Beautiful Day wrote:
I have a feeling that those who say Hall are maybe in their 40s or even older, and those who are Rupp No Matter What on this and other threads are much, much, much younger. The kind who believe the world began in 2004.
They make every possible modification to whatever Rupp does, meaning every race he runs is "worth" something faster by bizarre machinations, but those same situations for every other runner ever are not allowed.
Wind? Rupp had the worst ever, even compared to runners ahead of him.
Fast courses are slow when Rupp runs them.
Slow courses are slower when Rupp runs them.
Sorry, Nike and Al, Rupp is at risk of women running nearly as fast as he has, and the men's WR something like 2 miles ahead of his best. Funny how the near 2-flat marathon is a video all over the place, and Rupp is slower than crap. Did you expect this?
You must be new here. Here, the older runners are the ones who convert everything: "Ryun's time on cinders was worth...", "If Bill Rodgers ran today..."
Without insulting either group, it's this:
The people who support Hall are literal thinkers. Hall ran faster. Hall ran more races. From that perspective, Hall wins because it eliminates nearly every other variable other than time. This was of thinking is rather simplistic, but it's not necessarily wrong because it requires the opposing side to provide evidence to invalidate the the tangible numbers.
The people who support Rupp are contextual thinkers. They can point out that a 90 degree marathon is slower than a 50 degree marathon and factor in other variables. To this group of people, Rupp is more impressive. And generally, when people run consistently impressive races without running a time trial, they have huge time trials efforts in them. To this group of people, they look and say, at peak, Hall couldn't be as competitive as Rupp, and Rupp is racing better runners.