In both articles and interviews this weekend, Philip Hersh appears intent to minimize and discredit Ryan Hall. There were several online articles, some in which the blatant shots at Hall have since been revised, in addition to the Flotrack video, which I noticed. Even Runner's World made mention of the press conference incident. Does anyone know the genesis of Hersh's bias towards Hall(outside the fact that he's a Yale graduate from Boston)?
Demeaning American distance runners is Hersh's thing. He's been doing it for a very long time.
"Sometimes it becomes clear why many people dislike the media. At the post-race press conference one well-known running journalist more or less told Ryan Hall that Hall shouldn't take pride in being the best American marathoner, because there are so many non-Americans ahead of him. We wonder if the reporter is down on himself because he’s not even the best American in his profession, much less one of the best in the world."
http://chicagomarathon.runnersworld.com/2011/10/post-race-odds-n-sods.html
This is the guy who said he wouldn't write about American runners unless they finish in the top 5 of an international event. Since Hall was 5th, maybe he's mad about having to work harder.
I wish he'd post here under his real name instead of as "ttc."
Hall thinks of himself as a 2:04 marathoner and the american record holder. The media, including Runner's World and a few people here created a category for him: The american-born record holder.
that was a pretty good post.
Hmmm... Sure A-rod and LeBron get 'called out,' but can we really say that their supposed lack of heart doesn't "fly?" Check the yearly income on these two and you'll see that yes, their attitudes do indeed fly, and quite nicely.
Also, I think that your analysis of Hall's attitude is a false and extremely post-hoc. Hall's 'blissed-out' attitude is not too different from e.g. Bill Rodger's (sure Bill was smarter and not crazy with the religion thing). Hall is very good but lacks the talent - I don't think 'drive' has anything to do with it. More likely is that he spent too many years developing over short distances while at Stanford. Maybe after a few more years of training he can catch up but sadly I think his star is falling. I hope he proves me wrong!
It's time for Hersh to start being serious about his career as a journalist. He's reached the point in his career when he should have been able to win a Pulitzer prize, so he must be pretty disappointed about his failures so far.
Hersh seems to be just phoning it in these days and not reaching the level of journalism that he could reach if he was really trying. Perhaps he needs to take some journalism classes or get some tips about how to be a good reporter from talking to reporters who have won the Pulitzer Prize. They might help him have a less disappointing career as a reporter.
hardset nipples wrote:
Hell, even just Hall's decision to be self-coached shows that he's not driven enough to subjugate his ego to being coached by someone else who knows more than him about marathon performance (not saying Mahon was the answer, but it's not as if anyone other than Mahon is necessarily a step down). Your perception of Hall's career is remarkably simplistic, to boot, though not at all surprising given the context.
So which American coach has coached a 2:08 or faster marathoner this year? That ought to narrow down Hall's possible choices.
hardset nipples wrote:
You are commenting on the perception of Hall's and Rodgers' attitudes, the public image. Rodgers was a champion who faced down the top of his game in his time. Hall has not. Results show the true attitude, not the popular perception. Hell, even just Hall's decision to be self-coached shows that he's not driven enough to subjugate his ego to being coached by someone else who knows more than him about marathon performance (not saying Mahon was the answer, but it's not as if anyone other than Mahon is necessarily a step down)...
This is not an absurd hypothesis. At the same time it is not obvious that it is correct. It is quite possible that Hall is not as talented as the top Kenyans and that he is getting the most out of the talent he has.
Would Rogers be winning major marathons today against the current Kenyans? As much as I admire Boston Billy, my guess is that the answer is a resounding "No".
hardset nipples wrote:
Results show the true attitude, not the popular perception.
So we can assume you have a lack of drive and focus since you're not grabbing the podium at marathon majors? Please - talk about simplistic viewpoints.
Actually, I think you'll find that 'media' is very closely linked to player salary.
Runners World Demeans Hersch wrote:
"Sometimes it becomes clear why many people dislike the media. At the post-race press conference one well-known running journalist more or less told Ryan Hall that Hall shouldn't take pride in being the best American marathoner, because there are so many non-Americans ahead of him. We wonder if the reporter is down on himself because he’s not even the best American in his profession, much less one of the best in the world."
http://chicagomarathon.runnersworld.com/2011/10/post-race-odds-n-sods.html
RW showed some real balls posting that without a byline.
I don't understand why RunnersWorld wouldn't use Hersh's name. Hersh is the #1 or #2 most prominent Olympic writers in America. He was not attempting to hide who he was. He clearly felt his question was legitimate.
I was not there but Mike Knapp mentioned the exchange briefly here.
http://www.letsrun.com/2011/chicago-quotes-1009.php#ixzz1aLu6WkHu
I'll follow up with him tomorrow:
"I don't feel like I've ever run a bad marathon, that's why I'm not disappointed. It was exactly what I hoped it would be, I learned a lot in my training leading up to this and I learned a lot in the race itself. There's not too many Americans out there running 2:08 so I'll take it." -- Ryan Hall.
"It doesn't mean anything to you apparently." -- Hall's response to Philip Hersh of the Chicago Tribune, who commented that a 2:08 means a lot to Americans but not anyone else.
Hersh's story on the race is here
Here's an excerpt on Hall:
Hall, the 2008 U.S. Olympic Trials winner, plans to run the 2012 trials in just 14 weeks. Still the leading U.S. marathoner, he has made the podium just once in eight international races.
His initial reaction was to say, "I'm happy," noting this was third fastest of his nine marathons, "and I don't feel like I've ever run a bad one."
Hall later allowed that it is "good to have a humbling experience" and was "disappointed or somewhat disappointed in a 2:08."
**
I agree with the comment above from hardset nipples that some of the running media in general acts as cheerleaders more than journalists and rarely asks any tough questions. I don't think Hersh was trying to hide who he was so RunnersWorld should mention him by name. He's a grown adult, he can take the criticism. But in the running world nothing issaid critical of anyone so even the Hersh criticism is without a name.
I'll try and find more about the exchange. 2:08 would be great for just about any other American but I think a lot of people saw Ryan's run as a letdown. If this type of performance happened in another sport, the journalists would be all over him. But in running because so many of us are fans we often pat the athletes on the back.
wejo wrote:
I don't understand why RunnersWorld wouldn't use Hersh's name.
That too, but I was referring to the fact that there was no author(s) credited for the RWOL article.
I posted something similar on another thread, but I think it's worth repeating here, as Hersh is an egomaniac and is probably checking in on this thread as it has to do with him. Ryan looked like a linebacker out there compared to the guys he was running against. Sorry, but he is always going to lose races in the heat when up against that many guys who are that good, that small and who have spent the majority of their lives in equatorial Africa. If the weather had been 10 degrees cooler Ryan would have run 2 minutes faster and beaten at least one or two guys who beat him today. No one on Earth could have beaten Moses today.
The problem is not that Ryan is settling for being the top American or that he is weak or insufficiently optimistic. The problem is that he is the only American with any chance of winning. If Mosop had had a bad day today, Korir probably would have won. If Korir and Mosop had had a bad day, Kiprop would have won... probably. In order for a Kenyan not to win, a lot of guys have to have a day less than their best. On the other hand, even if Ryan has a great day -which, by the way, I think he did today - in order to win it has to be the case that none of the 12 East Africans in the race who are at about the same level as he (or, in the case of Mosop, clearly at a greater level) don't have a great day. Results in sport are somewhat about probability. Maybe the Packers beat the Steelers one game in 10, but they get that one game. Ryan has been a bit unlucky, I think, but given the depth of Kenyan talent, we shouldn't be surprised that he has yet to win a major, even though he really is among the world's best. He ran tough and smart today. Unfortunately, the one guy in the field who was really better than him had a great race, and the weather worked to his great disadvantage.
The fact remains that Ryan could win the Olympics next year. The probability of it happening is low, but, other than Ritz, he is the only American who has any chance at all.
I guess I have too long a memory and I recall back in 2000 that Hersh referred to USA team members who went to Sydney will no chance of medaling as "Olympic tourists." That was a bit harsh, and of course that included Meb and Deena, whose experience probably had a little to do with them becoming medalists four years later in 2004, a point Hersh may have missed.
Some people here see journalistic harshness aimed at individuals as some kind of virtue. What kind of "tough" questions do you want, beyond "how come you suck" and "how come you're probably on drugs?"
Sources close to Rodale say wrote:
wejo wrote:I don't understand why RunnersWorld wouldn't use Hersh's name.
That too, but I was referring to the fact that there was no author(s) credited for the RWOL article.
Hi, I added my byline and Hersh's name. No mulled-over reason for not doing so before.
I think Hersh's story, linked above, is a fair one. I also think that Hall's reaction to his performance is exactly right.
He trained hard, he hoped to do better, but he's clearly not a warm-weather runner. He did poorly in Beijing for that reason. The fact that he could lay down this time in such weather tells me that he's good for 2:06. The problem is, on the day that he's good for 2:06, somebody from Kenya is probably good for 2:04.
THAT is the real problem here, and I'd be surprised if Hall doesn't know it.
The other real problem is that fans, journalists, and LR kibbitzers insist on holding Hall to their own expectations, reframing their expectations when (as in Boston), he arguably exceeds them, and dancing around his grave when he falls short. His times make him one of the two greatest American marathoners of all time. It's hard to understand the negativity that that remarkable achievement has accrued. It says more about the toxicity of fan-dom than it says about Hall.
What I notice is that Hall, like all the greats, is able to reframe his own achievements in a way that fuels further efforts. I seem to be the only person here or elsewhere who notices and is inspired by that. Too bad.
55F at race time, then it climbed a few degrees... Running in "heat"? 85F is heat. 2 of the top 4 PR'd- 1 by 2 mins.
kudzurunner wrote:
I think Hersh's story, linked above, is a fair one. I also think that Hall's reaction to his performance is exactly right.
He trained hard, he hoped to do better, but he's clearly not a warm-weather runner. He did poorly in Beijing for that reason. The fact that he could lay down this time in such weather tells me that he's good for 2:06. The problem is, on the day that he's good for 2:06, somebody from Kenya is probably good for 2:04.
THAT is the real problem here, and I'd be surprised if Hall doesn't know it.
The other real problem is that fans, journalists, and LR kibbitzers insist on holding Hall to their own expectations, reframing their expectations when (as in Boston), he arguably exceeds them, and dancing around his grave when he falls short. His times make him one of the two greatest American marathoners of all time. It's hard to understand the negativity that that remarkable achievement has accrued. It says more about the toxicity of fan-dom than it says about Hall.
What I notice is that Hall, like all the greats, is able to reframe his own achievements in a way that fuels further efforts. I seem to be the only person here or elsewhere who notices and is inspired by that. Too bad.
This is good stuff.
I think it's safe to say that Hall will consistently finish in the top 5, probably not better than 3rd, at major marathons. That's quite an achievement, but short of the expectations lots of people had for him after his first few marathons. There should probably be a moratorium on pre-race "can Hall win it for the whiteys" stories and a moratorium on post-race "Hall let us down again" stories.
Hall seems to take pleasure in what he does, and he's the best in a large country at it. Wouldn't we all like to be really, really good at what we do, enjoy doing it and always find motivation to try to do it even better?
The media and everyone else are under no obligation to "support" Hall and other Americans, whatever that means. But castigating Hall for not being the best in the world says more about the castigators than it does Hall. Why is Hall obligated to meet Phil Hersh's standards of success?