It's a tough list and impossible to really agree on.
I always wonder how much better Bedford, Foster, etc would be if they had modern shoes, training knowledge and were making 6 figures.
It's a tough list and impossible to really agree on.
I always wonder how much better Bedford, Foster, etc would be if they had modern shoes, training knowledge and were making 6 figures.
Covetted African wrote:
So applying this objectivity, how English do you think our own Queen is?
Her parents were born in the UK.
spade detector wrote:
HRH wrote:
Perhaps you can explain how a Somali is ‘Britain’s greatest runner‘?
Gladly. It’s because he is a citizen of Britain and won 10 global championships as a British athlete.
which is twice as many as the other 9 in the list combined.
Coevett wrote:
george oscar bluth wrote:
Whoa, take a deep breath buddy. I merely pointed out you are incorrect to try to argue that the medalists Farah beat being weak as a point for Coe in the Farah vs. Coe debate. The above post sounds like a foaming-at-the-mouth rant which is extreme. Are you okay?
Also aren't you contradicting yourself? You're saying that Farah beat cheats and Coe beat clean guys, so wouldn't that make Farah's competition better? And if you are saying Abascal is better than Longosiwa because of his medals, doesn't that make Farah better than Coe because of his medals?
12:49 is better than 3:33 and 3:31. I hate to be the one to break that to you. Much love!
Maybe you need to learn to read objectively. Seems to me your passionate defence of a convicted African cheat , over any suggestion Europeans can compare with him, might indicate you need some kind of medical or psychological help.
As for contradicting myself, I granted that Mo's performances would be hugely impressive if he was clean as a whistle and his African rivals not, I just think it unlikely, although Mo would have been tested more, on the whole.
You mustn’t take everything so personal, brother. I didn’t defend any cheats - I just pointed out to you the fact that beating a 12:49 guy is more impressive than beating a 3:33 guy. Objectively.
HRH wrote:
spade detector wrote:
Gladly. It’s because he is a citizen of Britain and won 10 global championships as a British athlete.
Farah was born in Somalia with a DNA exactly the same as the other 14 million or so Africans living in that country.
Not a single gene of it of British origin.
British passports are now handed out like confetti to the dregs of the third world flooding across Europe - doesn’t make them of British (or English) ancestry.
Myself, one of my relatives, interested in the subject, has traced our family ancestry back to when the inhabitants of what is now the USA were hunting buffalo and living in wigwams, back to Edward III so far, centuries before the white man discovered the ‘New World.’
I'm aware Farah was born in Somalia. You appear to be unaware that he's a Brit. It's not a very difficult concept.
george oscar bluth wrote:
Coevett wrote:
Maybe you need to learn to read objectively. Seems to me your passionate defence of a convicted African cheat , over any suggestion Europeans can compare with him, might indicate you need some kind of medical or psychological help.
As for contradicting myself, I granted that Mo's performances would be hugely impressive if he was clean as a whistle and his African rivals not, I just think it unlikely, although Mo would have been tested more, on the whole.
You mustn’t take everything so personal, brother. I didn’t defend any cheats - I just pointed out to you the fact that beating a 12:49 guy is more impressive than beating a 3:33 guy. Objectively.
Let it go mate. A clean British born athlete beating guys and winning in times that would still be competitive 40 years later is more worthy of number 1 Brit than a Somali born vitamin C injected doorbell dodger who wouldn't have lived with Moorcroft for the first half of his career and only started beating African EPO cheats when most had retired or moved up and he went to the USA to live and train. This is objective. Sorry if you're so snowflake that spelling out facts makes you lose control of your bowels!
Coevett wrote:
Let it go mate. A clean British born athlete beating guys and winning in times that would still be competitive 40 years later is more worthy of number 1 Brit than a Somali born vitamin C injected doorbell dodger who wouldn't have lived with Moorcroft for the first half of his career and only started beating African EPO cheats when most had retired or moved up and he went to the USA to live and train. This is objective. Sorry if you're so snowflake that spelling out facts makes you lose control of your bowels!
He didn't beat any African EPO cheats. Kiprop beat him.
You are always proud to show your ignorance on anything athletics.
Moron. Imbecile. Liar.
Coevett wrote:
Let it go mate. I know nothing!
And why are you picking on Longosiwa? Are you not aware of the fact that it was someone else who forged his passport?
That person was a cheat, not the athlete.
You racist idiot.
Coevett wrote:
george oscar bluth wrote:
You mustn’t take everything so personal, brother. I didn’t defend any cheats - I just pointed out to you the fact that beating a 12:49 guy is more impressive than beating a 3:33 guy. Objectively.
Let it go mate. A clean British born athlete beating guys and winning in times that would still be competitive 40 years later is more worthy of number 1 Brit than a Somali born vitamin C injected doorbell dodger who wouldn't have lived with Moorcroft for the first half of his career and only started beating African EPO cheats when most had retired or moved up and he went to the USA to live and train. This is objective. Sorry if you're so snowflake that spelling out facts makes you lose control of your bowels!
Which one of us is losing control of their bowels? It’s clearly too personal an issue for you, which doesn’t allow you to look at it objectively. Most of the things you listed in this rant are why you WANT Coe’s resume to be better, not why it should be. 10 global championship golds and a couple silvers for good measure - I’m afraid it isn’t even much of a debate.
And there are more than twice as many opportunities to win global medals now than there was in the early 80’s or before.
Career from 1970 - 1980- 3 opportunities to win a global championship (3Olympics);
Career from 2000 -2010 - 14 opportunities to win global championships ( 6 world indoor, 3 Olympics, 5 outdoor World Champs.
So your point is moot and shows a lack of understanding of the history of the sport.
Now you’ve changed the goalposts! You originally claimed a 3:31 was inferior to a 12:49. Now you’re using 3:33.
A 12:49 5k fun today would be more impressive than a 3:31, but set in context, a 3:31.13 1500m in 1986, when the WR was 3:29.46, is more impressive (in percentage terms) than a 12:49 5000m, when the WR is 12:37.
It would be equivalent to a 12:43.
In fact Abascal’s pb at the end of the 83 season, 3:33.1, when the WR was 3:30.77, is worth 12:45 when compared to the 5000m Wr in percentage terms.
No, you are comparing apples to oranges. You can’t use criteria that did not exist in one era to make the point that achievem Mrs in another era were better.
If you want to be taken seriously when comparing athletes from widely different eras, then you can only use criteria that existed for all, thus establishing a level playing field.
That means Olympic medals and world records.
Other criteria, like world ranking points and impact on event (which is a bit more subjective) can be included when results from the top 2 criteria are similar.
There is a reason why Mo won many global medals, they were held ever 2 years during his entire career! Brendan Foster had zero opportunities to win a World Champs medal, BECAUSE THEY DID. OT EXIST during any part of his career.
Deanouk wrote:
No, you are comparing apples to oranges. You can’t use criteria that did not exist in one era to make the point that achievem Mrs in another era were better.
If you want to be taken seriously when comparing athletes from widely different eras, then you can only use criteria that existed for all, thus establishing a level playing field.
That means Olympic medals and world records.
Other criteria, like world ranking points and impact on event (which is a bit more subjective) can be included when results from the top 2 criteria are similar.
There is a reason why Mo won many global medals, they were held ever 2 years during his entire career! Brendan Foster had zero opportunities to win a World Champs medal, BECAUSE THEY DID. OT EXIST during any part of his career.
You can’t even use Olympic medals or world records. The same problem that you’re complaining about also exists in your criteria. Different Olympic finals are of different strength. Different world records are of different strength. There is no truly fair way to compare different runners except for head-to-head matches.
Sanjay Gupta wrote:
Deanouk wrote:
No, you are comparing apples to oranges. You can’t use criteria that did not exist in one era to make the point that achievem Mrs in another era were better.
If you want to be taken seriously when comparing athletes from widely different eras, then you can only use criteria that existed for all, thus establishing a level playing field.
That means Olympic medals and world records.
Other criteria, like world ranking points and impact on event (which is a bit more subjective) can be included when results from the top 2 criteria are similar.
There is a reason why Mo won many global medals, they were held ever 2 years during his entire career! Brendan Foster had zero opportunities to win a World Champs medal, BECAUSE THEY DID. OT EXIST during any part of his career.
You can’t even use Olympic medals or world records. The same problem that you’re complaining about also exists in your criteria. Different Olympic finals are of different strength. Different world records are of different strength. There is no truly fair way to compare different runners except for head-to-head matches.
That’s being silly. One could argue, using your train of thought, that head to head meets aren’t fair either unless both athletes are at 100% peak fitness and ability.
World records are moving targets that move with improvements in tracks, shoes and training. That makes it fair for each successive generation is being compared alongside their peers as well as this that come before them.
Olympics are held every 4 years (apart from those affected by the Wars) and everyone knows when the finals are and who their competitors are. Everyone has an equal chance of winning a medal. One can only be expected to beat those that turn up on the day.
World Championships did not exist until 1983, so it is impossible for any of those athletes competing score this time to have won medals. And after that time they were only held every 4 years until 1991, from when they were held every 2 years. So it is completely unfair to use World Champs medals as a criteria for comparison unless the athletes concerned both competed in the same era.
Deanouk wrote:
Sanjay Gupta wrote:
You can’t even use Olympic medals or world records. The same problem that you’re complaining about also exists in your criteria. Different Olympic finals are of different strength. Different world records are of different strength. There is no truly fair way to compare different runners except for head-to-head matches.
That’s being silly. One could argue, using your train of thought, that head to head meets aren’t fair either unless both athletes are at 100% peak fitness and ability.
World records are moving targets that move with improvements in tracks, shoes and training. That makes it fair for each successive generation is being compared alongside their peers as well as this that come before them.
Olympics are held every 4 years (apart from those affected by the Wars) and everyone knows when the finals are and who their competitors are. Everyone has an equal chance of winning a medal. One can only be expected to beat those that turn up on the day.
World Championships did not exist until 1983, so it is impossible for any of those athletes competing score this time to have won medals. And after that time they were only held every 4 years until 1991, from when they were held every 2 years. So it is completely unfair to use World Champs medals as a criteria for comparison unless the athletes concerned both competed in the same era.
Bloody predictive text!
Should be ‘defore’ Not ‘score’.
Before not defore!!
Deanouk wrote:
And there are more than twice as many opportunities to win global medals now than there was in the early 80’s or before.
Career from 1970 - 1980- 3 opportunities to win a global championship (3Olympics);
Career from 2000 -2010 - 14 opportunities to win global championships ( 6 world indoor, 3 Olympics, 5 outdoor World Champs.
So your point is moot and shows a lack of understanding of the history of the sport.
To claim that global championship medals are moot in this comparison shows your lack of understanding of the history of the sport.
I’m well aware that there are more opportunities now. Are you well aware that Farah has more than twice as many golds/medals as Coe? Don’t you think having more global championships results in fewer opportunities to chase times?
Deanouk wrote:
Now you’ve changed the goalposts! You originally claimed a 3:31 was inferior to a 12:49. Now you’re using 3:33.
A 12:49 5k fun today would be more impressive than a 3:31, but set in context, a 3:31.13 1500m in 1986, when the WR was 3:29.46, is more impressive (in percentage terms) than a 12:49 5000m, when the WR is 12:37.
It would be equivalent to a 12:43.
In fact Abascal’s pb at the end of the 83 season, 3:33.1, when the WR was 3:30.77, is worth 12:45 when compared to the 5000m Wr in percentage terms.
Abascal’s PR when he won bronze was 3:33 and Straub’s PR when he won silver was 3:33. When Abascal ran his 3:31 it wasn’t 12th all time. So Coevett failed in trying to point to Longosiwa as an argument for weak competitors.
Is Mo vs Coe really the most interesting thing about this thread? Neither of you are going to give any ground, so why bother?
Bottom of the list is far more thought provoking.
george oscar bluth wrote:
Deanouk wrote:
Now you’ve changed the goalposts! You originally claimed a 3:31 was inferior to a 12:49. Now you’re using 3:33.
A 12:49 5k fun today would be more impressive than a 3:31, but set in context, a 3:31.13 1500m in 1986, when the WR was 3:29.46, is more impressive (in percentage terms) than a 12:49 5000m, when the WR is 12:37.
It would be equivalent to a 12:43.
In fact Abascal’s pb at the end of the 83 season, 3:33.1, when the WR was 3:30.77, is worth 12:45 when compared to the 5000m Wr in percentage terms.
Abascal’s PR when he won bronze was 3:33 and Straub’s PR when he won silver was 3:33. When Abascal ran his 3:31 it wasn’t 12th all time. So Coevett failed in trying to point to Longosiwa as an argument for weak competitors.
And Coe beat Abascal by nearly 2 seconds, pulling away from him all the time down the entire home straight. Mo beat Longosiwa by 0.6 seconds in another ridiculously slow race that suited Mo being the only 1500m runner in the race (at least under 38 years of age). As mentioned above, presumably Longosiwa had been forced to throttle back on the EPO in the weeks leading up to the Games.
Silver went to Cram, who Coe also destroyed by nearly a second, and who is still the European mile record holder after 33 years of EPO and African influx. The guy who got silver behind Mo in London 2012 was on paper a fast guy but clearly couldn't do it at London, just like the bronze medallist, and never won a major championship, unlike Cram who was the world champion when Coe beat him.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes