rojo wrote:
PS. As for the xc title, I don't give it extra points for being done with an abbreviated base.
Even if it was outkicking Hall, who was the front runner on one of the best XC teams of all time?
Ritz smoked Hall off 6 weeks of training, Hall had been healthy all year.
TrackCoach wrote:
Ritz is second becasue he has beaten Hall in all but one of their head to head match ups.
A minor point, but hasn't Hall beaten Ritz in both of the last two OT marathons?
Many of you guys are nuts... Webb is first by a mile (pun intended). He was flirting with being the best 1500 runner in the world for a couple of years. His lack of championship hardware doesn't reflect how good he actually was. Ritz and Hall have rarely been more than afterthoughts on the world stage, whereas Webb was the elite of the elite.
Unfortunately, Hall has been buried by the legions of African marathoners. Ritz has been the most consistent (which is sad for the other two considering how many injuries he's suffered. Everything could change in London or beyond, but it's not likely. Webb didn't fulfill his potential but his potential was so great that he has still had the best career.
Hall smoked on Ritz 2006 XC champs in the last lap. He's been better as pro, maybe you have to look at the college training.
coach bigfoot wrote:
rojo wrote:PS. As for the xc title, I don't give it extra points for being done with an abbreviated base.
Even if it was outkicking Hall, who was the front runner on one of the best XC teams of all time?
Ritz smoked Hall off 6 weeks of training, Hall had been healthy all year.
Aghast wrote:
In other words what you said was that none of the them could beat the others at their best events. This is neither novel nor interesting. It verges on a tautology.
jjjjjjj wrote:One way of thinking about it is who would beat whom at his best.
Ritz would beat Hall at every distance below marathon.
Ritz would beat Webb in a non-championship race at every distance above 2M or maybe even above the mile.
Ritz has two world medals, the others have none.
Webb's greatness was short-lived, but his star sure shone brightly and he even beat Ritz at 10k and at the time had a better 5k pr as well. Had Webb been able to stay healthy for a few more years, he might own a few more American records and have some world medals, but then Ritz has rarely stayed healthy for very long. Hall is a terrific marathoner but has no titles, other than one Olympic Trials and other than his first half marathon, which was great, has not run any other good races as a pro.
1.Ritz 3:42/8:11/12:56/27:22 (but could have dropped way under that in a fast Euro race later that year, had there been one)/60:00 (in a championship race, actually 59:59)/2:09:55
2.Webb 1:43.8/3:30/3:46.9/8:11/13:10/27:35
3.Hall 3:42.7 (hs)/13:16(?)/28ish/59:43/2:06:17
Work some more on your comprehension skills. What I said was not that Ritz can beat Hall and Webb at one event, Hall can beat Ritz and Webb at one event, and Webb beat Hall and Ritz at one event. What I said was that among the three Hall would win only at marathon, whereas Ritz would win at half marathon (WC half bronze trumps one solo half), 10000m, 5000m, and possibly 3k/2M. He'd also likely beat Hall at 1500m/mile as well. And Webb at his best would beat Hall at 800/1500/mile/3k/2M/5000m/10000m. But Webb could have beaten Ritz only at mile and under for sure and possibly at 3k/2M (recall that 12:56 corresponds to a pretty fine 3k/2M).
Now on your skills at logic: a tautology is quite different from the claim that each would beat the others at his best event (which is not what I was saying anyway). At my best event, I would not come close to these guys at their worst event. To say something is one's best event is not at all to say that one is better than everyone else at it.
rojo wrote:
jjjjjjj wrote:One way of thinking about it is who would beat whom at his best.
Ritz would beat Webb in a non-championship race at every distance above 2M or maybe even above the mile.
Really? Guess you weren't alive on April 30, 2006. Webb beat Ritz in a 10,000.
http://www.letsrun.com/2006/homepage0501.php1 Alan Webb Nike 27:34.72
2 Dathan Ritzenhein Nike 27:35.65
I mentioned that race, but you need to read better. What I said was that if each of these guys was at his best, Ritz would win at 10000m and 5000m, and when Webb beat Ritz, the latter was nowhere near his best. Ritz ran 27:22 in 2009 in the World Championships and even the Brojos knew he had a great shot at breaking 27 that September. But there were no 10000m races in Europe after World's that year and so he trained for the half marathon.
Hall
Webb
Ritz
Hall has shown he can really compete with the best in the world in his event, and he does it consistently.
Webb had a higher peak than anyone, but it is clearly gone, and I do not feel like he did enough with his career to make it truly outstanding.
Regardless of the '08 Olympics, Ritz is clearly worse than Hall in the marathon. He has never really dominated an event enough to consider him competitive with the very best in the world.
Now, you could argue that Hall has a bit of a break in the marathon since being close means you're in the running for a win because of the huge uncertainty of marathon finishes. You could also say Ritz was at that super-competitive level in the half-marathon in 2009, but that is only one year.
It's hard to put Ritz first in any scenario, and for that reason I think the other two should have the nod over him.
Let me ask you, with those comments on ritz, what you make of his 3rd places at world junior xc (1st was bekele, and there would have been about 12 ethiopians or kenyans in the field) and world half marathon (kebede or tadesse the winner?), against a tough field? hall's better than ritz at the marathon, but at nothing else.
I'd say, Webb, at his best, would beat Ritz at every event that is contested on the track. Ritz would beat Webb in 12K XC and the road races 10k+.
Ritz ran 27:22 big deal. He lost to Webb when Webb ran 27:34. You site that Ritz could have gone faster - but I'm assuming you must not think Webb can? Webb also ran his 13:10 WAY back in 2005 after a season training for the 1500m.
If you are going to ask the question, "at their best," you are basically asking who is the biggest talent. If that is the question, I'd choose Webb in every race from 1m-10,000m on the track.
But in terms of who has had the best career, probably Ritz. He is a
3:40 (?)
8:11
12:56
27:22
60:00
2:09:55
3x Olympian
NCAA Champion XC
3rd USA JR XC
3rd World Half
6th place WCs 10k
9th Oly Marathon
Webb:
1:43
3:30
3:46
8:11
13:10
27:34
1x Olympian
3x USA 1500m Champion
3:53 HSR
7th WCs
9th WCs
#1 World Ranking in 1500m 2007
#2 World Ranking in 800m 2007
So it's between Webb & Ritz.
Hall has been the most consistent, but he has really never been that competitive on the world stage. He is a consistent 2:08 guy. He is generally 2min back from the winner. He has never really been a definite top 10 guy at any point in his career.
Most marathons only have ~8 quality guys max - he routinely gets ~5th or so. But during that same month, other guys will run 2:04/05/06/07 all across the world in other races.
With that said, I'd say Rupp has ALREADY had a better career than all of them.
Rupp may have a better 10,000m time than Ritz. But he hasn't got a medal or really done anything at a World or Olympic championship. Galen may be riding high on peoples minds now. However I believe if he flops at these Olympics I don't think many would rank him ahead of any of those three. At least at this point in time.
With that said, I'd say Rupp has ALREADY had a better career than all of them.[/quote]
Ritz - Talented, ballsy. Fragile body, strong mind
Hall - Talented, ball-less. Head case
Webb - Start with a roar, end with a whimper
The OP asked how would you rank their post-collegiate careers, so you need to ignore anything they did in high school, or at World Juniors, or as an NCAA student-athlete.
With that limitation, I'd say Webb - Hall - Ritz.
To me, the mile/1500, 10k, and marathon are the premier distance events, with the 5k and half marathon not quite having the same meaning, and stuff like 8k, 15k, 20k, etc further down the line. I'm talking shades of grey here, no big knock on races that aren't miles, 10k's or marathons. Webb's US mile record trumps what Hall and Ritz have done, although I wouldn't put it past either of those guys to change the stats in the future. When Webb was at his peak post-college years there weren't any other US runners who I felt could challenge him. With Hall, Meb has bettered him more than enough for me to see those two as competitive equals. With Ritz, I feel like he's always in the mix for the top places (when he's healthy and fit) but I'm always surprised when he does something like his 12:56 5000m. Not sure why, he's a great runner. I think the sky is still the limit for Hall, and it won't surprise me at all if Ritz knocks another couple minutes of his marathon pr, so ask this question in another year or two and see how the rankings change.
So many ways to make the argument to put any of these guys on top, great question!
I'm rating them based on actual times and reasonable comparisons of races close in distance or championships. So, 27:22 in a tactical, warm championship with subsequent 12:56 and 60:00 indicates sub 27 in a Brussels style race (Solinsky ran 26:59 and then later 12:55), while 12:56 indicates 3k of 7:32 and 10k of 27:01, according to IAAF points. Ritz is more suited to 10k than 3k, with little mile speed, so I'd think that 7:32 might be a touch fast, though possible, whereas 27:01 would be too slow.
Fair enough, but Hall's track title was in a very specific event, whereas Ritz beat "all comers," meaning all runners from 1,500 up to 10,000 in one race, with very little training behind him. That's a more impressive title.rojo wrote:
Sagarin wrote:Ritz was also the only winner of an NCAA cross championship I believe off of an abbreviated base.
Good point on the xc title but then it needs to be pointed out that Hall is the only one with an NCAA track title.
PS. As for the xc title, I don't give it extra points for being done with an abbreviated base.
Well none of them have actually DONE anything worth noting minus the Olympic qualifying...and notice that it's "qualifying" and not WINING... so who cares.
1. ROW (Rest of the World)
2. Ritz (he does have a half medal)
3. Webb + Hall
Y'all just wait until God-coached Hall medals in the Olympics...
jjjjjjj wrote:
.... Ritz is more suited to 10k than 3k, with little mile speed...
Ritz has a better 2-mile time than a 10K time.
After these Olympics, I'd say Ritz wins. Hall is second for making it, and Webb is a distant third for not even running his event at the trials.
Me-thinks Eddy Helleybuck needs to be removed from that list for more than one reason.
[quote]rojo wrote:
This is a fascinating thread. Very fascinating. It's almost unfair to even allow it to exist though as it's so hard to rank them as there events are so different.
Redundancy occurs when a word is used that adds no extra information to the words already used. So the very in very fascinating is redundant because fascinating already means very fascinating.