HRE wrote:
What part of the world wasn't competing in Munich in 1972? The African boycott was in 1976, the Soviet boycott was in 1984.
And trying to compare times of athletes from different eras to determine who'd crush whom is not a good way to compare. Shorter would, on that basis, CRUSH, Bikila, but most evaluations I've seen have Bikila as the best all time marathon runner.
You also need to remember that for over a decade now marathons have been set up to produce fast times. Courses are designed for it, that was not alwasy the case in the 70s and there were no rabbits.
HRE,
My opinion is and always has been that primarily the fastest time wins. There are exceptions there, but in KKs case, I feel he's done enough to be America's best marathoner of all time. As far as who in the world was NOT competing in 1972, yes there were no significant boycotts that year, but Kenyan and Ethiopian runners then were not the dominant runners that they are today. Of course there were a couple to mention, but today there are 2:07 marathoners that many people don't really even know. When I say "competing" I really mean "COMPETING" not just showing up. It is a different running world today than it was in 1972. I know that's not earth shattering news, but I think the difference is great enough that I can strip a double Olympic medalist of his Greatest American Marathoner status.
Is Dave Wottle our greatest 800-meter runner or Billy Mills our greatest 10,000 meter runner? I say no, not even close. They won great races. Doesn't make them the greatest. Winning a race is dependent in part on the strength of the competition. If the field isn't that strong, then the win SHOULD mean less, regardless of whether or not it was an Olympic final. I mean, the Olympic final gets TONS of prestige, and I'd rather win that than the New York Marathon or Chicago Marathon, but 2:05 twice, and beating the people he's beaten deserves serious respect in my opinion.