Greg Meyer even said Hall wasn't himself. Anyone not understand the statement or the importance of a credible source- hire a tutor.
Greg Meyer even said Hall wasn't himself. Anyone not understand the statement or the importance of a credible source- hire a tutor.
ttc wrote:
Greg Meyer even said Hall wasn't himself.
Do you have Korsakoff syndrome or some other form of anterograde amnesia? Every time you post this, it's as if you've forgotten doing so about once an hour for the past day or two.
What's your response to the people who have pointed out that Hall did not do what you emphatically claim that he did (run with Geb for 20 miles in London)? Other than ignore these posts, I mean -- that part I get.
It wasn't among his greatest races. On the world level today he was insignificant. He's had other races where he was more of a factor and a challenger.
I agree. He wasn't "himself" as he has shown in Boston and London and the 2008 Trials on a slower course. He proved he is still close to that form though by running a time that would have been considered one of the best times run by an American on a legit course less than a decade ago. Just a little off.
2007, Hall pushed the London pack that caused Heb to DNF at mile 18- even better than if mile 20. In 2008, Hall was inside Geb's world record race through 21 miles, until rain blowing in his face slowed him.- even more impressive. Quit crying with multiple posts, and just say it, otherwise you're just cosigning it.
Jeebus! Hall was among the leaders at 30k. Back in the supposed salad days of American marathoning, the winner of major races almost never had company that late. Shorter didn't. Rodgers didn't. If you argue that Ryan is insignificant because he let go at that point, you also, to be fair, have to say that all of the other marathoners of the seventies were insignificant as competitors compared to Rodgers. This is something I would actually agree with. However, and here's the thing: This means that the salad days of American marathoning were really the salad days of Bill Rodgers - or Frank Shorter or Alberto Salazar. It means that 30-40 years ago we had some great individuals. Americans weren't really running any better than they are now. And yet... most everyone, including Hersch, acts as if we were.
To demean the best runner we have in public shows you the type of person that Hersh is. That's something you ask in a different setting or not at all. The Africans have 20 elite runners in every marathon and one of them is bound to have a good day. Beating 15-16 Africans every time he races is flipping great. Imagine if we had 20 Ryan halls all with different training and prep, running in each marathon. The odds are stacked against him. I can't stand when inadequate people bring try and bring down someone because their daddy didn't hug them or they cant actually do anything so they set these standards for other people that don't make any sense. That guy doesn't know a thing about dedications, hard work and my three year old has better social skills than that turd.
The blame does not lie with the best marathon runner in US history, the blame lies with idiots like you that think you should even comment on the the running sport that is called the marathon.
That's just how it plays out.
ttc wrote:
2007, Hall pushed the London pack that caused Heb to DNF at mile 18- even better than if mile 20. In 2008, Hall was inside Geb's world record race through 21 miles, until rain blowing in his face slowed him.- even more impressive.
Ever heard the term "moving the goalposts"? If not, look it up.
ttc wrote:
Quit crying with multiple posts, and just say it, otherwise you're just cosigning it.
Wait. Did you just complain of someone else posting multiple times about the same thing?
I take it back. Korsakoff's syndrome doesn't cover the neurological bases. Schizophrenia might, but chances are you're just a garden-variety jackhole grinding an axe here for reasons unknown to everyone but yourself, and even that one's up in the air.
In Junior High, High, Undergrad & Grad we learned to cite top sources to drive home a point. Greg Meyer's a top source and he says, like I did, Hall wasn't himself. If anyone doesn't understand like most 6th graders do, then hire a tutor.
ttc wrote:
In Junior High, High, Undergrad & Grad we learned to cite top sources to drive home a point. Greg Meyer's a top source and he says, like I did, Hall wasn't himself. If anyone doesn't understand like most 6th graders do, then hire a tutor.
Since you evidently hold at least a master's degree (based on your Gratuitous Caps and lots of other evidence this is unlikely, but I'll play along) and are trying to frame this in formal academic terms, please explain how "Hall wasn't himself" is not a logical impossibility. Who else could he have been?
You also seem confused about the difference between citing sources and making a valid argument. Yes, we know where you got the "Hall wasn't himself at Chicago" idea, by now you probably have it tattooed across your forehead so that offline people can be privy to your wisdom too. But how does "Hall wasn't himself" translate to irrefutable evidence of a poor or uncharacteristic marathon race? (This is where you go back to one of your other "arguments" -- he's an established 2:06 guy or better, ran with Geb for the first 50 miles at Comrades, etc. I guess I'm just really bored.)
Tam-Tam nails it here. I don't really care if Hersh is critical of Hall. What was fairly breathtaking (in the video of the exchange) was how Hersh worked to upstage the runners being interviewed and turned it into a story about Hersh. That isn't journalism. That's just kind of childish. Read the press release from the Chicago Marathon and then read Hersh's story. Other than the critical bits about Hall's disappointing fade, Hersh doesn't really add much.
Tam-Tam wrote:
Apparently the Bro-Jos have a little crush oh Hersh.
Oh My.
They also miss the point. They complain that this stuff about hersh being at a top-5 paper (whatever that is) or not having run a 4:48 miles is just silliness.
or that you have to be an a-hole to be a good reporter.
First of all, Hersh often will do a journalistic no-no - make the story about himself or just ask a certain question so he can stick it to the subject.
In this case, it's pretty clear that Hersh disdains Hall for his efforts, but he uses his platform to 1) ask a question designed to further his own idea and 2) report about said question in the article to again further his own agenda.
his question happens to be legit, but it's very clear what he is doing and why he's asking. You can see it in how he writes about the subject - in this case Hall.
In an opinion piece this is just fine, but to do that in a news story is not professional.
A reporter should report on the facts of the race and bring in all relevant info, but shouldn't make the story about himself as Hersh has done time and time again.
Secondly, I think it's fair to question a writer's credential to show where their biases are.
Who in the hell is ttc? Greg Meyer says, like I did, Hall wasn't himself. Greg Meyer, unless he spoke directly with Hall is just giving his opinion and you copy it thinking it makes you right? How insecure are you and please, get a life!
KMB wrote:
Since you evidently hold at least a master's degree (based on your Gratuitous Caps and lots of other evidence this is unlikely, but I'll play along) and are trying to frame this in formal academic terms, please explain how "Hall wasn't himself" is not a logical impossibility. Who else could he have been?
Well, he could have been Bruce Egeland.