Dairyland wrote:
And the question is 2016 Rupp vs 2008 Hall. Rupp wins his first marathon and gets 3rd in the olympics in the marathon and 5th in the 10k.
Hall on the other hand wins over a mediocre trials field and finishes 10th at the olympics.
Which is a better result...third at the olympics or tenth? Which field was deeper in the Olympic marathon 2008 or 2016? In the trials? The answer is clear as day
Again, you have listed two races on here that are not relevant to this thread.
KingAdRock wrote:
I wonder if this will eventually turn into one of those "you had to be there" threads. Had I not been there in November 07, I'd probably say Rupp without a second thought.
However, I was there. There was just something unquantifiable, perhaps incommunicable, about Hall that day. Maybe that was the single peak day of his running career, maybe it was one of a handful of days that every runner has where everything just aligns, who knows. Watching that guy that day in Central Park, and I remember Sell saying the same thing in a post-race interview, he ran with a "Je ne sais quoi" (I'll be putting myself on time out after this post for using such a ridiculous cliche) to the point where I'm not sure any other human being would've beaten him on that course that day. Am I under even the most remote delusional he was the best marathoner in the world in November 2007? Not even close. But on that day, on that course, I don't think anyone who witnessed the run in person would find it far-fetched that he wasn't getting beaten by anyone that day.
I want to second what KingAdRock wrote. As someone who was running back and forth across the middle of Central Park to see the leaders and the pack in those 2007 trials as much as I could, I have to give credit to Hall: on that one day, his running was truly stellar; he crushed a number of runners whom I would have said were certainly better. He was just stunning.
In every subsequent race I ever saw Hall run, he was either somewhat disappointing or much worse - an embarrassingly bad choker. Rupp has seemed overall to be a much more consistently strong competitor and a superior runner through the range of distances; on every other day, I would strongly bet on Rupp. On that one day in Central Park, I'm not so sure.
Rory2 wrote:
KingAdRock wrote:
I wonder if this will eventually turn into one of those "you had to be there" threads. Had I not been there in November 07, I'd probably say Rupp without a second thought.
However, I was there. There was just something unquantifiable, perhaps incommunicable, about Hall that day. Maybe that was the single peak day of his running career, maybe it was one of a handful of days that every runner has where everything just aligns, who knows. Watching that guy that day in Central Park, and I remember Sell saying the same thing in a post-race interview, he ran with a "Je ne sais quoi" (I'll be putting myself on time out after this post for using such a ridiculous cliche) to the point where I'm not sure any other human being would've beaten him on that course that day. Am I under even the most remote delusional he was the best marathoner in the world in November 2007? Not even close. But on that day, on that course, I don't think anyone who witnessed the run in person would find it far-fetched that he wasn't getting beaten by anyone that day.
I want to second what KingAdRock wrote. As someone who was running back and forth across the middle of Central Park to see the leaders and the pack in those 2007 trials as much as I could, I have to give credit to Hall: on that one day, his running was truly stellar; he crushed a number of runners whom I would have said were certainly better. He was just stunning.
In every subsequent race I ever saw Hall run, he was either somewhat disappointing or much worse - an embarrassingly bad choker. Rupp has seemed overall to be a much more consistently strong competitor and a superior runner through the range of distances; on every other day, I would strongly bet on Rupp. On that one day in Central Park, I'm not so sure.
Rupp has never run fast at Hall in overall PR, Olympic Trials PR, Boston PR, or Chicago PR.
WinnytheBish wrote:
Rory2 wrote:
I want to second what KingAdRock wrote. As someone who was running back and forth across the middle of Central Park to see the leaders and the pack in those 2007 trials as much as I could, I have to give credit to Hall: on that one day, his running was truly stellar; he crushed a number of runners whom I would have said were certainly better. He was just stunning.
In every subsequent race I ever saw Hall run, he was either somewhat disappointing or much worse - an embarrassingly bad choker. Rupp has seemed overall to be a much more consistently strong competitor and a superior runner through the range of distances; on every other day, I would strongly bet on Rupp. On that one day in Central Park, I'm not so sure.
Rupp has never run fast at Hall in overall PR, Olympic Trials PR, Boston PR, or Chicago PR.
I apologize. He has surpassed Hall in his Chicago PR.
Does Galen have the super shoes? If not, Hall. If so, probably still Hall.
This. People are comparing the overall Hall versus the overall Rupp, but this thread is about the the specific Hall that dominated the 2008 OT versus the specific Rupp that dominated the 2016 OT.
And when compared that way, I take Hall. On that day, he was having one of those rare days where the universe seems to align and you feel awesome. Neither of them looked strained, but there was something about Hall that day. Based on how he looked, you would have thought he was out for a solid run, not ripping along Central Park.
Dairyland wrote:
Ah yes because all marathon courses are the same and time is the only distinguishing factor.
Halls Olympic trials was run in almost perfect conditions. 2016 was 20 degrees hotter.
Although Hall didn’t run the exact same New York course is as run year to year, the course record in New York is a minute faster than Los Angeles. Your arguments are degrading more and more
It was a windy, rainy morning in Central Park with five loops that were rolling hills notorious for taking down runners late in the New York City Marathon. I know this having been there that day.
Get your facts straight.
Just in case you guys forgot what he looked like in the later stages of the race. Can anyone here honestly deny that he could not have gone to 50K at the same pace?
otter wrote:
Dairyland wrote:
Ah yes because all marathon courses are the same and time is the only distinguishing factor.
Halls Olympic trials was run in almost perfect conditions. 2016 was 20 degrees hotter.
Although Hall didn’t run the exact same New York course is as run year to year, the course record in New York is a minute faster than Los Angeles. Your arguments are degrading more and more
It was a windy, rainy morning in Central Park with five loops that were rolling hills notorious for taking down runners late in the New York City Marathon. I know this having been there that day.
Get your facts straight.
Yeah, it was not even close to being the New York City Marathon course. That’s a laughable comment.
Hardloper wrote:
If Hall gets to wear clownshoes equal to Rupp's then it's not even close
Agreed. Rupp still torches him.
Hall Pass wrote:
so truey wrote:
When rupp runs that fast you can enter that opinion.
Yeah, exactly. I posted last night to this effect and the Rupp fans didn't reply. Rupp HAS run flat, fast, paced races. What happened in Chicago when the field wasn't watered down for him? Didn't make the podium (eliminating the old 'he runs just fast enough to win; he doesn't care about time' theories) nor run faster tan Hall did on the slower London course. Yes, despite Radciffe's long-standing record, she knew something perfectly flat like Berlin was faster. Geb even told her as much. In fact, it was the Chicago course where Paula's time was finally eclipsed.
The point is, Rupp DOES enter races designed for fast running in one of them - 1 - he ran 10 seconds faster than Hall did on a slower course. We do not need to speculate what Rupp would run in a perfect set-up with the shoes. He's done it. We know. About a minute behind Mo and about the same as Hall.
hey bud, remember that Chicago marathon where rupp sucked then a week and a half later he got achilles surgery, because his achilles was bothering him so bad during the marathon and the build up to the marathon. you’re absolutely delusional if you think 26:44 prime rupp would not be able to run 2:03 in berlin with vaporflys. rupp is the 16th fastest 10k guy of all time, and he ran 26:44 with regular spikes, no zoomX nike pogo spikes. 16th fastest marathon of all time is 2:03.46. rupp in his prime would have been a 2:03 runner, and that’s a fact. it’s a shame he never went for it
running2begood wrote:
rupp of a berlin course will be 2:02 high, hall had ONE fast race that was legal. Rupps consistently perseveres over hall. rupp wins
Stop. Rupp has finished7 marathons, all presumably with the clown shoes (Maybe the 1st one wasn't with them?). His pb is 2:06:07. You think he'd run 2:02 in Berlin? So he can run 10 seconds per mile faster than what he's done? Then why hasn't he done it.
He's 34. I'll bet you at 10-1 odds$10,000 he never breaks 2:03. You put up $1000. I put up $10,000.
running2begood wrote:
Hall Pass wrote:
Yeah, exactly. I posted last night to this effect and the Rupp fans didn't reply. Rupp HAS run flat, fast, paced races. What happened in Chicago when the field wasn't watered down for him? Didn't make the podium (eliminating the old 'he runs just fast enough to win; he doesn't care about time' theories) nor run faster tan Hall did on the slower London course. Yes, despite Radciffe's long-standing record, she knew something perfectly flat like Berlin was faster. Geb even told her as much. In fact, it was the Chicago course where Paula's time was finally eclipsed.
The point is, Rupp DOES enter races designed for fast running in one of them - 1 - he ran 10 seconds faster than Hall did on a slower course. We do not need to speculate what Rupp would run in a perfect set-up with the shoes. He's done it. We know. About a minute behind Mo and about the same as Hall.
hey bud, remember that Chicago marathon where rupp sucked then a week and a half later he got achilles surgery, because his achilles was bothering him so bad during the marathon and the build up to the marathon. you’re absolutely delusional if you think 26:44 prime rupp would not be able to run 2:03 in berlin with vaporflys. rupp is the 16th fastest 10k guy of all time, and he ran 26:44 with regular spikes, no zoomX nike pogo spikes. 16th fastest marathon of all time is 2:03.46. rupp in his prime would have been a 2:03 runner, and that’s a fact. it’s a shame he never went for it
You are not very bright. You essentially proved it with your silly comment about the 16th fastest 10000m and the 16th fastest marathon. Surely you cannot be this stupid.
Dairyland wrote:
Rupp is clutch, Hall is not. It should not be forgotten that Rupp wasn’t far off from a silver in 2016 instead of a bronze.
He’s so much better than Hall it’s unbelievable.
It should be pointed out that Rupp had the super shoes and most of the field did not.
Rory2 wrote:
In every subsequent race I ever saw Hall run, he was either somewhat disappointing or much worse - an embarrassingly bad choker.
The dude runs 2:06:17 at London and you call that somewhat disappointing? Do you realize it was at the time the fastest time by an American born athlete by more than 2.5 minutes?
What about his 2:04:58?
wazzu1452 wrote:
Ryan Hall was good for all of about 12 minutes! He ran some crazy times then dropped off the map.
Rupp debuted at London in 2007 and had the lead at 30k.
In 2011, he ran 2:04:58 in Boston - at a time when the WR was 2:03:59 to place 4th. I hardly think that great perfomrances 4 years apart should be called 12 minutes.
And i don't want to hear "But it was windy in Boston." Yes it was. Wind is like super shoes.
rojo wrote:
running2begood wrote:
rupp of a berlin course will be 2:02 high, hall had ONE fast race that was legal. Rupps consistently perseveres over hall. rupp wins
Stop. Rupp has finished7 marathons, all presumably with the clown shoes (Maybe the 1st one wasn't with them?). His pb is 2:06:07. You think he'd run 2:02 in Berlin? So he can run 10 seconds per mile faster than what he's done? Then why hasn't he done it.
He's 34. I'll bet you at 10-1 odds$10,000 he never breaks 2:03. You put up $1000. I put up $10,000.
i think in his prime he would’ve been around 2:03, look at who he’s beat in 2016 to snag bronze. you’re silly if you think 2:06 is rupps max potential. he’s older now and past his prime. but i 100% agree rupp, the 2016 marathon bronze medalist and the 26:44 guy had potential to be quite a bit faster than 2:06
Rupp because he is tougher, being from Oregon. Hall is from a bliss state, CA., and would wilt.
rojo wrote:
wazzu1452 wrote:
Ryan Hall was good for all of about 12 minutes! He ran some crazy times then dropped off the map.
Rupp debuted at London in 2007 and had the lead at 30k.
In 2011, he ran 2:04:58 in Boston - at a time when the WR was 2:03:59 to place 4th. I hardly think that great perfomrances 4 years apart should be called 12 minutes.
And i don't want to hear "But it was windy in Boston." Yes it was. Wind is like super shoes.
I believe you mean Hall debuted at London in 2007? Also, I love that your first priority for 2021 was to set these clowns straight that think Rupp is as good as Hall.
2008 Hall would destroy 2016 Rupp and then 2020 Hall would pick up 2016 Rupp with one arm and toss him to the moon.
Honestly these older LR users get blinded by nostalgia and can't accept when a more recent performance is better than an older one. Rupp is an olympic medalist, something Hall never even came close to... how is this even being discussed?!
I swear I could create a thread asking people to compare some hobby jogger from the 90's to Joshua Cheptegei and people would try and make a case for the jogger being better.