Kimetto 2:02:57 - Steve Jones 2:07 more impressive

If Jones had run sensibly, he would have held the world record for a looooooong time.

fan of US distance running wrote:

If Jones had run sensibly, he would have held the world record for a looooooong time.

Don't know if it was "more impressive" than today, but this post is very true

PreRunner wrote:

Kimetto's new WR record is amazing, but I'm still more impressed with Steve Jones 1985 Chicago 2:07:13. He dropped the rabbit Carl Thackery at mile two and ran the remainder of the marathon solo in less than ideal conditions.

What was less than ideal?

Jones' 2:07 is not more impressive than Kimetto's.

Yes. Steve Jones was almost-certainly a clean athlete.

Yea yeah yeah, Steve Jones is the blue-collar superman, we heard it and had earfuls when Mo Farah's marathon was being discussed. Jones dropped the pacemaker, ran solo, bad conditions, had very little sleep, etc.

Still awaiting more details of this guy's deeds, though. It's really not very easy to find the insider narrative information about old school runners' deeds before the digital age. Those who know were exposed to print, traditional media and other things

With his training, tough racing, and relaxed outlook on the sport, Steve Jones was such an inspiring runner to many. But his best marathon time is over 1 mile behind Kimetto's.

It was more impressive to me because of the relative lack of talent that Jones started with.

He was no faster than probably 60% of the guys on here.

Kimetto starts running and two years later is essentially the best in the World first time out.

Jones thrashes himself for 15 years to do the same thing.

Jones went through the half in his 2:07 at practically his best half pace. That should give these modern day guys the incentive to actually go for sub 2 now.

Imagine a 58 minute guy going out in 60:00 and hanging on for the win?

Their debuts are just four minutes apart.

Saying that Jones' WR was more impressive is like rationalizing that Chris Farley is a better Chippendales dancer than Patrick Swayze.

A1 Genetics wrote:

He was no faster than probably 60% of the guys on here.

That is absurd. Anyone who runs 2:07 and has a WR is extremely talented compared to other runners.

tycobb wrote:

A1 Genetics wrote:

He was no faster than probably 60% of the guys on here.

That is absurd. Anyone who runs 2:07 and has a WR is extremely talented compared to other runners.

Jones was a 17 minute 5km teenager.

A1 Genetics wrote:

tycobb wrote:

That is absurd. Anyone who runs 2:07 and has a WR is extremely talented compared to other runners.

Jones was a 17 minute 5km teenager.

If somebody runs 17:00 as a teenager as their first race off of literally no training, and a sedentary lifestyle, are they more talented, less talented or equally talented as someone who runs the same time as a teenager who has been running since middle school and has been training seriously (by high school standards) for a few years?

Didn't Abdi run like 15:00 in his first race in college after a week of running with the team? Do you think Abdi is more or less talented than even a freshman in college who runs 15:00 after taking running seriously throughout high school?

Do you see why taking 1 data point with no other info and extrapolating it to judge someone's entire genetic makeup and forecasting their abilities and successes is silly?

Even if Jones was slower than a ton of other guys that also were slugs (as opposed to being well trained), his ability to get super fast from those beginnings alone makes him super talented.

A very interesting question here. I vote for Jones, though Kimetto's number yesterday was pretty insane. Jones' '85 performance was stunning, and he did much for the sport, as did Shorter and then Salazar. To me, Salazar put the marathon on the map. Perhaps I see it this way because I grew up in NYC, but his 3x NYC and 1x Boston are what turned my head, so to speak.