Ryan Hall 1:03:53

Conto wrote:

Is a 2:06:17 in London really THAT much more impressive then his 2:08:41 in Boston?

I would guess that a 2:08:41 in Boston is probably worth a 2:07:low in London... but maybe I'm mistaken.

...

Here's some more fuel for that fire.

When Hall ran his PR at London, Deriba Merga ran his PR at London in 2:06:38.

Hall ran 2:08:41 at Boston, Merga ran 2:08:42 at Boston (though his was a win).

If he repeats his time from Boston last year, I can't really complain. Sure he's probably lacking specific speed for shorter distances, but all that really matters is that he's ready to go in the marathon.

What if he's thinking very far ahead and just putting in gigantic base right now in preparation for the Olympics?

Sadly, based on his Twittering and interviews, I don't think that's the case, but here's to wishful thinking!

He ran 2:08:41 at Boston last year after running 64 in January, but he is too close to his marathon now to produce any training miracles. Sometimes elites will perform 'badly' in half marathons shortly before strong marathons, but there is obviously something very wrong in his training. He just does not have the speed that he used to have when he was running 5943 and 2:06. After Boston, he needs to get a real coach and training group, like Schumacher's group, and get seriously out on the track for the entire summer, run some strong 5000m and 10000m races, go to World's in the 10, skip a fall marathon, and get what he had in 2007/2008 back in time for the marathon trials. He is unlikely to do any of that but if he continues like this he will very likely still make the Olympic team in the marathon and finish in the top fifteen again. That is not a plan for greatness, but if he is satisfied with mediocrity (on that level), then he should go ahead as if everything is fine.

The original statement was that he needs to train with other great runners. He doesn't do that. He didn't like working with Ian Dobson or Meb or Dan Browne. He would occasionaly run with Josh Cox. Josh is a 64 minunte half marathoner (63:58). That is not a great runner for someone that has broken an hour to train with.

I think what most people are forgetting is that Ryan had a "coach" last year, so his 1:04 and all before Boston had a specific guidance behind it-i.e. coaching that adjusted for it.

Another thing, you all remember how he used to run? yes/no? Always up front pushing the pace etc. He is no longer that runner-and he is not the type of runner to come from behind. At least that has never been his (MO). He is making a huge paycheck-if he wants for find god etc...fine, give up being a pro athlete and Asics can give that money to someone who really deserves it. It is still too early to tell, as long as hes a decent marathoner-Asics will keep him on. At least till the Olympic trials. Best wishes to him. Never wish ill will on anyone-no point to it.

I find it funny that some people are making statements about Asics dropping him because of his performances and so on. As if they have a better, faster runner...

Ryan is still a decent runner when he runs poorly. Yeah, we're disappointed, but who's next in line for Asics and what's THEIR PRs? Probably nothing close to Ryan at his worst in the marathon.

I find it funny how many of you have this symapthy and understanding for Hall, but if this was Alan Webb you'd all have him castrated, amd his entrails nailed to the wall already!!!

the 2012 Olympic Marathon team from the USA will have I believe have neither a Ritz or a Hall on it.

Keep dreaming. If Hall or Ritz aren't injured and they run then even on a bad day they will make the team (though maybe not win). Please tell me who else will be on the team. Rupp(?) Could probably make it if he wanted toMeb (?) Possibly if he is not injuredEveryone else are inconsistent or unproven.

running_in_reverse wrote:

the 2012 Olympic Marathon team from the USA will have I believe have neither a Ritz or a Hall on it.

Just to help my perspective wrote:

malmo wrote:

2:08:24 7 Flora London 22 Apr 2007

2:09:02 1 OT New York NY 3 Nov 2007

2:06:17 5 Flora London 13 Apr 2008

2:12:33 10 OG Beijing 24 Aug 2008

2:09:40 3 BAA Boston MA 20 Apr 2009

2:10:36 4 ING New York NY 1 Nov 2009

2:08:41 4 BAA Boston MA 19 Apr 2010

Re-ordered chronologically to help me understand the progression better.

Hall's a 2:08 high marathon runner. The 2:06 was a fluke and not representative of his actual ability. Nothing wrong with 2:08 high - that still makes him faster than anyone else we have - but that's what he is.

interestingthing wrote:

I find it funny that some people are making statements about Asics dropping him because of his performances and so on. As if they have a better, faster runner...

Ryan is still a decent runner when he runs poorly. Yeah, we're disappointed, but who's next in line for Asics and what's THEIR PRs? Probably nothing close to Ryan at his worst in the marathon.

Not to mention that shoe companies are far more interested in you being a big name than a fast runner. Hall's name is huge, especially among the Runner's World crowd (who make up a way greater portion of total shoe sales than the serious athlete crowd), and pretty much has a monopoly on the heavily religious market.

Hall's a 2:08 high marathon runner. The 2:06 was a fluke and not representative of his actual ability. Nothing wrong with 2:08 high - that still makes him faster than anyone else we have - but that's what he is.

Right, because flukes are possible in distance running... running fast is all about luck!

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

Just to help my perspective wrote:

Re-ordered chronologically to help me understand the progression better.

Hall's a 2:08 high marathon runner. The 2:06 was a fluke and not representative of his actual ability. Nothing wrong with 2:08 high - that still makes him faster than anyone else we have - but that's what he is.

Please list all the marathoners who have consistently run sub-2:08 at Boston, NYC, and Beijing in the summer. The 2:06 was not a fluke. The fluke was that London is the only truly fast course he's run, and he's done it only twice. And the first time was his debut.

Looks like Hall is a consistent top 5 marathoner at the biggies.

flassh wrote:

Always up front pushing the pace etc.

He got bashed for that too.

haha YO wrote:

flassh wrote:

Always up front pushing the pace etc.

He got bashed for that too.

+1 for the comment but...

- I can't say I'm a fan of Hall. I like the blue collar guys like Brian Sell - Not a big name or talent, just tons of work. Although I like seeing almost any American mixing it up at big races, I no longer want it to be Hall. Having a guy like him who's got loads of talent but unwilling to hurt would be a shame and send US running back in the spiral of mediocrity. American dominance in the past didn't happen by means of talent or extra rest days. It was lots of miles, lots of races, and many more runners chomping at the bit when the big names faltered. Sell could have instilled that fire that would get sub-elites to break through to the next level. If Hall succeeds with is current training philosophy, it would make sub feel that they just don't have the talent. In an ideal world, the tallent would be willing to hurt, and as of right now, I'm not sure that I have confidence that any of our elites are quite 100% invested.

Disclosure for the trolls:

I say this as a running fan and someone who truly doesn't have the talent to even be sub-elite(I only managed low 16's for 5k off of 80-110 mpw), but was willing to give my body all the miles it could handle to find that out.

I kind of like Jack Daniels view of "fluke" races. In one of his videos he says that the "fluke" race is not a fluke at all. The runner has just shown what he is capable of. Anything less then that level is a problem that should be investigated.

I don't follow Hall that closely. However, self-coaching, running alone, expecting specific guidance from God on training details (is he really doing this?) is not the approach that typically produces champions.

I wish him well in Boston and hope he proves all us arm-chair coaches, second-guessers to be wrong. But the odds don't seem to be with him.

Seriously, those who are calling his 59:43 and 2:06 flukes must not have run before. There are no flukes in running. You either can run a time or you can't. A 40 minute 10K runner will not have an anamoly and run 31 minutes one day and then revert to 40 minutes the following week.

Let us see what transpires at Boston before we make any analytical assessments on his running future.

I haven't read anything about his taper for the NYC Half, and it could be that he trained through the race.

If not, then there may be a problem, but we will not know until after Boston.

I hope he runs well at Boston, in the 2:08 range. That might not win but he will be in the mix.

If he does not perform well at Boston, then his recent decline could be as a result of diminished leg speed.

Remember when he ran the 59:43 Half and the 2:06:17 Marathon, he had just moved up from running and training for 5000m and 10000m track races. If I remember correctly, he ran around 13:15 for 5000m.

He may have to return to a more track based training program to regain the turnover.

broken arrow wrote:

I haven't read anything about his taper for the NYC Half, and it could be that he trained through the race.

I'm assuming that he had trained through it. So what? 1:03:53 is ridiculously slow for him. He should be able to do that on any day ending in "y" without thinking about it. It's not a good sign at all.