Will Hall Win Chicago ?

Canova said on here that Mosop has been injured and is only 80% fit. That levels the field a little. Worku probably should be up there, along with Dos Santos. Hall has a good shot for top 5, top 3 if he runs great.

chance of Hall winning 0%

chance of top 3 finish 80%

chance of top 5 finish 97.5%

apply to all marathons. He doesn't have the fire, the hatred necessary to put away his competition

Mortonson wrote:

Hall is a 2:04 runner who is young with lots of room for improvement. If he can do that on a tough corse like Boston then surely he can run 2:03:30 at Chicago.

Doesn't Boston have an advantage because it is in general downhill? So wouldn't Chicago be a harder course because it is world record eligible

If Chicago has pacers, then Mosop won't be eligible for a WR.

No wait, that only applies to women.

He has as good of a chance as any of the others in the elite men's field to win.

ironicler wrote:

If Chicago has pacers, then Mosop won't be eligible for a WR.

No wait, that only applies to women.

No wait, that whole statement is false.

I'll be surprised, very pleasantly, if Hall wins. I hope he keeps pace with the leaders and then races with them after 30k. He lost touch at the last 2 Bostons when the racing started in the Newton hills.

That said, I wonder how wise it is to go out at WR pace. Most of us have bombed by going out too hard in a marathon; it's not the way to run your best race.

Good luck Ryan - this coming from an atheist.

Nutella1 wrote:

Mosop will run high 2:04, which is excellent in Chicago. Hall will run 2:07, which is excellent for him.

If Mosop runs high 2:04, then Hall should be right there with him and possibly beat him. After all, Hall ran that kind of time at Boston, which is nowhere near as fast of a course as Chicago.

:)

ifyouthinkso wrote:

Doesn't Boston have an advantage because it is in general downhill? So wouldn't Chicago be a harder course because it is world record eligible

i'll take it you've never run boston.

If you take out all of Hall's aided performances on the downhill Boston course his career top five is not really that impressive:

2:06:17 - 2:08:24 - 2:09:02 - 2:10:36 - 2:12:33

Still good for an American but not that great by world standards. At least two other non-Africans in the field, Dos Santos and Sato, have better career histories on unaided courses. But I just read that Dechase is out with injury so Hall's chances have improved marginally.

troof be told wrote:

If you take out all of Hall's aided performances on the downhill Boston course his career top five is not really that impressive:

2:06:17 - 2:08:24 - 2:09:02 - 2:10:36 - 2:12:33

Still good for an American but not that great by world standards. At least two other non-Africans in the field, Dos Santos and Sato, have better career histories on unaided courses. But I just read that Dechase is out with injury so Hall's chances have improved marginally.

Why would you take out someone's fastest race when looking at their top 5 fastest times...

inb4 gale force winds

Mortonson wrote:

Hall is a 2:04 runner who is young with lots of room for improvement. If he can do that on a tough corse like Boston then surely he can run 2:03:30 at Chicago.

I'll only comment on the 1st sentence, although the second is probably more ridiculous.

Hall turns 29 on October 14th. He is older than Mosop, Emmanuel Mutai, Vincent Kipruto, Robert Kiprono Cheruiyot, Gebremariam, and Kebede. Kirui is 4 months older than Hall and Geoffrey Mutai is a year older than Hall. It's hard to consider Hall young by elite marathon standards.

someone had to do it wrote:

Why would you take out someone's fastest race when looking at their top 5 fastest times...

inb4 gale force winds

Look up "aided." Boston is not recognized as a record-legal course. Under current rules times run there, including three of Hall's best times, are classified as aided. The list above is of Hall's five best unaided performances as defined by current rules. Like I said, both Dos Santos and Sato have better histories on unaided courses than Hall.

For comparison, the other top non-Africans' career top five on unaided courses:

Dos Santos:

2:06:34 - 2:08:37 - 2:08:43 - 2:08:46 - 2:08:48

Sato

2:07:13 - 2:08:36 - 2:08:50 - 2:09:16 - 2:09:50

Mosop = DNF the blood doping is starting to catch up with him.

WTH? wrote:

chance of Hall winning 0%

chance of top 3 finish 80%

chance of top 5 finish 97.5%

apply to all marathons. He doesn't have the fire, the hatred necessary to put away his competition

Bill Rodgers never struck me as a "hateful" guy. He seemed to win just fine.

asdfsadfsdaf wrote:

WTH? wrote:

chance of Hall winning 0%

chance of top 3 finish 80%

chance of top 5 finish 97.5%

apply to all marathons. He doesn't have the fire, the hatred necessary to put away his competition

Bill Rodgers never struck me as a "hateful" guy. He seemed to win just fine.

true enough. But, that's probably based on his demeanor off the road. He had the competitive drive while racing to get the job done. Different era too, though.

Bill was known as the nicest guy off the road and the nastiest, most vicious guy in any race he ran. He was there to tear the heads off everyone else. The contrast with what a great guy he was personally was part of what made him great.

troof be told wrote:

If you take out all of Hall's aided performances on the downhill Boston course his career top five is not really that impressive:

2:06:17 - 2:08:24 - 2:09:02 - 2:10:36 - 2:12:33

Still good for an American but not that great by world standards. At least two other non-Africans in the field, Dos Santos and Sato, have better career histories on unaided courses. But I just read that Dechase is out with injury so Hall's chances have improved marginally.

That 2:09:02 was SOOOO much better than the final time showed. I seriously would have put Hall against anyone in the world that day in New York, that was one of those once in a lifetime performances where everything came together perfectly.