Will Hall Win Chicago ?

None. Now go on and get on with your life. Meet a girl, get married, raise some kids.

troof be told wrote:

If you take out all of Hall's aided performances on the downhill Boston course his career top five is not really that impressive:

2:06:17 - 2:08:24 - 2:09:02 - 2:10:36 - 2:12:33

Still good for an American but not that great by world standards. At least two other non-Africans in the field, Dos Santos and Sato, have better career histories on unaided courses. But I just read that Dechase is out with injury so Hall's chances have improved marginally.

You have to also take into account that two of these times were from a no tailwind Boston and one was an American only race which didn't really provide Hall with any competition. It will be nice to finally see him on a fast course with competition. Haven't seen that in awhile.

stevzen wrote:

You have to also take into account that two of these times were from a no tailwind Boston

No, you don't. Boston is ineligible because of the net drop and start-finish separation according to the rules. These were the same all three times.

I hope he runs well, but I'd put my money on Wanjiru before I bet Hall for the win.

Been looking forward to Hall racing Chicago for a while. So glad I have a hotel and an airplane ticket booked for Houston. Good luck Ryan!!!

Maybe he is ripe? Maybe he can win this thing?

troof be told wrote:

stevzen wrote:

You have to also take into account that two of these times were from a no tailwind Boston

No, you don't. Boston is ineligible because of the net drop and start-finish separation according to the rules. These were the same all three times.

You also have to throw out the PR's of the best of America's marathoners from the nineties, eighties, seventies.... That's not because Boston is fast - it's really not - but because it was THE marathon for Americans for most of the time that Americans have run competitive marathons. Bill Rodgers would have 4 of his 5 best times wiped off the board, if people like you had their way.

You know, if you ask the average American to name a marathon, 9 of 10 will still say 'Boston'. Part of the sport's appeal is, or, ought to be, its long dramatic history. We hurt the sport and ourselves by discounting it by creating arbitrary distinctions between marathons whose times count and those who don't. In my opinion, we ought to stop obsessing over records, particularly in the marathon, where none should exist at all.

True, but irrelevant to the rules of the sport as they currently stand. If most of America's best marathoners ran their PBs on an aided course then yes, they are not valid marks by contemporary rules even if they were great races.

You shouldn't make unwarranted assumptions, however, about "people like me." Just because I am scrupulous about following the rules doesn't mean I agree with them. You seem to suggest that it's OK to ignore rules you don't agree with. That's a very slippery and irresponsible slope.

You're trolling right?

Yes Boston does not count for records, but that does not mean we should dismiss performances there entirely when subjectively considering an athlete's career or comparing him against others he will be racing against.

I suppose Robert Kipkoech Cheruiyot's performances are "not that great by world standards" either?

huh? wrote:

You're trolling right?

Yes Boston does not count for records, but that does not mean we should dismiss performances there entirely when subjectively considering an athlete's career or comparing him against others he will be racing against.

I suppose Robert Kipkoech Cheruiyot's performances are "not that great by world standards" either?

No, I'm not trolling, nor am I suggesting that Boston performances should be omitted in a subjective consideration of an athlete's career. By the rules of the sport as they currently stand, however, they most definitely should be omitted from any attempt to make an objective comparison between histories of performances on unaided courses, which is what I did in showing that Dos Santos and Sato have career records superior to Hall's on such courses.

troof be told wrote:

huh? wrote:

You're trolling right?

Yes Boston does not count for records, but that does not mean we should dismiss performances there entirely when subjectively considering an athlete's career or comparing him against others he will be racing against.

I suppose Robert Kipkoech Cheruiyot's performances are "not that great by world standards" either?

No, I'm not trolling, nor am I suggesting that Boston performances should be omitted in a subjective consideration of an athlete's career. By the rules of the sport as they currently stand, however, they most definitely should be omitted from any attempt to make an objective comparison between histories of performances on unaided courses, which is what I did in showing that Dos Santos and Sato have career records superior to Hall's on such courses.

You are correct that, *currently* there are some courses which are 'record' eligible and some which are not.(Of course which courses those are is likely to change as the people who make those decisions do as well). However, and this is important, there is no rule regarding which courses can be used to make an objective (or any other kind) of comparison of performances. Even the power mad aristocrats who run the IAAF have not attempted to control what I say or think when talking about the sport. Yet. We are still free to debate the merit of any performance using whatever criteria we'd like. Others are also free to disagree. For my part, I'm not so impressed with performances run on flat loop courses in which the runners are led for 30 (or 35 or 40k... ) by a group of pacers. I also think that, regardless of the distance between the start and finish of a race, the number and steepness of the hills on a course play a greater role in determining the time that can be run on it, as does the weather in which the race was run as does the depth of competition that showed up to contest it. A solo 2:07 win at Boston and in 80 F weather is a much better performance than a 2:05 for 10th at Chicago run in perfect conditions. Which, by the way, to answer the OP, is my prediction for Ryan. Well.. not 10th, I'll say 6th in 2:05:high. And along these lines, despite Ryan's apparent inability to speak to the press without crediting God for choosing Ryan over (most...) others in the race and in life, I like Ryan Hall. I'm a fan. I'll be rooting for him in Chicago as I have throughout his career. But, for me, his competitive record is just OK, and, as a result, I would not place him among even the ten best American marathoners historically, even though he is the 'record' holder in the event. A race is a contest against the guys standing next to you on the line. The winner of that contest, regardless of the time, is the winner of that contest. I hope we'll be able to say that about Ryan Hall after Chicago. And more Americans in the future, regardless of what times they run.

Troll Hard wrote:

ifyouthinkso wrote:

Doesn't Boston have an advantage because it is in general downhill? So wouldn't Chicago be a harder course because it is world record eligible

i'll take it you've never run boston.

ill take it you haven't run boston and chicago.

Ryan Hall does not like to race. He does not like to compete against other runners and hates tactical running. He likes running time-trial like races and pushing himself. His motivation comes from within and from above, not from other runners. Therefore, if the race is tactical then he has no chance of winning.

factchecking wrote:

Including a nice, slow first half he could jog through before racing a half marathon.

The nice, slow jog was the first 2 miles. From there, the rest of the first half they averaged under 5:00 pace. By 10 miles the lead pack only consisted of Hall, Meb, Abdi, Ritz, and Dan Browne. If they were jogging, I would think there would have been more people there.

Hall has finished ahead of dos Santos (London 2007) and Sato (Olympics) in their previous meetings.

People that want to discount Boston pre-2011 at this point are incredibly stupid. Prior to this April, most people considered Robert Kiprono Cheruiyot's 2:05:52 to be one of the top few marathon performances of all time. At the end of the day, it still is. Boston truly is slower than Chicago/London/Berlin on a typical year. If you're going to rip on Hall and say that none of his Boston performances should count, you're clueless. Yes, this year was wind-aided, to some extent. No-one is denying that. Previous years were not and even with a net downhill, the course is certainly slower than 3 of the other 4 marathon majors. If you're going to deny that, you should probably not post here.

The forecast is for 60 degrees at 7am, with dew point of 52 (and staying essentially constant during the pro-level period of the race). 8am 62, 9am 65, 10am 68. Sunny to mostly sunny skies. SSW wind at 7mph (at 10m up, meaning about 4-5 for the runners).That is not a terrible weather for a marathon even if a bit warmer than ideal (if they can run 2:06 at the Beijing OGs this is nothing heat wise).

agip wrote:

anyone know how Hall does in warm weather? Looks like it will be mid 70s on Sunday.

Raptured wrote:

Prior to this April, most people considered Robert Kiprono Cheruiyot's 2:05:52 to be one of the top few marathon performances of all time.

If I recall correctly, that 2:05:52 was also with tailwind, not as heavy as this year but still a tailwind.

There is no question that when there is no wind, Boston is harder than your typical flat Marathon like Chicago or London.

pirates1 wrote:

What are Hall's Chances at Chicago ?

For a win- The expression "snowball in hell" pops to mind.