jjjjjjjjj wrote:
My guess is that Hall really thrived on marathon training when it was new and different, a combination that produces great results frequently, but that he got out of contact with the faster work that had immediately preceded the marathon training and enabled the latter to be so effective.
Thanks for saying (so well) what I've been trying to say (so wordily) for the last two years. I was one of the people (under a different moniker) who predicted that Ritz would beat Hall in Beijing, precisely because of Hall's lack of racing (esp. shorter races).
Even at lower levels of ability, so many runners benefit from track-oriented, faster work followed by a *phase* (not a career) of more marathon-specific training. Good example: Joe Henderson, formerly editor of Runner's World and popularizer of long slow distance (LSD) training. He started doing LSD after getting stale from track training, then ran a marathon--followed, of course, by a whole career of LSD, marathons, writing, editing, etc.
So what was Henderson's fastest marathon? His VERY FIRST. Granted, he had gotten burned out on 1960s-style track training; but for his first marathon he still had that strengthening/turnover/change-of-pace stuff in his legs, and after a *period* (not a career) of longer, easier running his legs were fresh for a pretty good marathon.
Granted, different things work for different people, but Hall does not appear to be an all-slow-twitch individual. By losing touch with speed (including *shorter races*, which offer a very specific kind of training effect), he has needlessly given away part of his conditioning--more importantly, part of his racing ability.
BTW, I'm a big fan of Hall's. I feel his talent is practically without limit.