The BIG 3: Only one remains

NOP Skeptic wrote:

I was just using Rupp as a reference

And since we're on the same subject, I'll even cite what other previous posters have said, in that Ritz's 1:00:00 was more impressive than Hall's 59:43

The HM Champs course was not flat, windy, and it was raining, compared to Hall who had spot on conditions and a flat course, plus Ritz ran his time in a championship race that was tactical toward the beginning miles

Why does Ritz get bonus points but not Hall? Hall ran his 59:43 SOLO from mile 1.

LetsRun.com wrote:

Toni Reavis has a piece up on this topic:

http://tonireavis.com/2015/03/17/big-3-down-to-1/#more-12835

Not sure what came first. This thread of the article.

This thread came first on Sunday. The article came out yesterday.

Neil Young wrote:

Dr. Pepper wrote:

Birthday in December, I think. Perfectly normal since most school systems run September 1st deadlines (and maybe back then October 1st or October 16th) for your age to start Kindergarten. .

Ugh. Yes, that means that it's perfectly normal for some students to be older than the rest who are in the same grade.

Dr. Pepper wrote:

Junior eligibility is based on staying 19 for the whole calendar year. Since Ritz turned 20 at the end of the year, it didn't count. .

No it doesn't. It means you are allowed to compete as a junior the same year you TURN 19.

A December 30 birthday means you are older than most of your peers in high school, younger than most of your peers in Junior competition.

Being older than most of your high school peers, and being as old as a college freshman are 2 different things.

And no. He wasn't as old as a college freshman.

And no. Junior eligibility means that you cannot turn 20 during the calender year, this goes for eligibility to set junior records and eligibility to enter championships.

To assert that Dathan was as old as a college freshman is to make a mistaken assertion.

I was looking back at the old High School Photos of Hall, Webb, and Ritz; they all look 25 at 17-18 years old. By the time they are 24 they look 30+. It seems the runners that look young and stay looking young tend to have lower performing junior and early senior careers, but sky rocket and have extremely good and long careers once 24+.

Also, if there is anything positive to take away from the careers of the Big 3, is that training that hard while under 21 years old pretty much destroys their body forever. I don't understand why High School Coaches think it is a good idea to have 16-18 year olds doing 90+MWP on top of heavy interval training year round 3-4 days a week. Ya sure, they might run a sub 4 mile or sub 15 5000m, but 9 times out of 10 they shit the bed half way through University and never recover.

Ritz is the only one of the Big 3 achieving moderate success still because, unlike Hall and Webb, he has the brains to not run through injuries and learn to take a damn break.

Yet again I have to come in and take a look at a popular thread and educate the masses. Wejo, can I get my handle changed to "running savant"?

passport pro wrote:

Ritz was as old as a college frosh when he was in high school.

False.

Ritz was born in December of 1982, meaning he turned 18 in the middle of his high school senior year like everyone. In fact all three are very similar in age. Hall is 77 days older than Ritz who is 14 days older than Alan Webb.

The person who was old for HS and shouldn't have the HS records is CHeserk. Cheserek turned 19 in February of his senior year.

flent wrote:

I think Hall's half-marathon is less impressive than Ritz's 12:56. Webb's mile is definitely better though.

Not according to John Kellog's conversion chart:

It's pretty amazing how easy they line up. The chart pre-dates all 3 records (although we put it up online 2 weeks after Hall's 59:43).

The chart has Webb's mile as the worse. It equates Webb's mile pb to 12:57.6 for 5000 and 59:53 for 13.1.

So that leaves Hall and Ritz. I'll have to call John Kellogg as I'm not sure if the chart works to the the hundreds of a second as it basically has the DEAD EVEN.

I put 59:43 into the chart and got 3:46.321 for the mile and 12:56.25 for the 5000. If you put Ritz's in there , you get 59:43.01 (but it only is done in full seconds for 13.1) and 3:46.326.

I don't know about how he did it with rounding. Ritz and Hall are dead even. I don't think JK would say Hall is .005 better but will ask him.

But you guys are missing a key record. JK's chart says the best mark of them all is Ritz's 2:06:17 marathon.

Ritz's 2:06:17 is equivalent to

3:45.5 in the mile

12:53.04 in the 5000

59:27.4 half marathon

So we have a winner according to JK who has a masters in Math, it's Hall.

rojo wrote:

So we have a winner according to JK who has a masters in Math, it's Hall.

What does a masters in math have to do with this? Was his focus in physiology, stats,or something else that is relevant?

rojo wrote:

Yet again I have to come in and take a look at a popular thread and educate the masses. Wejo, can I get my handle changed to "running savant"?

rojo wrote:

But you guys are missing a key record. JK's chart says the best mark of them all is Ritz's 2:06:17 marathon.

Ritz's 2:06:17 is equivalent to

3:45.5 in the mile

12:53.04 in the 5000

59:27.4 half marathon

Let's not get that handle changed quite yet, Mr Savant.

It is clear the this chart is mistaken.

What does it get when you plug in 58:22? A 3:38 mile? Ridiculous.

rojo wrote:

But you guys are missing a key record. JK's chart says the best mark of them all is Ritz's 2:06:17 marathon.

Ritz's 2:06:17 is equivalent to

3:45.5 in the mile

12:53.04 in the 5000

59:27.4 half marathon

So we have a winner according to JK who has a masters in Math, it's Hall.

I think you meant Hall in London 2008. But you got it right in your closing statement.

Next time try looking at the chart first (conveniently linked in the post), so you don't look like such an enormous buffoon.

This is a good thread. In many ways, these cats started the whole running craze with the internet with the sites and quick time results etc. They are pioneers.

To rank them is very hard. Ritz has done it all and might get the nood. Webb had a super season running 3:46 and 1:43 def the best "season" of the 3. Ritz's 12:56 was sicko, his best solo effort and was a little surprising at the time. I didn't think he ever had that type of speed. I still remember him closing on Bekele in that race. Yes, BEKELE!

Hall is done. Is over distance training and lack of speed with a little age now has done him in... Even marathoners need speed and this guy has none. He be hard pressed to run 4:20 for the mile right now. Good guy! Nice career with great prep times and some super but sporadic races at Stanford. He'd be # 3

Webb is a 1- B, with RITZ 1-A

Thanks guys and to Ritz a couple of more good years of racing!

WOW, what a trio!!!!

I pick Webb as the best of the three, and here's why: Webb, during the early 2007 season, seemed like he might have been the best miler in the world (obviously didn't pan out later in the season). Ritz and Hall, as good as they've been, never seemed close to that level.

Davey Gravy wrote:

I pick Webb as the best of the three, and here's why: Webb, during the early 2007 season, seemed like he might have been the best miler in the world (obviously didn't pan out later in the season). Ritz and Hall, as good as they've been, never seemed close to that level.

Eh, there was a bit of a post-El G vacuum that Webb lucked into there.

adsfadsfds wrote:

reader of the forums wrote:

It is clear the this chart is mistaken.

What does it get when you plug in 58:22? A 3:38 mile? Ridiculous.

Next time try looking at the chart first (conveniently linked in the post), so you don't look like such an enormous buffoon.

Maybe you should look at the chart. Based on what Rojo stated, I didn't need to in order to know that it is wrong.

Firstly, there is no 58:22 listed. Based on what is listed, it would likely give a mile equivalent of about 3:41.high. Equivalent to a 3:25.low 1500.

Ridiculous.

Neil Young wrote:

Yes he was. Ritz couldn't run Junior Nationals or Junior Worlds when he was a freshmen BECAUSE HE WAS TOO OLD. Most freshman are eligible for Junior comp. as freshmen.

Birthday is 12/30/82. Same as mine. He could not run Junior Nationals because he turned 20 on the second to LAST DAY OF the year in his sophomore year. If he was born 2 days later he would have been able to ... and he would have held the AJR for 5000m at 13:27.

Have you ever noticed that the Kenyans all turn 20 in January of the year that they actually turned 24?

Forget accomplishments, whose the most POPULAR???????

First off we should recognize that all 3 of these guys gave in their all and all 3 have lived up to the hype. None are disappointments by any stretch and I have always been a huge fan of them.

Best Single Performance- I'd say Ryan's 2:06 in London or 2:04 in Boston. Both were sick sick performances worthy of top 5 in major marathons in th world of uber-money in marathoning.

Best Single Season- I'd say Webb's 2007. The AR, the win in Paris, plus some sick 800m times. He was on fire, the best in the world for a good month or two.

Best Career- Give this one to Ritz. Was the best and most consistent from High School (Jr. bronze, FLCC, etc), through college (many time NCAA champ), to track performances (10K Olympic teams, 5K AR), and finally to the marathon (60:00 and 2:07).

So they each have something.

reader of the forums wrote:

Firstly, there is no 58:22 listed. Based on what is listed, it would likely give a mile equivalent of about 3:41.high. Equivalent to a 3:25.low 1500.

Ridiculous.

Why is that ridiculous? What should it be?