Is Hall more impressive than Kennedy and Webb?

I think Webb is the most impressive of the three, although Ryan's rise to prominence in the marathon has been so meteoric, that could change very soon (like, say, in August). I would say that when Kennedy ran 12:58, it was about as impressive as what Hall is running now. However, these days, 12:58 isn't as impressive as it was when Kennedy ran it. It's still a great time, but I think 2:06 low puts you in better contention to win world titles, etc. than 12:58 does, although I'm saying this without looking up any statistics. It's just my feeling.

Webb is 8th all time in the mile, and it's not like anyone is running 3:26 these days. Webb, time wise, is already one of the most versatile middle distance runners in history. I'm sure that if he made a few cracks at it and perhaps upped his mileage a little, he could run faster than Kennedy's 5k PR, and that's not to mention being a far better miler than Kennedy ever was at any distance, plus one of the best 800 runners in the world.

That said, if Hall runs 2:05 low and wins an Olympic or WC medal in the next couple of years (or a major marathon) and Webb fails to improve or capture the elusive medal, perhaps Hall's achievements will have surpassed Webb's.

Hall has run a few good marathons. He is nowhere near Webb and Kennedy.

Intergalactic wrote:

Webb is 8th all time in the mile

That's because no one runs the mile any more.

It's an interesting question. Kennedy was 5th at Atlanta and Hall was 5th at London. I'd say the two are equal given the level of competition and if you consider the merit of 12:58 and 2:06 in their respective eras.

I'd rate Hall over Webb. Webb ran the fastest 1500 of the year last year, but 2007 was the first year since 1994 in which no one broke 3:30. Hall is a much better competitor than Webb.

marijuologist wrote:

Hall has run a few good marathons. He is nowhere near Webb and Kennedy.

nowhere near? I disagree entirely. Hall is much higher on the alltime list than Webb or Kennedy (unless you count the mile which you shouldn't)

Actually, I don't think Kennedy's 5k time is less impressive now. The 5k hasn't really improved that much since the 90s, while the marathon is now a whole different world. Hall would have been the WR holder in 1996.

Webb, Kennedy and Hall are dead even in the overall reckoning. Fortunately, Webb and Hall still have time to improve and become the next Dean Karnazes.

for what it's worth, the IAAF scoring tables give the 2:06:17 1258 points. On the IAAF tables, that's worth a 3:45.xx mile, 12:47 5000m, and 26:40 10000m.

Of course these are just numbers, actual performances may vary. :)

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/ScoringOutdoor2008_742.pdf

Purdy equates 2:06:17 to 3:27.72 for 1500, 3:45.08 for one mile, 12:58.08 and 27:08.37. So according to that, yes it is a more impressive mark. But of course, none of these things are perfect.

Its a very tough question to ponder. Webb has failed in WC finals, Hall has never made it that far. at london, hall was 5th in one of the most stacked marathons ever, but it was without tergat/ geb, and maybe a few more guys. ( I dont even know if tergat is still running the 'thon competitive). Webb's 3:30 win last year was sick, and you have to argue he is one of the best 1500 runners in the world even though he cant seem to medal. He is great at golden league, set up races with loads of badasses, but not in any WC finals. Even though Hall hasn't had the chance to really medal at WC, I would say Webb is still more impressive becuase he has won big races in Europe

Performance profiles based on IAAF scoring tables:

Yea wrote:

at london, hall was 5th in one of the most stacked marathons ever,

Hall was 5th and 7th in the two most loaded marathons of all time. It doesn't get any better than that.

purdy pointer wrote:

Purdy equates 2:06:17 to 3:27.72 for 1500, 3:45.08 for one mile, 12:58.08 and 27:08.37. So according to that, yes it is a more impressive mark. But of course, none of these things are perfect.

JK is better than Purdy. He equates Halls 2:06:17 to the following:

1500 - 3:28.67

Mile - 3:45.4

3k - 7:27.22

2mile - 8:03.1

5k - 12:53.0

10k - 26:52.6

15k - 41:15

Half-Marathon - 59:27

FYI, it equates to being better than every single American record.

-Rojo

PS. I should note that this chart is based on actual performances and it's 11 years old. Thus given how the fact that everyone runs marathons now as there is so much money in them, and the marathons are becoming faster and faster, it may need some updating.

The question thus becomes:

Are the marathon times now just catching up or is the marathon now way better/deeper than what happens at other events given how much money the 20th marathoner in the world can make versus the 20th miler in the world?

malmo wrote:

Performance profiles based on IAAF scoring tables:

Image:

http://i27.tinypic.com/2ql4lr6.jpg

Why is BK's 5000m so low (lower than Teg's, for instance)? Or am I misunderstanding the plot?

malmo wrote:

Performance profiles based on IAAF scoring tables:

Image:

http://i27.tinypic.com/2ql4lr6.jpg

Hey Malmo, can you explain what that chart means?

thanks

malmo wrote:

Performance profiles based on IAAF scoring tables:

Image:

http://i27.tinypic.com/2ql4lr6.jpg

Great work. Thanks, Malmo.

Why is Goucher on that table?

hold the phone wrote:

Why is BK's 5000m so low (lower than Teg's, for instance)? Or am I misunderstanding the plot?

It means you're an excellent copy editor. Try this:

guy not from there wrote:

Hall is a much better competitor than Webb.

excuse me? which championship races has he won? gotten second? gotten third?

his marathon TIME is amazing, but he got pulled along to it, was beat by four people, and was significantly behind the winner at the end. that's like saying webb is a great competitor because of his 800/1500/mile PR races last year.

simply put, neither Webb nor Hall nor even Kennedy ever won, placed or showed in a championship race. you can't say any of them is definitely a better competitor than any of the others.

PDubbs wrote:

Hey Malmo, can you explain what that chart means?

That's a question for Jackson Pollack.

sleeper wrote:

Why is Goucher on that table?

I'm guessing so that we can compare Goucher's performance range with those of the other athletes listed.

Thanks for the corrected table, Malmo -- it does make interesting reading. One thing that sort of leaps out is that the IAAF tables seem to be a bit generous to 3000m/2 mile times, possibly because of they're contested less often. The graph suggests that BK, MT, AG and (most surprisingly) DR have each had their best overall performance at that distance.

Also mildy surprising that Hall peaks at HM (and 25K) rather than the full marathon, though that may simply reflect the fact that sub-60 halfs and 2:06 marathons are rare enough that I don't have much intuition as to their relative worths. Were the 25K and 30K points taken from Hall's splits today, or are they simply from the curve fit? If they're splits, it's sort of surprising that the relative merit of his performance (according to the IAAF) was decreasing as he ran.

Anyway, I should probably stop microanalyzing the nice data. Thanks again for providing it.