Phillip Hersh Demeaning Ryan Hall

Tam-Tam wrote:

Apparently the Bro-Jos have a little crush oh Hersh...

or that you have to be an a-hole to be a good reporter.

First of all, Robert has not said anything on this thread so it is just my opinions.

No where did I say you have to be an ahole to be a good reporter.

We're discussing 2 different issues in this thread and maybe it's my fault for opening up #2.

The issues are:

1) Phil's questions to Ryan and whether it was appropriate. (I have said I don't know the context of this and can't comment)

2) The role "journalists" in the sport are supposed to play. Even without getting access to Marion Jones, Tim Layden can still cover her very well in my opinion. He can 1) state why she won't talk to him and 2) not have to worry about only saying nice things to her so he can keep getting access.

If his job is to keep getting access to Marion, then I think the public loses out. He should not go out of his way and not to get access but he should ask the questions that are appropriate.

I've had people threaten not to talk to me in the past and it really used to bother me. After talking to Tim and Alan, I realize it comes with the territory.

We've criticized Phil Hersh in the past in here. I like most of his recent work and respect it as a whole and am glad at least one major paper covers our sport. I'm sure there is stuff about LetsRun that he likes/dislikes.

In his article, he points out how Ryan's opinion of his race was uncertain. I don't think that is unfair but no doubt it does support the view he takes that Ryan is underperforming a bit.

Wejo, I don't think reporters have to be "cheerleaders" for the sport by any means, but I disagree with the idea that there's a choice between being a "cheerleader" or being Phil Hersh.

There a lot of times when a "difficult" question might tick off an athlete. These are the times when things other than the question itself take on more importance.

If an athlete really bombs in a race (not saying Hall did, I'm just saying, hypothetically) a journalist should ask why, definitely. But there's a huge difference between asking "So, your performance today wasn't what you expected, why do you think that is?" and asking "Wow, how does it feel to come out here and fail in such an important race?"

In Hersh's case, it's pretty clear he's got some problem with what he perceives Hall's attitude toward running and racing to be. I'm not a huge Hall fan myself (too Jesus-y for yours truly) but I can be objective, too. I bet if you had asked Hall a similar question about what it means to make the jump from best American to WMM contender and done so in a less dickish way, there'd be no WEJO DISRESPECTS HALL thread. The source of the question and the openly insulting way it was asked (in response to a throwaway comment at the end of Hall's response to a different question) is what makes a legit question cross into the "dick" realm.

Hall was beaten today by 4 men. Even casual fans know marathon majors are races of attrition, where the lead pack at the halfway mark tends to disintegrate. If Hall had run splits of 64/64 to be way back at the halfway and move way up as other elites dropped out or started dying, that'd be one thing. Instead, Hall was with the pack at halfway before getting dropped with a 4:36 14th mile, as your recap noted. No, it wasn't an awesome race for Hall- but it wasn't some disaster that demanded an immediate explanation, either.

It's not like Hall went into this race going IMMA WIN IMMA WIN. In a race with ~10 elite athletes, you don't bet on an athlete- you bet the field. Maybe the press and the blind are "expecting" Hall to win a WMM, but I think that's a foolish expectation. Hall has a shot to win one, just like pretty much any ~2:06 guy does. However, there are a lot of 2:06 guys out there. I wouldn't "expect" one to win a race over another, certainly not over a guy like a Mosop or a Geb-Gebre or a Wanjiru. Maybe the press would have fewer demands for reasoning if they weren't consistently inventing expectations?

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. 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.

A few years ago Marilson Dos Santos ran stride-for-stride with Geb (DNF) and Hall (2:08:24) for 20+ miles enroute to a 2:08:37. A DNF after 30K on a fast Chicago course where Ryan Hall ran 2:08:04 is not on par with his past.

Did you take the time to tell Dos Santos that being the best in Brazil doesn't really mean much to you?

I didn't say *how* he could have or even *if* he could have. But if he somehow had been able to outwit Mosop, simply outrunning him isn't the only answer; therefore he needn't necessarily run 205 to do it. All this is beside the point - the *perception* is that Hall is getting always outfoxed and that is what's frustrating to fans.

Outwitted wrote:

Zombie Ronald Reagan wrote:

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.

of course, he should have "outwitted" him by running 2:06 and winning the race, right? after all, "he didn't need" to run 2:05.....oh wait, but mosop ran 2:05...pray tell, how does this "don't need to run 2:05" outwit and defeat the 2:05?? wow, i'd love to see this logic!

Zombie Ronald Reagan wrote:.... simply outrunning him isn't the only answer; therefore he needn't necessarily run 205 to do it.

All this is beside the point...

How did Meb win New York? Why race at all if the fastest guy always wins? What did Korir do in this race? He didn't win, but he tried *something*. Have you guys ever raced before? I wonder sometimes.

First of all, the fastest guy IN THAT RACE always wins. That's the definition of winning.

Second, Meb won in NY by running the fastest on a day when his competition didn't run close to their PRs or DNFed. Meb didn't "outwit" anyone. He had a day when 2:09:15 was enough to win. If Meb had run 2:09:15 or the equivalent in Chicago yesterday, he would have lost, and all of the Letsrun critics would say he was "disappointing," "underperformed," or crap like that.

Mister Falcon wrote:

And yet Meb ran faster on that day than a bunch of other guys with much faster PRs did. So how come he can do that and Hall can't? Because Hall's white and Meb's not?

Your logic is defective. The other guys who ran less than their PRs or DNFed in NY didn't do it because of anything Meb did to them. Meb didn't "outwit" them or put a hex them or anything else.

Instead, on a day when the top competition was not having their best day, Meb ran 2:09:15, which was a PR by 6 seconds - i.e., about what you would expect if everything goes right for him. That was a great race by Meb, but if anyone else had been in shape to break the CR in NY (2:07:43) on that day, there was nothing Meb could have done about and he would have lost.

Hall couldn't have make Mosop run slower yesterday if Mosop was capable of running a 2:05, which he was. Meb couldn't have either. If anything, Meb would have finished even lower than Hall based on Meb's PRs.

Runners World Demeans Hersch wrote:

We wonder if the reporter is down on himself because he’s not even the best American in his profession, much less one of the best in the world."

This is not germane.

Hardset, I agree with basically everything you've said, and as rare as it is to see on Letsrun, you've said it well. The question I have is whether Hersh wrote two entire articles about their respective medal winning runs? Since neither basically had any chance going in to the Olympics to medal.

Mister Falcon wrote:No ifs, ands, or buts, Meb faced everyone who showed up at the start and beat them all. So, credit to Meb simply for PRing and credit to Hall for failing to PR? How can we know that Meb couldn't have taken more than 6 seconds off his PR on that day, if that's what it would have taken to win?

So what? Hall could have beaten Mosop yesterday if Mosop had showed up and broken his leg. That wouldn't have made Hall capable of running any faster or running a 2:05.

Maybe Meb could have taken a few more seconds off in NY, but I think we know Meb could never have run a 2:07 because he's run a bunch of marathons and never come close, including on faster courses than NY.

In a marathon, who wins depends on 2 things - how fast you run and how fast your competition runs, and they are mostly independent. Pacing and tactics have some effect on other runners, but you can't make someone who is faster than you run slower than you, and you can't will yourself to run faster than your body is physically capable of running on that day.

Bill Rodgers was the most tenacious runner I ever faced back in my younger days! I learned a lot from him and became a better racer because of it! :-)

Geez, I guess at these Hersh bashers/ Hall defenders are from the "yay, everybody wins, here's a ribbon" generation. Maybe mommy and daddy told you to play fair and that you are special but sorry, that's a lie.

But back in the real world, you don't win medal for 5th place and you don't get gold medals for Top American. Hall himself has said that he needs to compete with the rest of the world. Hell, every elite runner with stones says the same thing.

And suddenly Hersh is the bad buy for pointing this out. Sorry , doesn't play.

hardset nipples wrote:

I am cackling and rolling a fat burrito here. You must be new around here, maybe a recent refugee from RW's forums? Calm yourself, go get a Midol or a cold shower. Something escaping your neural grasp, let alone well above your ability to answer, doesn't mean it's "stupid." I'm neither a fanboy nor a critic. Hall is a likable guy and he is one of the few who is leading the way for US runners in the marathon at present. I don't "imagine Hall to be a world beater" because I've never seen him really try to be one. There's just no evidence whether he could be because he's never actually thrown down except in the sole company of fellow Americans. That's the reality. People apparently prefer to take the intellectually lazy route of believing that lack of evidence is evidence of lacking.

Oh what a funny little man.

I notice that you prefer the intellectually rigorous route of assuming that Hall "has never really tried." How impressive. How compelling the logic.

The simple fact remains that you are indeed a Hall fanboy-cum-critic, 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.

His question is not legitimate, sorry mate! AND Hersh is wrong as well.

Ryan Hall ran a sub 2:05 at Boston and a 2:08 yesterday. I highly doubt that Ryan had his best day, as "many" other runners didn't either. How many can hang with Mosop?

Your site Wejo praises Kara Goucher and then removes posts that don't speak highly of her...I've seen it again and again.

For a male runner, Ryan is WAY better than Kara is for a female runner. Kara will never be able to break 2:20, not on her best day. Being a decent runner at one time you have to agree with that.

Ryan, unlike Kara, has laid it on the line and made the race many, many times more than Kara, and Ryan is facing amazing competition, never seen years ago and he still runs well.

Even the Olympics weren't his best race, but for God sakes he didn't totally tank (10th?) and look what it took, an Olympic Record run with 2 guys 2:07 and faster and Martin Lel running 2:10 plus, which tells you what? If Ryan had run 2:10 plus this site still would have ripped him. Geez, give him a break.

Ryan has huge potential having run 2:06 plus at London, how many other guys have done that at his age? As tough as it will be, don't count him out to medal in London, 3rd is not impossible....while Kara will need some luck to finish top 3 in the trials, believe it or not.

In all my years of coming to letsrun, this is by far the dumbest thread I've ever read. And I can't believe wejo, of all people, who has so much experience as a runner, could even insinuate that patting Ryan on the back is a bad thing.

Perhaps you, wejo, have forgotten in your long absence from running, or maybe you, random letsrun poster, never figured this out, but running is a completely different sport from anything else out there. Each of us got into it for different reasons, but we all fell in love with it because of how it made us feel. The satisfaction of the daily grind, the joy of racing, the euphoric feeling of becoming faster and faster and faster, of feeling that you have no limits.

Do you think Ryan Hall has forgotten this? Running, and especially marathoning, is such a complex beast. You can only control so much. But you can never, ever forget why you do it. Why you love it. Because the day you do is the day you're doing it for the wrong reason. It's the day you lose the Spark, the day the Fire goes out, and you will never be the same.

Should we pat Ryan on the back? ABSOLUTELY! To question him, to belittle him for not living up to whatever expectations you believe Ryan Hall should be living up to, is throwing water on his Spark, is asking him to run for the wrong reason. And he'd be a fool to listen.

Fan the Fire, gentlemen. Learn from who we have now so that the next generation can learn from all the miles run by their predecessors.

I am Tyler Cannon.

PH has to jack up the hate and attacks on RH to keep his job. Newpapers are dying and the CT is almost history.