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

I find it interesting that every one is so quick to add WHOLE minutes to performances at various marathons. Here are some legit race time bias for various marathons around the world (all times in seconds):

-68.5 Berlin

-66.5 Paris

-55.4 Rotterdam

-38.8 London (Why isn't anyone talking about Emmanuel Mutai?)

-25.9 CIM (Sacramento, CA)

-18.4 Venice

+1.4 Grandma's (Duluth MN/USA)

+13.5 Boston

+22.2 Los Angeles

+52.3 NY City

+165.7 Honolulu

These bias times are calculated using quality performances (i.e. <2:25 for men, etc), so we're not using the whole fields. They are also compiled over the long term - not just one year. Honestly, everything we saw this weekend (London, Boston) are just great performances.

Citation:

http://www.arrs.net/TB_Mara.htm

doesnt seem that way 2 me wrote:

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.

Thanks. At least you understand I'm just trying to bring a little perspective to Hall's run. I know my analysis isn't perfect but you're correct that my goal was to be realistic about the significance of Ryan's time. I don't hate Ryan Hall. I do think people over hype how good he really is. Especially when they say he's the best marathoner in America or that we've ever had. Maybe he is. But he needs an Olympic medal or a major marathon win to be in Meb's class. If he's in Salazar's class, he needs a few major wins. He's not there yet and I'm just not confident he will ever be that good. This is only my opinion though. Please don't take it like I'm on some Hall hate campaign.

Precius Roy wrote:

... Hall definitely has the potential to be a 2:05 guy on a flat course...

Hall has already done 2:06:17 on a flat course. So if you mean that he has the potential to run 2:05:59 and PR by 18 seconds I would have to agree with you.

If, on the other hand, you mean he has the potential to run 2:05:00 (without a strong tailwind) then for me the jury is still out.

I think that his performance on Monday was maybe a smidgeon better than Boston last year (which was a great performance in its own right) and a smidgeon worse than his London 2:06. Just an opinion. But that's the way it looks to me.

danny12345 wrote:

I find it interesting that every one is so quick to add WHOLE minutes to performances at various marathons. Here are some legit race time bias for various marathons around the world (all times in seconds):

-68.5 Berlin

-66.5 Paris

-55.4 Rotterdam

-38.8 London (Why isn't anyone talking about Emmanuel Mutai?)

-25.9 CIM (Sacramento, CA)

-18.4 Venice

+1.4 Grandma's (Duluth MN/USA)

+13.5 Boston

+22.2 Los Angeles

+52.3 NY City

+165.7 Honolulu

These bias times are calculated using quality performances (i.e. <2:25 for men, etc), so we're not using the whole fields. They are also compiled over the long term - not just one year. Honestly, everything we saw this weekend (London, Boston) are just great performances.

Citation:

http://www.arrs.net/TB_Mara.htm

Where does ARRS publish their criteria. If it's for those who run <2:25 for men then it distorts the data, as (relatively) untrained club runners performances and elite blow-ups distort the data.

The best way to look at this is to take all of the performances by elites on various marathons and record their performances not in time, but in the difference from their PRs.

Then after that throw out the blowups (7, 8, 9 minutes, whatever) from the data set. Blowups don't tell you about the speed of the courses, they are merely a reflection of the circumstances of the individual at that moment.

Les wrote:

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.

Really? You're quite sure of that? I realize that the sun rises every morning in the East and sets every evening in the West, but the funny thing about distance running is that the best runners have a way of surprising us, regardless of their past performances. Desiree Davila, for example. Would you have predicted that finish for her on the basis of her past performances?

2:04:58 on the Boston course: a "good performance." Ahhhhhhhhhhh.....yeah, I guess you could call the American-best (if not certified AR) time that.

He beat last year's winner, the previous Boston record-crusher, by a minute or so. "Good" strikes me as a little understated, but again: I'm only human, and you're clearly speaking from On High.

"He's not done." Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.....no. No, he's not. He's just getting started.

malmo's right on this. a 15-second spread between Boston and London is ludicrous.

As regards Hall, it is apparent that in his buildup he practiced the course heavily and talks about nailing it like a bobsledder on a bobsled course. I suspect he picks up a fair bit of time in Boston over the field just by having it on magneto mode. Throw in the wind factor and we have no choice but to consider him a solid 2:06 guy. He SHOULD be shooting for sub-2:05 on a legit course, because he's a competitor who should always be looking for the next step. Monday was a "sneak preview", shrewdly executed and will keep his career recharged on a number of levels.

Crimea River wrote:

malmo's right on this. a 15-second spread between Boston and London is ludicrous.

As regards Hall, it is apparent that in his buildup he practiced the course heavily and talks about nailing it like a bobsledder on a bobsled course. I suspect he picks up a fair bit of time in Boston over the field just by having it on magneto mode. Throw in the wind factor and we have no choice but to consider him a solid 2:06 guy. He SHOULD be shooting for sub-2:05 on a legit course, because he's a competitor who should always be looking for the next step. Monday was a "sneak preview", shrewdly executed and will keep his career recharged on a number of levels.

Malmo may be right but I think that the numbers show a 52 second difference between London and Boston, not 15 seconds.

Please note that in 2011, the IAAF considers Boston a Qualifying marathon for the 2012 Olympic Games: http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Statistics/Standards/05/90/84/20110401104549_httppostedfile_London2012OGQualifyingMarathonCompetitionsin2011_24003.pdf.

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.[/quote]

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).

wait, so you are saying

2:04 at boston = 2:07 on flat = 2:09 at boston

so 2:04 at boston = 2:09 at boston now i get it. HORRIBLE LOGIC. the dude ran an unreal fast race, give him credit.

kanny wrote:

Please note that in 2011, the IAAF considers Boston a Qualifying marathon for the 2012 Olympic Games:

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Statistics/Standards/05/90/84/20110401104549_httppostedfile_London2012OGQualifyingMarathonCompetitionsin2011_24003.pdf

.

Great. Then it can be used a qualifying marathon. I didn't know that. It doesn't change the fact that the IAAF will not ratify a world record from Boston. I get what you're saying. But making Olympic qualifying marks and getting a world record are under separate guidelines. Its two different issues. They may accept a wind aided time for Olympic qualifiers but they won't accept that time for any official records and it doesn't change the fact the time is wind aided.

Fluox. I do give Ryan Hall credit for running an unreal fast race with 20+ mph winds at his back.

fluox wrote:

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).

wait, so you are saying

2:04 at boston = 2:07 on flat = 2:09 at boston

so 2:04 at boston = 2:09 at boston now i get it. HORRIBLE LOGIC. the dude ran an unreal fast race, give him credit.[/quote]

Logic problems?

Hall ran an unreal fast race. Hat's off to him.

That doesn't excuse your lack of sense.

Hall ran 2:05 (please try to learn how to round). The claim (not mine by the way) is that the wind was worth perhaps 4 minutes. Thus 2:05 two days ago is roughly equivalent to 2:09 at Boston most years. Pretty complicated, I know. But if you really work at it you might just get there.

You people will never get off Ryan Hall's ass.

You call him washed up because of a few less than amazing half marathons. He runs sub 2:04:58 and finished fourth, just a few seconds behind the ING NYC marathon winner and also BEATING last years winner who ran 2:05:52. He is far from washed up. You trolls are pathetic.

+1. Just look at EMutai - 2:04:40 in London 2010. His previous PB was in London 2008, only 2 secs ahead of Hall. This race, to me, establishes Ryan as a solid mid 2:06 runner (like EMutai before 2010) - really good but not truly great. He just needs to get that one major breakthrough win (although to do that he has to throw away his watch after 30km or so). Until then, he'll be like Phil Mickelson before he won his first major.

Added Perspective wrote:

not a doc wrote:

...a new world record was run yesterday

No, it wasn't.

Yep, it was.

RyanHall204 wrote:

He said this in the interview with RW.

Yeah right. Dream on. 2h04m is never going to happen again for him.

That's because of the tailwind, NOT because the course gave him a big advantage.

He is well within his right to say that he would put that time, with the same weather conditions, on a flat course.

Boston has NEVER been known as a fast course.

If you think no wind at Boston would have slowed him by 4 minutes, you are out of your mind. Sorry, but you are just wrong.

007run wrote:

Fluox. I do give Ryan Hall credit for running an unreal fast race with 20+ mph winds at his back.

There were no 20+ mph tailwinds. Those winds were measured 10m above the ground. The real winds were about 14-15mph winds, and anyone who ran can tell you it wasn't always in the same direction, sometimes even a headwind. He ran a LEGIT fast time, just maybe a little slower if the wind wasn't there. It wasn't 4 minutes slower, though.

my name is whaaa? wrote:

If you think no wind at Boston would have slowed him by 4 minutes, you are out of your mind. Sorry, but you are just wrong.

Actually, most serious analyses (as well as the guesses of the most knowledgeable runners weighing in) seem to be in the 3 - 4 minute range. To me that sounds about right. It is not an exact science but if I were to pick a single number for the wind advantage I'd say 3:30.

If you think that is "out of someone's mind" I would suggest that you take a look at the various fairly thorough analyses that have been provided in several threads since the finish of the race (and at least one even before the start).