Phil Hersch ranks US marathoners on all time list

Or you could take a course that is well run and compare it to other runners on the same course. We should first compare Mr. Hersch to Mr. Hall. Then we can apply the same to all other American runners.

Phil Hersch is a douch nozzle

L.

Raptured wrote:

I feel like he wrote this whole thing out as an excuse to bash Hall and I find it especially interesting that he is the only guy on the top 10 list with an overwhelmingly negative description. Maybe Hersh got rejected by Sara Bei at some point?

This is probably why my instinct is to defend Hall and put him near the top. Hall will never get full respect by a lot, many in the running community, unless he has a gold medal around his neck. Shorter probably does deserve top billing, but Hall, and all of the current U.S. marathoners, have taller orders on the world stage than Shorter did. To dismiss that is short sighted.

Khalid as a marathoner = first on that list

Khalid as an American marathoner = probably a couple slots higher.

stuck with match.com wrote:

[quote]Freelove wrote:

[quote]stuck with match.com wrote:

Oh and by the way Hall never ran a 2:04 because hurricaine aided downhill courses dont count.

You realize hurricaine[sic]s have many wind changes, right? Do you know what a hurricane even is?

There is no way you can treat each era the same, whatever criteria you use for defining an era. He lists dominance of an era as more important than running fast in talent loaded fields. I just do not agree.

Ethiopians won 3 straight Olympic men's marathons before Shorter won it. He did it by beating the reigning Olympic champion (who was Ethiopian).

you cabin wrote:

If you take out East Africans (who weren't competing in Shorters era)...

I think Hersch is worried that Hall has accepted his "Salieri" status and is happy with it: I speak for all mediocrities in the world. I am their champion. I am their patron saint.... Mediocrities everywhere... I absolve you... I completely understand the urge and need of people on letsrun (including myself) to defend him, but...

IMHO, he's right - yeah, he's not so nice about it, but he's right. Then again, I read the Boston sports media everyday and used to listen to talk radio everyday, so to me, it's like he's handling Hall with kid gloves.

Don't forget to give Frank and Bill some modern drugs.

Honestly, I wouldn't even think about putting Hall #1, not up for debate. But then again, nobody else on that list of American marathoners would even get a second thought at #1 except maybe Rodgers (and Khannouchi as an overall and American runner - he certainly deserves #1 if you consider his overall career, deserves consideration and potential #1 if just his American status races). With this I would rank Hall most likely #4, maybe drop him to #5. But his career isn't over and could increase his stock with plenty of quality results to come. With the Olympics this year and a few solid years after he has the opportunity to cement his place in American marathoning history - good or bad.

Simple Math wrote:

The thing about running is that it's measured by an objective standard - the clock. If you run faster than someone you are better than they are. Hall has run faster than everyone on that list but Khannouchi. Therefore he is better than everyone but Khannouchi. End of discussion. It's simple math - which number is smaller?

That's a pretty simple-minded way of looking at the sport. A runner who wins a championship race against the best competition in the world with a 2:10:30 on a hot humid day over a hilly loop course is likely to be a significantly better runner that one who finishes fifteenth with a 2:10:00 in a paced time-trial on a cool windless day over a course like Berlin. And for most of the sport's history, the most important "objective standard" has been winning against the best available competition, not running faster than someone else may have run at a different time on a different course under different race and weather conditions. The fetishistic focus on producing the fastest finish times is, at the highest levels, largely a competition among race organizers rather than a worthy substitute for head-to-head competition among athletes.

The one U.S. marathoner who seems to be better than Hall by just about any measure is Khalid Khannouchi -- faster times, world and American records, victories against the best distance runners in the world. (I suppose you could ding KK for a couple of DNFs.) Whether Shorter is a better or greater marathoner than Hall seems a more complicated question, the answer to which probably says more about the commentator than it does about the athletes themselves.

I will give the nod to Frank as #1 because of his Olympic Medals. Rodgers at #2 is where it should be, he and Alberto were the toughest runners I ever competed against. The runner that should be ranked higher is Alberto, one tough guy he was back in his day! :-)

Dick Beardsley wrote:

I will give the nod to Frank as #1 because of his Olympic Medals. Rodgers at #2 is where it should be, he and Alberto were the toughest runners I ever competed against. The runner that should be ranked higher is Alberto, one tough guy he was back in his day! :-)

I agree with Dick and think Salazar should be higher. Meb (who I admire greatly) should not be number three and Hall ten if they are almost contemporaries and Hall is clearly more dominant. I think Meb has beat him once -- in NYC 2009 (Meb's best non-Olympic marathon and one of Hall's worst marathons).

Although it hard to compare eras, Kelley, Demar, and Hayes (especially Hayes) should not be on the list because the marathon was a different event back then. I would limit to post-1950 and that would possibly give some props to guys like Kenny Moore, Don Kardong, Kelley the Younger, Sandoval and Dick.

Rodgers over Shorter in my book... Hall will move up, his career isn't over, and then there's Rupp waiting in the wings.

Simple Math wrote:

break it up wrote:

Ok, if Shorter or Rodgers ran with 4 pacesetters behind a truck with a huge clock on a flat course, the entire way,with a big pack until 18 miles, you don't think even back in the late 1970's they would have run a minute or two faster than 2:09-10? Its a different game totally. Maybe they could, maybe not.

That would be another interesting parlor game list - the fastest American marathoners based on the times they could have, should have, or would have run.

The Could Have, Should Have, or Would Have List still wouldn't tell you who the best US marathoner is - gun time on a certified course tells you that.

Yes, I can see that The Could Have, Should Have, or Would Have Fans out there think that Hall could have, would have or should have won major marathon titles IF only he were born in a different era.

Plays both ways, moron.

No love for Ron Tabb. *sigh*

Belgian Waffle wrote:

Meb (who I admire greatly) should not be number three and Hall ten if they are almost contemporaries and Hall is clearly more dominant.

Lol, Hall is clearly more dominant than Meb? How exactly do you have that perception? My guess is it's because the letsrun.com fanboys go crazy for Hall and he gets overhyped for every race. Let's look at their career highlights (major marathons only):

Meb

2004 2nd Olympic Games (silver medal)

2004 2nd NYC

2005 3rd NYC

2006 3rd Boston

2009 1st NYC

2010 5th Boston

2010 6th NYC

Hall

2007 7th London

2008 5th London

2008 10th Olympic Games

2009 4th NYC

2009 3rd Boston

2010 4th Boston

2011 4th Boston

2011 5th Chicago

Not only does Meb have an Olympic silver medal, he has a victory at NYC. Even if you took away BOTH of those huge, historic accomplishments away (which you wouldn't), his next 3 best finishes are 2nd, 3rd, and 3rd at NYC, NYC, and Boston. Those trump Hall's three best major marathon finishes of 3rd, 4th, and 4th.

You were right about one thing - one of these contemporaries is clearly more dominant than the other, but you didn't choose the right guy.

My contention is that everyone knows that these lists are stupid, including Hersh, who even says that comparing people from different eras is like comparing apples and oranges. So why even make the list? To me, it's clear that his reason for making the list was to put Ryan Hall at the bottom. He has a history of taking cheap shots at Ryan Hall.

A list like this says more about the author than the people on the list.

Buddy's got to be a lot higher, maybe as high as #3. An American with the WB in the marathon in the early 60's -- no one, no one, in America was truly competitive internationally at that time. He paved the way for Lindgren, Mills, Schul, Shorter, etc.

my list wrote:

1. Shorter

2. Rodgers

3. Keflezighi

4. Khannouchi

5. Hall

6. Salazar

7. Beardsley

8. Buddy Edelen

9. Clarance Demar

10. Johnny Kelley (the younger)

Not a bad try, but it illustrates why I like Hersch's list: it isn't presentist. It doesn't tilt in favor of the still-living and the people YOU happen to have seen live or in action on TV. Hersch clearly states his criteria up front, and his choices are well-reasoned. It ain't just about times, or championship races, although it's partly about that. It's about something slightly less definable but no less important: historical importance. "The tradition," you might say. The great tradition of American marathoning.

Lots of blues harmonica players--my field--can play circles around Howlin' Wolf and Jimmy Reed. But those two players helped define what a blues harmonica player WAS. Kelley and Demar did exactly the same thing for American marathoning. Dick Beardsley? No way.