usausa wrote:
he would of
"He would've"
had about the same Olympic result if he didn't run London. Look at how fast the top 3 ran in the heat, he just can't ran
"run"
that fast in conditions he's not use
"used"
to. Running London was smart after a trials race in which he held back with no competition. With out
"Without"
london
"London,"
the Olympic marathon could of
"could've"
have been a huge set back
"setback"
for him.
hmmm...
No.
next question.
As much as I like the guy, anyone want to bet me that Hall never runs a sub-2:07 again?
Sagarin wrote:
As much as I like the guy, anyone want to bet me that Hall never runs a sub-2:07 again?
How do you figger? Would you bet that Wanjiru never runs sub 2:07 again as well? What causes you to think this is so?
Just a hunch. Four tough marathons in a 16-month time frame is a bit much for anyone, except a gifted African.
Sagarin wrote:
As much as I like the guy, anyone want to bet me that Hall never runs a sub-2:07 again?
Yes, I do. $100?
Sagarin wrote:
Just a hunch. Four tough marathons in a 16-month time frame is a bit much for anyone, except a gifted African.
Even if Hall doesn't match his marathon PR for the remainder of his career, it would be a wild-assed guess to assert that the past 16 months had anything to do with it, especially when you add in the always scientific "gifted African" clause.
Actually, for Sammy, it's only three:
Feb '07: Fukuoka Marathon
Mar '07: Hague Half
Feb '08: Granollers Half
Feb '08: Abu Dhabi Half
Apr '08: London Marathon
Aug '08: Olympics
Ryan:
Jan '07: Houston Half
Apr '07: London Marathon
Nov '07: Olympic trials Marathon
Apr '08: London Marathon
Aug '08: Olympics
I think its comparable, although its worthwhile to note that Sammy didn't run a marathon between Feb '07 and Apr '08. Granted there are a couple half marathon's squeezed in there, but anyone who's run both, all-out, will tell you that it takes exponentially longer to recover from the marathon. Its very likely that Ryan was running on dead legs and he either didn't recover enough for Beijing, or just didn't have a long enough build-up.
I maybe missing something here, but can anyone find what Sammy was doing between Mar '07 and Feb '08?
he overcooked himself. it is fine line between overtraining, overreaching and peaking. this comment about he didn't have the same legs indicates a runner who was tired and didn't adapt optimally to his training.
he seems from this comment that the combined effects of heat and altitude training and/or the previous marathon all combined to overtaxed him. i bet he needed to adjust his rest cycles (recovery days and recovery weeks) a little bit.
i am sure if this happens again in his training they will modify his training cycle and not use the same training plan they have used in the past.
also if you adjust for the conditions (based on the last 48 years of Olympic marathoning) and the pacing (went out so hard) then hall finished very well and indicates he was only little bit off.
also when he first he arrived in China and he went out for an easy run he commented that he was soaked from sweat after getting so hot on a easy jog (see his running blog). this indicates that he wasn't acclimated enough to the humid conditions and was unprepared to fully face the conditions.
People were writing how they did not believe that Wanjiru was *only* doing 120-130km/week? Given the racing schedule, and the effort he was planning on putting forth, the rest seems well worth it.
In general....the taller you are the worse you will run in the heat. Hall is 5'10'. Ritz is shorter. Most of your Olympic Marathon winners over the years have been shorter as Olympic Marathons tend to be warmer than optimal. \
Wanjuri? 5'4'.
Someone needs to tell Hall/Mahon that you don't train for heat and humidity by doing your hard workouts in it. You get the same adaptation by just putting in the time on easy to moderate runs, like what Ritz was doing. Adding heat and humidity to an already challenging hard workout does nothing but compromise the quality of the workout and extend recovery (and has an impact mentally, based on Hall's statement about 'not hitting the tempo runs').
wayfool, you don't know what you are talking about. Fukuoka was December 07.
Trying to compare Hall's schedule with Wanjiru's is like the good ol' Apple and Oranges. Two athletes are never the same.
Having run sub 2:20 myself, I am of the opinion that Hall's choice to run London this year was unwise. Some 10km's and Half's (in warm conditions) would have been the best choice.
Height isn't really a factor, it's body mass. Of two runners who are 6 feet tall, one 150 pounds and one 170 pounds, the heavier runner will have a more difficult time in the heat. If you are 5'4 and heavy, you will have heat problems.
Charlie Spedding
January 1984 Houston Marathon 1st 2.11.52
May 1984 London Marathon 1st 2.09.57
August 1984 Olympic Marathon 3rd 2.09.58
Having run the London Marathon did not hurt Ryan Hall one bit in the Olympic Marathon. Thinking too much and not racing is what hurt Ryan Hall in the Olympic Marathon. He talks about his soul and things of the soul and how he derives his energy and motivation from a cause of the soul yet he chose to run the race with his head and not his soul and it failed him. If you are one of the top marathoners in the world then you go out and get yourself into the race and race the other top runners. No way all of that lead group was going to come back to him. The top contenders went out together but he chose to not to compete but to run strategically. His mistake. It had nothing to do with London.
If Hall see himslef as a warrior of God and fights in the race for God's glory then he needs to do just that. But when the time came he shied away from the fight and tried to be a thinking runner. Centering your race strategy on something other than your strength and motivation is a mistake. One I that he hope corrects the next time out. All warriors fail sometimes but the good ones get up and prepare to fight again.
If we were to answer that one way or another would we be using "post hoc falacy "?
If he won gold, one might argue that Running London Marathon earlier gave him the confidence to medal. Would that also be post hoc?
Now I pose a few questions: Say Ryan ran a fast marathon the day before the Olympic M.. We can assume without question that would have an effect on his performance, but would that be "post hoc fallacy"? If not why?
Just because one thing occurs after the next, does not necessarily imply causation, but perhaps the hypothetical example above does imply causation. How might someone argue that is so? Can we argue in a similar way to answer the original question posed by Two Too Much?
KevinM wrote:
Sagarin wrote:Just a hunch. Four tough marathons in a 16-month time frame is a bit much for anyone, except a gifted African.
Even if Hall doesn't match his marathon PR for the remainder of his career, it would be a wild-assed guess to assert that the past 16 months had anything to do with it, especially when you add in the always scientific "gifted African" clause.
KevinM, you are a wise man. Some on this board worship African runners in a similar manner to Kim Kardashian worshipping ... ah, nevermind.
If Sagarin had a brain and used it he would discover that Kenyan marathoners in the past have had very short careers due, partially, to running too many races in a short period of time.
And to the member of mensa who claimed Ritz trained in Houston, unless they recently (and quietly!) renamed Eugene "Houston" that is incorrect.
There are no unconnected or unrelated events.
Post Hoc fallacy wrote:
If we were to answer that one way or another would we be using "post hoc falacy "?
If he won gold, one might argue that Running London Marathon earlier gave him the confidence to medal. Would that also be post hoc?
Now I pose a few questions: Say Ryan ran a fast marathon the day before the Olympic M.. We can assume without question that would have an effect on his performance, but would that be "post hoc fallacy"? If not why?
Just because one thing occurs after the next, does not necessarily imply causation, but perhaps the hypothetical example above does imply causation. How might someone argue that is so? Can we argue in a similar way to answer the original question posed by Two Too Much?
Despite all the astonishingly fast stuff going on early, a well-paced 2:09:55 would have gotten a bronze.