Hall's marathon vis a vis IAAF tables

OP had the mile equivalent at 3:49.89. Don't know if that was a typo or not. However, when when you're getting into comparison of 100ths of seconds on a performance comparison chart, you're really really picking nits.Per your latter observation, no duh! Webb has run a lot more miles. That's just one thing that makes marathoning tougher. However, these things don't account for one time efforts vs. multiple or weather.

NY runner wrote:

2:08.24 = 3:48.89

3:48.89 > 3:48.92

Again Webb has run alot more miles than Hall marathons. London wasn't ideal.

AK-49 wrote:

soo...if you're ranking this class of 00 and 01 in their respective best events, you'd have:

Webb - 3:48.9

Teg and Hall - 13:04 and 2:08:24

Ritz - 27:38

McWho? wrote:

What is the pole vault conversion?

19'4"

straight from the tables:

http://www.iaaf.org/downloads/scoringTables/index.html

Webb (3:48.9) 1216 pts

Teg (13:04.9) 1203 pts (rounded)

Hall (2:08:24) 1202 pts

Not saying which performance is "better" or who is having a better career. Just the points for the respective times at the various distances.

hall HM= 1265.5 pts

old double lapper wrote:

Equivalent Performances

Event IAAF 2005

Mile 3:49.89

10000m 27:21.14

5000m 13:04.52

discuss.

What's there to discuss? This is totally silly and would probably put him at like a 10.05 for 100 meters or a 1:44 for 800. I mean, who cares. The guy is probably more like a potential 2:06 marathoner, but he ain't ever gonna run a 3:49 or a 13:04. He knows he made the right move stepping up (he has already said so), though I'm sure he will drop a sub 27:30 10k before it's all said and done.

his 59:43 is "equivalently worth"(?) 26:42 for 10k on that chart

i called bullsh*t

Crazy Coach wrote:

What's there to discuss? This is totally silly and would probably put him at like a 10.05 for 100 meters or a 1:44 for 800. I mean, who cares. The guy is probably more like a potential 2:06 marathoner, but he ain't ever gonna run a 3:49 or a 13:04. He knows he made the right move stepping up (he has already said so), though I'm sure he will drop a sub 27:30 10k before it's all said and done.

I agree with everyting you said, except I think his 100 meter conversion is more like 9.72.

Oh, and one more thing, Webb might own the AR in the mile before it's all said and done, be he sure as hell ain't ever gonna run a 2:08 marathon.

Isn't the point who's had the best performance according the IAAF tables, not whether they could beat each other's times.

That said Webb has shown the best range so far.

Crazy Coach wrote:

Oh, and one more thing, Webb might own the AR in the mile before it's all said and done, be he sure as hell ain't ever gonna run a 2:08 marathon.

whats your point?

hall wont ever run a sub 350 mile. or another sub 4:00 as far as that goes.

Yes, that's what I said. Read some of my prior posts. My point is that comparing all of these times in this table is utterly ridiculous. Guys have a natural predilection towards a certain range of distances, Hall's being longer and Webb's being shorter. Actually, the 10k would probably be the perfect distance to see who's better, ultimately. But it deosn't matter that the table says Hall is as good as a 3:49 miler and 13:04 5000, because he ain't gonna run that fast.

This conversation is hilarious.

Some of you are on the right because you're simply comparing performances in different events based on a chart. Yes, Hall is a great distance runner. Yes, Webb is a great middle distance runner.

For the idiots who actually believe these guys will ever go heads up in a mile or a marathon, get real!

the430miler wrote:

hall wont ever run a sub 350 mile. or another sub 4:00 as far as that goes.

Hmm. Hall seems to have a pretty good record of making predictions like this fall on their faces. I'd bet my left nut that he could easily run sub 4 this season. He's Lopez Lomong scaled up to longer distances... fast over a huge range.

soo wrote:

This conversation is hilarious.

Tis true. Here's the point I'm making. In high school, I ran a 4:36 1600 and a 9:33 3200 (at elevation). My 1600 time suggests that I should have been a lot slower at 3200, or, put similarly, my 3200 suggests that I should have been much faster in the mile. I possessed a solid running economy, but lacked basic, raw footspeed. If I looked at some stupid conversion table to tell me where I should have been, it would have been wrong. The same is true in this situation. It's a stupid thread. Hall is probably more like a 2:06 marathoner, which probably converts to well under 27 for 10k, but he is not going to run that fast, EVER!

When I plugged Hall's run into th e linked calculator, I was pretty surprised to see the IAAF tables throw out times so close to Webb and Teg's PR's. In a crude sense, this tells us that all three are solidly world class (or at least, if you accept one as world class, the other two deserve that designation). Some people immediately got into the pitfall of saying that Hall would never run those other times. Those who know better realized that especially at the higher level of athletic achievement, it is unusual to get two performances for a given athlete at adjacent events (such as say, the 3k and 5K), much less across a spectrum. A notable exception is that Rod DIxon's 1500 and marathon PB's of 3:33.8 and 2:08:59 garner IDENTICAL point totals in the IAAF calculator!

It was noted that while Webb and Teg took multiple tries to reach this level, Hall reached it on first go, under unfavorable conditions. I interpret this as reflecting the limited # of healthy opportunities for racing a fast marathon in a career vs. the shorter events which skews the database accordingly (as was noted), PLUS my own conclusion that Hall may well be on a level in his (new) event that Webb and Teg are not in their own (yet). It will be interesting, for the sake of comparison, whether either Webb or Teg place higher in Osaka than Hall did in London (7th), since I consider London to be the de facto World Championships for this year.

As for those who question the validity of these types of inter-event comparison tables everyone is of course entitled to their opinion. I have only been using these tables since the first edition of the Purdy tables (ca 1970), and find the IAAF to be of high veracity in these events (see Dixon example above as but one case among hundereds that I have evaluated). The half marathon points table I think is skewed by the limited database of elite participation, and needs to be re-evaluated in light of recent performances, which is why I didn't include it for this discussion. I do consider Hall's current fitness, given his 1/2 marathon performance and the conditions and pacing in London, to be high 2:06/low 2:07. I certainly am not alone in this assessment, but given the slow course being used for the Trials, and the inevitably oppressive conditions waiting in Beijing in '08, it may be a few years before Hall's fitness to be clarified in a fast record-type race.

Thanks to all who have taken up this discussion.

Says it all.

You seem to do a poor job at dismissing the people that say that Hall will never run times as fast as Webb and Tegenkamp.

My question to you is where would you draw the line with these chart comparisons? Why not throw Jeremy Wariner into the equation since you think there is value in trying to compare apples to oranges?