10K.

Rupp could have eight Olympic medals, and he ain't beating a 2:06 guy unless he can run a 2:06, which is still very much up in the air. Mo Farah has a few medals as I recall, and I don't think he's necessarily a lock to beat Hall's PR.

The marathon's a weird race, with weird fields and weird weather. No easy answers, especially when comparing these two.

Definitely Hall based on actual facts and races actually run.

The argument in favor of Rupp depends entirely on speculation about what Rupp could of, would of, or should of run to get around his actual 2:09:20 marathon PR. We know what Hall did. He soloed 2:09:02 in November 2007 and then ran 2:06:17 the next April.

We don't know what Rupp will do in the future. Maybe Rupp will turn out to be as great as Hall and 2018 Rupp will be clearly superior to 2007 Hall. But that hasn't happened yet.

Raysism wrote:

I agree with all this, but if Rupp was more consistent than Hall, it's not by much. At the end, Hall was a broken down used car, but he was remarkably consistent for a marathoner -- he had a much longer career than all but a handful of the top Africans:

Spring 2007: 2:08:24

Fall 2007: 2:09:02

Spring 2008: 2:06:17

Fall 2008: 2:12:33

Spring 2009: 2:09:40

Fall 2009: 2:10:36

Spring 2010: 2:08:40

Fall 2010: DNS

Spring 2011: 2:04:58

Fall 2011: 2:08:04

Spring 2012: 2:09:30

Just look at that list. If a non-Rupp American ran a 2:10:36 this year, we'd be really excited -- and that was Hall's 9th best marathon...

This seals it for me. I was also going to say that Hall was less consistent, but come on, look at that -- I must have been biased by his later years. Hall at his best wins for sure.

Your last comment (just above mine) is on point as well.

hold your horses wrote:

Definitely Hall based on actual facts and races actually run.

The argument in favor of Rupp depends entirely on speculation about what Rupp could of, would of, or should of run to get around his actual 2:09:20 marathon PR. We know what Hall did. He soloed 2:09:02 in November 2007 and then ran 2:06:17 the next April.

We don't know what Rupp will do in the future. Maybe Rupp will turn out to be as great as Hall and 2018 Rupp will be clearly superior to 2007 Hall. But that hasn't happened yet.

Of course the argument in favor of Rupp depends on speculation -- why on Earth would we be debating this (unrelated point: why on Earth ARE we doing so...?) if we weren't going to speculate? It's a fact that Hall's run faster than Rupp's PR on multiple occasions.

Then again, we're ALSO talking about who would WIN such a race -- and Rupp's got an edge on actually winning big races (or, if I can stretch things a taaaad, on winning an Olympic medal). Since this race will never actually happen, we'll never get to put our competing views to the test.

But I'd still take Rupp -- I do believe he's got it in him to run 2:05 or 2:06, which is plenty of legs to compete with Hall at Hall's best. The X-factor, in my opinion, comes down to racing to the finish line, and I don't see Hall getting there first if it's at all close.

What's that voodoo you guys do to summon some interwebs genie to compare athletes?