I was discussing last night with my wife the idea that I don't think finishing time or place is the sole way to evaluate one's performance in the marathon.
Sure I see the absurdity of that statement but I stand behind it.
Having said that I think Boston is the one course where people can come from behind to win. Maybe we can go through the Boston finishes the last 20 years and point out instances where the winner came from behind to win.
Yet at the same time, I think at some point the race has to be a competition and you have to be there to compete if you are trying to win. There are benefits to running with other people. If you want to win the race generally this is how you have to run.
I think if all of a sudden someone throws down a 4:30 mile at mile 10 of a marathon, you don't have to go with them right away. You can run a 4:40 mile and try and slowly catch up. I have no problem with Hall doing that.
But once you regain the pack if it's later in the race and they make another surge, likely you need to go with them if you want to try and win. Meb did this and Ryan didn't. I think what Ryan did was easier than what Meb did. I think Merga's 2 second finish ahead of Hall was was more impressive than Hall's run.
If you want to say, "he beat him by 2 seconds" that is all that matters, I can see the argument I just don't agree with it. Some people have different goals in the competition. Merga's was to win, Hall's was to run as well as he could.
They are different goals and can end in different results.