Zombie Ronald Reagan wrote:
The fastest PR does not always win - that's why they have races. Running smart can beat running fast - ask Meb. Hall has the talent to win, but it's frustrating to see him constantly in the mix, never on top. He seems to be missing the "Survivor" mentality : Outwit Outlast Outplay.
So if Hall had "outwitted" Mosop, he could have run 2:05 yesterday?
Hall puts himself in the mix in his marathons, whether it's with frontrunning in Boston or hanging with the leaders for as long as he can in Chicago. In both instances, he seems to get second winds and end up passing some of those world class Africans. I am hesitant to be critical of his Chicago performance in view of the fact that most people who care didn't even seem to think he should be there, with the Trials in January, and I'm assuming he was looking ahead a little bit.
He's the only American who can be counted on to even break 2:11 right now Unless Dathan can come back, which is uncertain, and Meb has something left, which is also uncertain).
Hardest Nipples - let me guess you are a slightly pudgy middle aged man coaching high school, you are a yeller and are constantly telling your kids they got beat because they didn't try hard enough in the race. Right?
After your guy loses in a 2 mile race by 20 seconds you berate him, even though he ran his best time ever, that "10 lousey seconds per mile wouldn't have hurt any more".
Everything you know of elite running is based on what you've read on LetsRun and seen on webcasts.
You have never even sniffed an elite time on your own and never coached a real elite runner. Admit it, I dare you.
Go away and find a new sport.
Serious Lack of Realism wrote:
The problem is that Hirsh and Hall's critics want to say that Hall is doing something "wrong" and if Hall would only do some unspecified thing "right" he would have been competitive with Mosop.
I don't think there's a rational reason to believe that. Would Hall have beaten Mosop if he still trained with Mahon? If he did more sea level speedwork? There's no reason to think that. It's a lot more rational to think that Hall is just never going to run a 2:05 unaided even on his best day. So what is there to criticize? Hall's doing the best he can on a given day.
And if it's fair to criticize Hall for running 2:08, then what about every other marathoner in the US? Because there isn't any other active American runner who can run consistently at Hall's level. If Hall could supposedly run better than 2:08 if he just did everything "right," then everyone else in the US must really be training wrong.
This. If anything, Hall has attempted a wide range of different training strategies, in order to be the best. Just because it isn't in the cards on one hot day in Chicago, doesn't mean that he doesn't have the drive to be the best.
Its better that Hall think positively and start training for his next big attempt, than to adopt Hersh's implied mentality. If Hall had Hersh's prescribed mentality, he would have quit the sport years ago. Hell, if Hersh actually adopted his own prescribed mentality he shouldn't write, because he will never be be Howard Cossell.
hardset nipples wrote:
Serious Lack of Realism wrote:I don't think there's a rational reason to believe that.
Is there necessarily a rational reason that Hall could not run faster and be more competitive? Please, lay out your rational reasoning why "Hall is just never going to run a 2:05 unaided even on his best day," all of it. I'd say that people are willing to accept limitations for their heroes because it makes them more comfortable with the limitations they've accepted for their own lives.
Ummm...what an amazingly stupid question. Go ahead, try to answer your own question for ANY runner in the world - from world record holders to hobby joggers.
You and all the other Hall fanboys-cum-critics are living in an alternate universe where one can simply imagine Hall to be a world beater and then make whatever intellectual contortions necessary to have the real world conform to your reality.
Phil has the right to speak and write what he wishes but bottom line unless you are out in the battle fighting yourself Mr. Hershe has no inkling of what it is like to run even one mile at 4.48 pace. Lets get Phil out and try to run one mile at 4.48 and than bash Ryan Hall who has done it for 26 miles in a row before. I find it hard to believe that anyone could say anything remotely negative about a man who has run 2.04.58 and 2.06.17. I am baffled by this
Most Hardest Nipples wrote:
Hardest Nipples - let me guess you are a slightly pudgy middle aged man coaching high school, you are a yeller and are constantly telling your kids they got beat because they didn't try hard enough in the race. Right?
After your guy loses in a 2 mile race by 20 seconds you berate him, even though he ran his best time ever, that "10 lousey seconds per mile wouldn't have hurt any more".
Everything you know of elite running is based on what you've read on LetsRun and seen on webcasts.
You have never even sniffed an elite time on your own and never coached a real elite runner. Admit it, I dare you.
Go away and find a new sport.
I think Hardest Nipples is the guy who goes out 20 seconds per mile faster than his PR every race.....because, maybe today is the day that he is going to do it. Obviously, he dies and shuffles to the finish line.
hardset nipples wrote:
Serious Lack of Realism wrote:I don't think there's a rational reason to believe that.
Is there necessarily a rational reason that Hall could not run faster and be more competitive? Please, lay out your rational reasoning why "Hall is just never going to run a 2:05 unaided even on his best day," all of it. I'd say that people are willing to accept limitations for their heroes because it makes them more comfortable with the limitations they've accepted for their own lives.
Because Hall has already trained with one of the best marathon coaches in the U.S., he has a lot of miles in his legs, and has still never done better than 2:06 on an unaided course. If you look at the careers of top marathoners they usually don't make dramatic jumps in times after 9 marathons.
The main limiting factor in how fast top marathoners can run is the level of talent they start with. It would be nice if the real world was like Rocky or some Hollywood movie and the limiting factor was "believing in yourself" or "not accepting limitations," but if this was true, then the best marathoners in the world would be those with the best sports psychologists, but in fact it's those who start out with the most raw talent (i.e., Kenyans and a few Ethiopians, etc) who then put in enough training miles to develop that talent.
And thanks for the free psychoanalysis. Yes, I have accepted in my own life that I will never run 2:05. No doubt it's because I am self-deluded, and if I would only refuse to accept limitations, I too could run faster than Mosop. But I prefer to think that it's because I have never remotely had as much talent as he has.
Some guy reading what others.. wrote:
The best reporters and journalists are the ones who make their subject feel at ease because that is when they will give them the most indepth information and best stories.
Going outside of the Herh-Hall debate, I disagree 100% with this. If journalists are doing their jobs that can mean making the subjects they cover feel uncomfortable.
I've talked to Alan Abramhson (Olympic writer, wrote Apolo Ohno's book) and Tim Layden (sports illustrated) about this. I respect their work tremendously. And they've both said if you're doing your job prepare for some uncomfortable situations. Be able to ask tough questions or write tough pieces and then face the athlete the next time. That may mean athletes or coaches never speaking to you again.
Marion Jones refused to speak to Layden from 1998 on after he wrote some truthful but unflattering things on her (not drug related). See
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1064098/index.htmLayden has asked Carmelita Jeter about drugs. I just found this article. You think Jeter liked it?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1187703/index.htmas for:
Lets get Phil out and try to run one mile at 4.48 and than bash Ryan Hall who has done it for 26 miles in a row before. I find it hard to believe that anyone could say anything remotely negative about a man who has run 2.04.58 and 2.06.17.
I think that is crazy logic. So the only one who can criticize another athlete is someone who is a better athlete than them? It's the same reason when ARod does not do well, a lot of people in the media criticize him.
I think it is fair to discuss Ryan's performance. Was it a good one, does he need a different mental approach, should he have a coach?, etc. Once again I don't know the specifics of the Hersh exchange.
No his article is biased. The way he recaps Hall's accomplishments and his piecing together self contradictory statements demonstrates his bias. Its not an op-ed or blog post. Its supposed to be a race recap - fair and balanced I guess is just for Fox.
smd wrote:
kudzurunner wrote:I think Hersh's story, linked above, is a fair one. I also think that Hall's reaction to his performance is exactly right.
He trained hard, he hoped to do better, but he's clearly not a warm-weather runner. He did poorly in Beijing for that reason. The fact that he could lay down this time in such weather tells me that he's good for 2:06. The problem is, on the day that he's good for 2:06, somebody from Kenya is probably good for 2:04.
THAT is the real problem here, and I'd be surprised if Hall doesn't know it.
The other real problem is that fans, journalists, and LR kibbitzers insist on holding Hall to their own expectations, reframing their expectations when (as in Boston), he arguably exceeds them, and dancing around his grave when he falls short. His times make him one of the two greatest American marathoners of all time. It's hard to understand the negativity that that remarkable achievement has accrued. It says more about the toxicity of fan-dom than it says about Hall.
What I notice is that Hall, like all the greats, is able to reframe his own achievements in a way that fuels further efforts. I seem to be the only person here or elsewhere who notices and is inspired by that. Too bad.
This is good stuff.
I think it's safe to say that Hall will consistently finish in the top 5, probably not better than 3rd, at major marathons. That's quite an achievement, but short of the expectations lots of people had for him after his first few marathons. There should probably be a moratorium on pre-race "can Hall win it for the whiteys" stories and a moratorium on post-race "Hall let us down again" stories.
Hall seems to take pleasure in what he does, and he's the best in a large country at it. Wouldn't we all like to be really, really good at what we do, enjoy doing it and always find motivation to try to do it even better?
The media and everyone else are under no obligation to "support" Hall and other Americans, whatever that means. But castigating Hall for not being the best in the world says more about the castigators than it does Hall. Why is Hall obligated to meet Phil Hersh's standards of success?
Maybe Hall just isn't as talented as many of the East Africans.
A few years ago, Hall was stride-for-stride with Geb for 20+ miles enroute to 2:06 and running 59:43. I thought he was a real threat to win any marathon. 2:08 on a fast Chicago course, where 2 top guys pr'd and the course record was broken, is not on par with his past. You don't like me saying it, then ask the USATF to hire cheerleaders for journalists.
It's one thing to ask a legitimate question. it is another to be condescending prick. FYI, what does USATF have to do with this? You were a paid reporter and redentialed reporter for the Tribune. As an American, I support your right to write drivel, but as consumers, we deserve better. Why don't you donate this weeks salary to Wesley Koir's charity. You certainly did not earn it.
Harest Nipples: Since you don't believe we have a Running Talent Meter how can you say that Ryan isn't living up to his. Heck maybe he is exceeding it. Truth is only the person running knows what they are capable of and what their own personal goals are for running and while we are all free to state our opinions on others tactics or talent, in the end its that person who has to be satsified or unsatisfied to living up to their own personal goals. You being unsatisfied for him doesn't mean squat if he or she is. Its a slipperly slope to judge others motivations, what motivated one person isn't what motivates someone else.
Wejo: Journalists/Reporters have to learn to find that balance, between pushing to get beyond the superficial and not being an attack dog, and the best do. That doesn't mean you can't ask the tough questions, indeed often you should, but you have to do it for the right reasons, seeking truth not fulfilling a personal agenda. I think we all see far to much of agendas by the media today. They go in with what they want to show or prove and then fit quotes and what happened into that biased story instead of reporting on what happened. The problem I have with Phil Hersh is I think his story and actions have crossed that line. He is upset that the US doesn't produce better runers and obviously doesn't like Ryan Hall or how he races so he attacks Ryan rather than just report what happened. His dissatisfaction may very well be better spent writing some peices on why the American system seems to have a hard time producing runners who are cometitive in major races, rather than spending his time attacking the one guy who is coming closest to being comeptitive on a regular basis. His attack on Ryan will not accomplish anything positive but maybe by exploring what is broken in the American system he can help bring about change and more Americans being comeptitive in the future.
ttc wrote:
A few years ago, Hall was stride-for-stride with Geb for 20+ miles enroute to 2:06 and running 59:43. I thought he was a real threat to win any marathon.
Well, except that Geb didn't run London that year.
Any maybe you were wrong in your original belief about Hall, which might affect how you view things now.
Apparently the Bro-Jos have a little crush oh Hersh.
Oh My.
They also miss the point. They complain that this stuff about hersh being at a top-5 paper (whatever that is) or not having run a 4:48 miles is just silliness.
or that you have to be an a-hole to be a good reporter.
First of all, Hersh often will do a journalistic no-no - make the story about himself or just ask a certain question so he can stick it to the subject.
In this case, it's pretty clear that Hersh disdains Hall for his efforts, but he uses his platform to 1) ask a question designed to further his own idea and 2) report about said question in the article to again further his own agenda.
his question happens to be legit, but it's very clear what he is doing and why he's asking. You can see it in how he writes about the subject - in this case Hall.
In an opinion piece this is just fine, but to do that in a news story is not professional.
A reporter should report on the facts of the race and bring in all relevant info, but shouldn't make the story about himself as Hersh has done time and time again.
Secondly, I think it's fair to question a writer's credential to show where their biases are.
I am just saying wrote:
Phil Hersh will learn that this type of bias by a reporter/journalist is self policing.
Just like when Jim Gray verbally attacked Pete Rose duirng a "greatest players of all time" award ceromony before a baseball game and then the next night he was on air live to interview a star of a game and the player wouldn't talk to him because of how he treated Pete.
We'll have an American that wins Chicago again one day and that person will probably think twice about talking with Herch, given his combatitive attitude towards American runners.
Phil needs to remember that he should report on the story, not to try and become the story or at least part of it.
Good point. I thought the same when Wejo said something about asking the tough questions. If that's the case, then the reporter is going to lose access. Then they just turn into Bill Simmons. Entertaining, but I enjoy reporters that actually can talk to the athletes.
Serious Lack of Realism wrote:
Zombie Ronald Reagan wrote:The fastest PR does not always win - that's why they have races. Running smart can beat running fast - ask Meb. Hall has the talent to win, but it's frustrating to see him constantly in the mix, never on top. He seems to be missing the "Survivor" mentality : Outwit Outlast Outplay.
So if Hall had "outwitted" Mosop, he could have run 2:05 yesterday?
If he outwitted Mosop, he wouldn't have to run 2:05 to win. Hard to outwit someone when you stay behind them the whole race.
My point was it is frustrating for fans to see their guy/team in contention but never quite making it to the top. From an outsider's point of view, he will never win a time-trial type race against the world's best, so it seems to us fans that he's not accurately assessing his skills if he is truly going for a major marathon win. That's the perception, right or wrong.
"The burning desire and tight focus isn't there."
-1.) it's highly apparent that you don't know ryan or haven't ever spent much time around him
2.) you truly are a fool
Zombie Ronald Reagan wrote:
Serious Lack of Realism wrote:So if Hall had "outwitted" Mosop, he could have run 2:05 yesterday?
If he outwitted Mosop, he wouldn't have to run 2:05 to win. Hard to outwit someone when you stay behind them the whole race.
I see. Hall could have outwitted Mosop by leading. That would have tricked Mosop into drafting off Hall to 30k. What a clever plan! Or maybe the reverse psychology would have made Mosop think he couldn't run faster than Hall's unaided PR! Too bad Hall didn't think of that winning plan to outwit Mosop.