All-Time Greatest British Distance Runners

Also Coe and Ovett got their medals in an Olympics that was subject to boycott. Farah++.

How can he be left off?

Ron Hill has to be here. So does Gordon Pirie, Bannister, and Bedford.

No David Moorcraft? wrote:

How can he be left off?

Or Paula ?

Farah had to compete against the Africans

Farah ++

Sounds like the OP is not even British.

Way too many overlooked athletes. Also you might mention their Commonwealth titles since that counts for as much as a Euro medal.

Coevett wrote:

Pretty sure Coe could have ran 1:40/3:26 on the Monaco track in modern shoes and modern to the bell pacing. Sure also Coe, Cram, Ovett could run sub 13 minute 5000 if they moved up in their prime.if Moorcroft could solo run 13 flat.

I love this line of thinking, as if Farah was only capable of 12:53 and 26:48. Your’s and Deano’s bias is so blatant it’s embarrassing.

completely agree. Mo doesn't have fast times to boot, and had virtually no competition. Now we get to see how good he really is against all time greats at the marathon, but on track, there was no one.

HRE wrote:

Ron Hill has to be here. So does Gordon Pirie, Bannister, and Bedford.

And Alf Shrubb.

commonwealth games definitely at a high level through the 70s (even with coe and ovett focusing on the euros). No easy medals against Kenya, Tanzania and New Zealand back then,

no Ian Stewart? commonwealth and euro golds (at 21 and 20 years old - beating Keino in the commonwealth) and olympic bronze at 23. Also won world cross.

on the whole i think "great" is hard to define. it is more than times and medals. i don't live in the UK but did in the 70s and 80s. Bedford, Foster, Ovett and Coe inspired a country. Transcended T&F. i think Bannister and Pirie did the same - but I wasn't around back then. Runners like Stewart, McLoud, Buckner, Elliott, Moorcroft, Rowland and Hutchings ran fast times or won a few races but in the UK at that time that was sort of expected and didn't really have any impact beyond those who really follow the sport.

Shoulda coulda woulda wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Well it cuts both ways doesn't it? Coe didn't have the African influx but European running was stronger back then. Sure times have gone up ( and fallen back to Earth) and most of us know the reason for that. Coe's 800m pb is still 3rd fastest after 37 years of African influx and EPO. Pretty sure Coe could have ran 1:40/3:26 on the Monaco track in modern shoes and modern to the bell pacing. Sure also Coe, Cram, Ovett could run sub 13 minute 5000 if they moved up in their prime.if Moorcroft could solo run 13 flat.

My statement isn'the any more conjectural than claiming Coe wouldn't have coped with the doped up African influx. Coe's 3:29 past his best fairly correlates to a 3:26 at Monaco today. His 1:41.7 probably correlates to 1:40.2

Peter Elliott matched the first wave of African influx. Go back on YouTube and watch him destroy Kirochi etc at the 1990 Commemwealths. If he could, so would Coe. As Deano says, Farah didn't have all time greats on the level of Cruz, Ovett, Cram, Aouita to contend with, or even Scott, Earl Jones or Gray.

And when he did, he couldn'the even make finals. Not to mention he was part of the African influx himself.

Albert Hill 800m and 1500m Olympic Champion, something Coe fanboys can't claim.

it existed prior to 1970 wrote:

Albert Hill 800m and 1500m Olympic Champion, something Coe fanboys can't claim.

Maybe. Why don't you use the 'the odds of GB producing their best 3 runners together..blah..blah..must of doped. ..blah..blah' argument in your next post?

Also, the OP did specify modern era.

Why have you, apparently, ignored Commonwealth Games medals in your assessments?

Notable omission from your list - Sydney Wooderson - what would his record look like if it wasn't for the 1939-45 war?

Also, without wishing to denigrate Farah's record, it is unfair to compare him to athletes, like Ron Hill, who had to combine world class running with working 40+ hours a week in demanding jobs. This seriously hampered their ability to peak for major championships.

I generally agree with you but to be fair to Mo he did excel in the passport era and the world records that he got nowhere near are utterly ridiculous and an embarrassment to the sport. And I'm suspicious of Mo, he just so happened to become dominant right after the doorbell incident. Strangely since Coe took over longer distance times have slowed. The people in the top three are obviously correct just the order, Cram is clearly 4th. I take it that the list is male runners.

Lololol wrote:

Coevett wrote:

Pretty sure Coe could have ran 1:40/3:26 on the Monaco track in modern shoes and modern to the bell pacing. Sure also Coe, Cram, Ovett could run sub 13 minute 5000 if they moved up in their prime.if Moorcroft could solo run 13 flat.

I love this line of thinking, as if Farah was only capable of 12:53 and 26:48. Your’s and Deano’s bias is so blatant it’s embarrassing.

Nothing to do with bias. I haven’t written anywhere on this thread what Coe was capable of; and of course Farah was capable of faster than his 5 and 10k phs. BUT, it is a fact that Coe went out and broke 8 world records on the track, and Farah broke zero. I’m comparing what they actually did, in this discussion, what their potentials were is another topic.

The only 2 criteria that have been a constant since the modern era, and which all athletes’ greatness is therefore measured, are world records and Olympic medals.

Farah has 4 Olympic gold medals, with Coe on 2 gold and 2 silver. They are 1 and 2 for British track stars in terms of Olympic success. For 2 of those medals Farah ran just a straight final; whereas Coe had to run 3 or 4 races for each of his.

In terms of world records, Coe has broken more than any British athlete in the modern era, with 8 individual and 1 relay. There are then dozens of other UK athletes that have set outdoor world records. Farah has zero world records.

In terms of British athletes, I would put Coe, Thompson, Ovett and Edwards all above Farah; they had Olympic golds and world records. Thus putting Coe above Farah is not a bias, it is based on measurable, concrete analysis.

it existed prior to 1970 wrote:

Albert Hill 800m and 1500m Olympic Champion, something Coe fanboys can't claim.

Different, ‘amateur’ era. Great accomplishment by Hill, and he has his place in history, but exactly how many nationalities entered athletes into the 8 and 15 during Hill’s winning Olympiad? How amany rounds did he face?

Coe came very close to doing the 800 and 1500 double twice! He competed against Ovett, Cram, Cruz, Scott, Konchellah, Abascal, Gray, etc to win those medals, the 84 Games being one of the most in depth ever in terms of quality in the middle distances.

Steve Jones, Dave Bedford and Dave Moorcroft should be on the list. Below the top 4, but ahead of Foster.

Influence and accomplishment. A WR in the marathon, major marathon wins, a 10000m WR and a 5000m WR mean a lot more than a silver or bronze here and there in my opinion. In most peoples opinions.

When you start running in the UK you'll hear the names Bedford and Moorcroft a hundred times before anyone says Stewart or McLeod. Not to diminish what they did, but it's just a fact.

OP has Ian Stewart 7th. Listen, the logic in this post is Olympic/World success.. it's the same argument here in America why many consider Michael Jordan greater than Lebron James - because he has 6 titles/rings. Mo Farah has 4 Olympic Gold Medals. Seb Coe had the same opportunity and only walked away with 2 Olympic Gold Medals. Plain and Simple. I'd take Farah as well, as Coe lost way too much in his prime, although he was a clutch championship racer. Simply having the debate of who is greater Coe or Ovett which everyone has, right away shows Coe was not dominant and didn't even retire with the best PB over 1500/Mile.

slowcoach wrote:

no Ian Stewart? commonwealth and euro golds (at 21 and 20 years old - beating Keino in the commonwealth) and olympic bronze at 23. Also won world cross.

.