Ahead of Hall...
Shorter Gold Medal. Rodgers won Boston & NY 8X. Meb Silver Medal. Edelen WR holder. DeMar Bronze Medal. Kelley won Boston 2X, 2nd 7X. KK US record-holder, won Chicago 2X, London. Salazar won NY 3X, Boston. Hayes Gold Medal.
What has Hall done that's better than these guys winning medals and huge races? And don't cry about the era. A medal's a medal and winning Boston's winning Boston.
How many miles a week does Phil Hersh run? How many marathons has he completed? What does he know about the event? Zero=nothing.
Content providers (such as the editors of LRC) don't care so much about accuracy as they do about hype and controversy, which generates reader reaction. Accuracy matters less than provocation, which is why sedentary non-athlete pusses like Hersh have built entire careers on inaccurate antagonism. It's why they're given a platform to spout petty biases, when they have absolutely no personal knowledge of, or connection to, what their judging.
kanny wrote:
2:06:17 in London 2008 not good enough for you?
My mistake, skimming Hall's bio I was seeing 2:08's and forgot that 2:06. I stand corrected. That's a baller time, well beyond any time Meb put up.
That does put him closer to Meb in my book, but I don't know if the fast time alone is enough to overcome Meb's hardware. Something to think about...
chilhowee wrote:
How many miles a week does Phil Hersh run? How many marathons has he completed? What does he know about the event? Zero=nothing.
Phil has a degree in French literature from Yale. How can you argue with credentials like that?
Big East wrote:
1. Shorter
2. Meb
3. Rodgers
4. Khannouchi
5. Hall
That's better!
setting the record straight wrote:
kanny wrote:2:06:17 in London 2008 not good enough for you?
My mistake, skimming Hall's bio I was seeing 2:08's and forgot that 2:06. I stand corrected. That's a baller time, well beyond any time Meb put up.
That does put him closer to Meb in my book, but I don't know if the fast time alone is enough to overcome Meb's hardware. Something to think about...
Hey, you're the second guy I've seen on these boards say that they may have overlooked something and maybe they don't know everything IN ONE DAY. That has got to be an all time record for LRC.
setting the record straight wrote:
My mistake, skimming Hall's bio I was seeing 2:08's and forgot that 2:06. I stand corrected. That's a baller time, well beyond any time Meb put up.
That does put him closer to Meb in my book, but I don't know if the fast time alone is enough to overcome Meb's hardware. Something to think about...
They are definitely pretty close -- Meb is clearly ahead based solely on hardware. But, Ryan is clearly ahead based solely on times. He is also ahead (2-1) on head-to-head match ups. I'd give Meb the nod for now, but Ryan still has plenty of time to catch up...
Meb Keflezighi
9th 2:12:35 2002 NYC
7th 2:10:03 2003 Chicago
2nd 2:11:47 2004 U.S.Trials
2nd 2:11:29 2004 Olympics
2nd 2:09:53 2004 NYC
3rd 2:09:56 2005 NYC
3rd 2:09:56 2006 Boston
21st 2:22:02 2006 NYC
8th 2:15:09 2007 U.S.Trials
1st 2:09:15 2009 NYC
5th 2:09:26 2010 Boston
6th 2:11:38 2010 NYC
6th 2:09:13 2011 NYC
Ryan Hall
7th 2:08:24 2007 London
1st 2:09:02 2007 U.S.Trials
5th 2:06:17 2008 London
10th 2:12:33 2008 Olympics
3rd 2:09:40 2009 Boston
4th 2:10:36 2009 NYC
4th 2:08:40 2010 Boston
4th 2:04:58 2011 Boston
5th 2:08:04 2011 Chicago
Head to Head - Ryan 2, Meb 1
Ryan > Meb 2007 US Trials
Meb > Ryan 2009 NYC
Ryan > Meb 2010 Boston
7th, 8th, 9th guys:
- U.S. record-holder. Won Chicago 2X.
- Won NY 3X, Won Boston.
- Gold Medal
Finish 4th or win?
Time-trial or medal?
PR or record-holder?
Anyone arguing Hall should be higher, is answering the 1st option on each question.
I'm a huge BR fan, but, if he's that high on the list, then DeMar should be as well. Rodgers won 4 Bostons and a slew of other marathons. DeMar won seven Bostons and a slew of other marathons and an Olympic Bronze Medal. DeMar's career was better than anyone else's on that list, save Shorter.
A race is held to determine who's best, not what times they can run. The guys who ran the most and won the most should be regarded as the best. I'm also a big Hall fan, but, until he starts winning some majors, or, heck, some minors, he shouldn't be on the list at all.
come at me BRO wrote:
The point is that Hall could say that if he lived in another time because he is that talented. I would still rate Shorter above Hall but Hall running a 2:06 and a 59 HM shows he has a hell of a lot more talent than Shorter.
A similar comparison would show that Hall has a lot more talent than Abebe Bikila. I can't even *type* that without laughing.
KK broke the WR two times!!! It's worth many medals on the world stage if you ask me!
If Shorter had been running with loads of sub 2:08 runners, as Hall does, wouldn't his times have been much faster? Shorter was robbed of Olympic Gold in 1976 by a proven drug cheat in Cierpinski, otherwise he'd have 2 golds at marathon. He deserves #1. If you go by time, then just give us a list of the top ten marathoners on time. That excludes anyone from an earlier era with slower competition, no gels or possibly even water during marathons, and ineffective training methods. As for the absence of Africans (Bikila ring a bell?), it has only been since the 1980s that people of non African descent have believed themselves physically inferior to Africans and have used it as an excuse not to do the training or to go for it in races. Hall is an example of a great talent who is unwilling to do the fast training or race gambling necessary to compete with the best. Shorter had the drive to win, whereas Hall does not.
KK was mad fast! wrote:
KK broke the WR two times!!! It's worth many medals on the world stage if you ask me!
He only broke it once as an American. If we are talking about best American runners then I think it's fair to look only at what they did when they were Americans (okay, maybe it's not fair, but it's the way *I'm* going to do it).
Thank you, kudzrunner, for having taken the time to read through not only the list but the reasoning behind it and for having a broad enough vision to understand - and express it better than I did - that historical importance was, in fact, an overriding criterion for some of the choices.
And I know I omitted some other fine runners -- Tony Sandoval, Jeff Wells, Craig Virgin, Ron Tabb, Dick Beardsley and more -- but a Top Ten has to end at Ten.
Yes, world records and fast times are important. But courses are so different and parameters so changed (rabbits, etc.) that results mean way more to me than times.
That is why I put Hall in 10th - not because of my well-documented feeling that a runner of his ability should not express satisfaction with merely being the best U.S. marathoner.
I still think Khannouchi was wrong both in running the London Marathon rather than the Olympic trials in 2000 while his attorney was working frantically to get him citizenship in time for the Games and in dropping out of the 2004 trials nine weeks before the race, citing an injury, when he had told me (on tape) in mid-2003, "I will say right now it is the race of my career. . .I will try to run even with a broken leg." After all, he ran the 2000 London Marathon (for $175,000) despite injuring himself six weeks before that race.
For all that disdain toward the adopted country he frequently vowed to pay back on the roads, he remains one of the greatest U.S. marathoners ever. But in Khannouchi's case, I considered only his races as a U.S. citizen, as I would with Bernard Lagat should I be trying to determine his rank as a U.S. track distance runner (which would be very high).
PH
jjjjjjjjjjj wrote:
If Shorter had been running with loads of sub 2:08 runners, as Hall does, wouldn't his times have been much faster? Shorter was robbed of Olympic Gold in 1976 by a proven drug cheat in Cierpinski, otherwise he'd have 2 golds at marathon. He deserves #1. If you go by time, then just give us a list of the top ten marathoners on time. That excludes anyone from an earlier era with slower competition, no gels or possibly even water during marathons, and ineffective training methods. As for the absence of Africans (Bikila ring a bell?), it has only been since the 1980s that people of non African descent have believed themselves physically inferior to Africans and have used it as an excuse not to do the training or to go for it in races. Hall is an example of a great talent who is unwilling to do the fast training or race gambling necessary to compete with the best. Shorter had the drive to win, whereas Hall does not.
____________________
For a few obvious reasons, I don't think any serious person has a problem with Shorter as number one; however, these rankings are almost impossible because all things are never equal, it boils down to what types of accomplishments someone thinks is most important.
For example:
Kim Gallagher is the only American women to win 2 Olympic medals in an event over 400m, but she rarely gets discussed as one of America’s greatest female distance runners. (What’s important is an individual thing.) Who is the greatest H.S. md/distance runner between Gerry, Ryun and LV...you can't possibly answer that question quantitatively or qualitatively? Another difficult one; who is the world’s greatest sprinter between Jesse Owens, Carl Lewis and Usain Bolt? For everything one of these athletes accomplished, there is a counter argument for what they did not accomplish. You can’t take away from an athlete because they didn’t race against enough East Africans; what about athletes who missed out on accomplishments because they got beat by drug cheats, or missed out on opportunities because of the 1980 Olympic boycott or ended their career early because they needed to go out and get a job. How many WC or Olympics medals would Steve Scott or Bernard Lagat have won if they had been born 5 years earlier or 5 year later…sometimes circumstances get in the way. Some athletes ran fast times because that was their focus and they took the risk on an all or nothing proposition (e.g. Wilson Kipketer), some athletes won because they did not take a risk on running fast and focused solely on winning. Some athletes focused on one event at major competitions, which did not mean they could not have accomplished more by running more events and more competitions. (Those are some of the problem.)
The question of where Hall and Meb rank among America’s greatest marathoners can’t possibly be answered when their careers are still in progress. Hall has a chance at winning his 2nd U.S. championship and an outside chance at an Olympic medal. Meb has a chance at making his 3rd Olympic team; these are all major accomplishments which would obviously affect the current rankings.
jjjjjjjjjjj wrote:
If Shorter had been running with loads of sub 2:08 runners, as Hall does, wouldn't his times have been much faster? Shorter was robbed of Olympic Gold in 1976 by a proven drug cheat in Cierpinski, otherwise he'd have 2 golds at marathon...
Hey, I'm a big Shorter fan and believe that he deserves to be at the top of the list.
That noted, your first two sentences appear to be mutually contradictory. If Shorter would have taken on and beaten sub 2:08 guys why couldn't he beat a 2:09:55 guy in the Olympics? Was he somehow affected by the fact that Cierpinski was a drug cheat (which I do not doubt)?
How many Olympics did KK run for the USA? Dude makes Bonds look clean. How many on that list ran faster than Hall? that's what i though h8ter.
???????????? wrote:
Hall has won how many major Marathons? That's what I thought fan boy.
Khalid is the guy way too low on that list.
From the USA today article -
'You're famous in Kenya. You're the white guy everyone knows about,'" Hall says, laughing.
How many people on Herch's list are Famous in Kenya? Clarance De Mar?
Phil is only famous on these boards for being a douche.
All good - that time feels downright ancient at this point. Plus, I agree with your overall point that Meb's higher place on that list is warranted (not even taking into consideration his very recent win).
setting the record straight wrote:
kanny wrote:2:06:17 in London 2008 not good enough for you?
My mistake, skimming Hall's bio I was seeing 2:08's and forgot that 2:06. I stand corrected. That's a baller time, well beyond any time Meb put up.
That does put him closer to Meb in my book, but I don't know if the fast time alone is enough to overcome Meb's hardware. Something to think about...
Philip Hersh wrote:
Thank you, kudzrunner, for having taken the time to read through not only the list but the reasoning behind it and for having a broad enough vision to understand - and express it better than I did - that historical importance was, in fact, an overriding criterion for some of the choices.
And I know I omitted some other fine runners -- Tony Sandoval, Jeff Wells, Craig Virgin, Ron Tabb, Dick Beardsley and more -- but a Top Ten has to end at Ten.
Yes, world records and fast times are important. But courses are so different and parameters so changed (rabbits, etc.) that results mean way more to me than times.
That is why I put Hall in 10th - not because of my well-documented feeling that a runner of his ability should not express satisfaction with merely being the best U.S. marathoner.
I still think Khannouchi was wrong both in running the London Marathon rather than the Olympic trials in 2000 while his attorney was working frantically to get him citizenship in time for the Games and in dropping out of the 2004 trials nine weeks before the race, citing an injury, when he had told me (on tape) in mid-2003, "I will say right now it is the race of my career. . .I will try to run even with a broken leg." After all, he ran the 2000 London Marathon (for $175,000) despite injuring himself six weeks before that race.
For all that disdain toward the adopted country he frequently vowed to pay back on the roads, he remains one of the greatest U.S. marathoners ever. But in Khannouchi's case, I considered only his races as a U.S. citizen, as I would with Bernard Lagat should I be trying to determine his rank as a U.S. track distance runner (which would be very high).
PH
Thanks for visiting our boards-agree or not at least you are covering our sport.
Thanks for speaking out on topics important to the regrowth of our sport.
I enjoy reading your articles. Agree or not with your positions is not the issue- you are putting them in the public eye and for that I thank you.
Tom Hyland
PS Patti Dillon was happy to see she made your list.
Thank you for the congrats....
I am a tad surprised to make the top ten...then on the other hand (wear a glove) I'm a tad disappointed they still don't get the stats correct..THREE X's at Boston..(it's an sorta thing with moi)...and no mention of being the first American (second in the world aat the time ) to break 2:30.
Oh well....I'm getting older and more grateful for anything for that matter.
from her Legends Lounge thread on tracktalk.net