LIVE FEED AND OFFICIAL POST CHICAGO

"Hall was not himself." -Former marathon champ, Greg Meyer. Case closed.

ttc wrote:

"Hall was not himself." -Former marathon champ, Greg Meyer. Case closed.

Okay, I see how you operate. So if I can find someone better than Meyer ever was to say that Hall ran spectacularly, you'll change your mind? Arguments from authority trump a basic examination of the facts? Just let me know, because this won't take long.

Fastest "last splits" from results:

Korir (2nd) 6:37

Hall (5th) 6:48

Shobukhova (1st F) 6:52

Gobaya (7th) 6:55

Mosop and Kipyego (3rd) both at 7:04

watchingwhileworking wrote:

Fastest "last splits" from results:

Korir (2nd) 6:37

Hall (5th) 6:48

Shobukhova (1st F) 6:52

Gobaya (7th) 6:55

Mosop and Kipyego (3rd) both at 7:04

7th was Gokaya.

Ginger Zee:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kYRNMKpNITc/TS6mTu0XtiI/AAAAAAAAJOw/OqzgB74Sd0E/s1600/Ginger+Zee+B%2526W.jpg

7th was Gokaya.[/quote]

Thanks for the correction. I think my eyes are going bad.

Korir really "came back from the dead" in the last mile to regain second. Hall also finished strongly, as he has in some other marathons. Shobukhova was running as fast as she looked. She was flying down the home stretch.

ttc wrote:

I never said there wasn't wind aid in Boston, so quit lying. There was huge wind aid there. You guys don't even know how to make a point. On a fast course, a 2:08 is well below Hall's standards, after years of consistently amazing marathons. I hope he was just ill, which then would explain it. But otherwise...

If I have the time I will dig up your comments. I definitely remember you seriously downplayed the effects of the wind and actually your point above still downplays the wind because you think this 2:08 is well below Hall's standard.

The people who understand the wind factor realize that his Boston performance isn't that far off from his Chicago performance today.

yellow shoe wrote:

Does it kill anyone else when the announcers say that mosop is only running at "80%"? I mean sure, say he isn't 100% healthy/ well-trained but 80% is just a gross exaggeration.

These percentages mean absolutely nothing. How can you be disagreeing with "80%"? Would you feel better if they said 87%? How about 47.6%? 97.2%? What the hell do you think these numbers mean anyway?

agip wrote:

which consistently amazing marathons were those? Hall is consistently good, but only the oly trials and boston were amazing

Ummm...neither one of those was as good as his London performance.

Here is the way it is wrote:

How can you be disagreeing with "80%"?

Probably because it's bullshit. Do you think all percentages are created equal? Are you one of those people who cringed at the idea of having to take a basic algebra course in college to satisfy your general curriculum requirements?

Runners think in terms of % of HR max or VO2 max, and Mosop (and everyone else) was clearly well above 80%, maybe above 90% at his speed. And in terms of pace, unless Mosop can run sub-4:00 pace flat-out, 80% isn't even close.

The announcers used that number because Mosop threw it out there himself in pre-race interviews. This shows how stupid they are. If a MLB pitcher told everyone his arm was "maybe 80%" before a start and then went out and was blowing 97 MPH fastballs by people, do you think the announcers would exclaim "IMAGINE WHAT HE COULD DO IF HE WASN'T AT ONLY 80 PERCENT!" No, they would acknowledge that his arm was in better condition than he had guessed.

Oh good. I found you - someone stupid enough to try to argue with me.

I hope that you won't mind that I point out that I have a PhD in Mathematics from a top 10 university (Lie theory - look it up, I'm pretty sure that your maxed-out-at-calculus brain won't have any idea what it is, before or after looking it up).

Now on to the topic in question. What exactly do you think 80% means, moron? Do you really think runners' HR max changes based on their current training level? In which case you are as ignorant of basic physiology as you are of mathematics.

Nice try though. Here is the unfortunate truth. When athletes throw out numbers like 80%... they mean two things:

1) I don't think that I am in perfect condition so I think that I will throw out a meaningless number. I've heard others use 80% so I guess I will too.

2) I am making up an excuse in case my performance today needs one.

If you read anything more into such vacuous proclamations as "80 - 85%" then you have only yourself to blame for your obvious lack of even the minimal intelligence required to be considered fully human. I'd put you at 10 - 15%.

mosesman wrote:

The people who understand the wind factor realize that his Boston performance isn't that far off from his Chicago performance today.

No, people who think, mistakenly, that the wind gave a huge impact think that the two are not that different. The wind has been overstated for two reasons. First, most relied either on a forecast number or on a weather station basically irrelevant to the race (Boston Airport) and they fail to realize that the listed wind speed is for 10meters above ground level in an area with no obstructions (typically an airport). The actual wind at the runner level was in the 6-10mph range.

Wrong and I am not going to get into this again.

Malmo has showed conclusive evidence that Boston is normally a difficult course compared to a fast one like Chicago (which we already knew). If you conclude that the wind was not a factor, then you have to believe that Mosop could run about a 2:01 and hall could run a 2:03. It ain't gonna happen.

Here is the way it is wrote:

Do you really think runners' HR max changes based on their current training level? In which case you are as ignorant of basic physiology as you are of mathematics.

I took

Mosop (and everyone else) was clearly well above 80%, maybe above 90% at his speed

to mean that someone who can race a marathon in just over two hours runs at a higher percentage of his or her heart rate than a typical 3:30 to 4:30 pack runner. Frank Shorter was reportedly very, very close to his LT HR during marathons because he was freakishly economical.

It's amazing how many meta-battles erupt in the wake of what was clearly a solid race by Hall. I think he's so agonizingly close to being among the best in the world with no realistic shot at running 2:03 that observers feel teased and frustrated -- they don't just in effect give up on him like they do guys who have "only" run 2:09 or 2:10.

Here is the way it is wrote:

agip wrote:

which consistently amazing marathons were those? Hall is consistently good, but only the oly trials and boston were amazing

Ummm...neither one of those was as good as his London performance.

_________

forgot about london - good point. But still, he is consistent but not consistently great.

agip wrote:

Here is the way it is wrote:

Ummm...neither one of those was as good as his London performance.

_________

forgot about london - good point. But still, he is consistent but not consistently great.

Agreed on all counts. Hall is truly great by American standards but not by world (Kenyan) standards. The good news is that in the Olympics Kenya can only enter three athletes instead of 13. So, if one or two have a bad day...well there is always hoping.