Is Khalid Khannouchi the greatest American Marathoner of All-Time?

Tu Cents wrote:

The Olympics only come up every 4 years. It's hard to determine the greatest marathoner based on a race that's held only 2 or 3 times at most in your entire marathon career.

If the Olympics is the main criterion for determining the greatest American marathoner, the same criterion would dismiss Tergat, Geb, and Paula from consideration as the greatest marathoners ever.

That, in my opinion, is why the Olympics are the ultimate measure. You either have to be really lucky or able to be at your best on demand. One medal may be luck, but I think Bikila, with his two golds, is the best marathon runner of all time and Shorter is the best US marathoner.

Well, since Shorter and Rodgers are not on that list, one could infer that they are not among the greatest, but we know that is not true.

KK is certainly fast, and he has delivered some big wins, such as London '02. Speaking of London, I think it is telling that he ran 2:07:04 for 4th place this year, yet nobody talks about that. Of course that is because speed is not everything, as the records of Shorter and Rodgers attest- Bill had a ton of big wins- Boston, New York, etc.. and Shorter his Gold and Silver. KK had his WRs and a few big wins- several Chicagos, and the big London.

In summary, I'd have to say they are about the same level- maybe give a tip to Shorter for the Olympic win, and KK a tip for his WRs. Bill's right there though. Very tough to decide.

Oh yes, don't forget 2 oldies- Buddy Edelen, and going way back- Clarence Demar.

wag the dog wrote:

Flagpole Willy wrote:

Just a matter of opinion brother. KK ran in a much more competitive time, and while running 2:05 one day, he beat both Tergat and Geb, two of the greatest distance runners the world has ever seen.

Yes I know it's a matter of opinion brother. He beat Tergat and Geb in London, but never in a championship or olympics. Never when it counted. Greatness requires medals. I give the nod elsewhere.

Even though competition wasn't as good then? This seems to be a big point. It's almost like Major League Baseball before they let people other than whites play. Shorter is an Olympic champion (and in my opion a double Olympic champion), but again, the whole world wasn't really competing then, and in the case of the marathon, the area of the world that has produced the very best was still in its infancy as far as competing. While Shorter won when it counted, what if that day (a day when any person wins an Olympic race) everyone just sucked? Is the slowest winner of an Olympic race better in your opinion than someone who faced stiffer competition just a few years later and yet threw down several faster times? Also, it's not like KK ran 2:05 and lost. He has proven to be a winner, and against stellar competition too.

Ah well. This is just a difference of opinion that I'm sure will remain so. Fine by me.

Have a nice weekend brother.

You can't compare times. Hard to run 2:05 when everyone else is running 2:10. Asking Frank to run 2:05 would be like asking KK to run 2:05 all by himself. Frank has one Olympic Gold and one Silver that should have been Gold.

Alan

Flagpole Willy wrote:

Even though competition wasn't as good then?

You can only race the people who show up on race day.

wag the dog wrote:

Flagpole Willy wrote:

Even though competition wasn't as good then?

You can only race the people who show up on race day.

True. He gets credit for winning, but what about the state that has three different high school divisions? The kid in Division III wins his third state championship in a row in 15:38. His time would never have won the Division I championship in any of those years, and in this last year, he would have finished 8th.

He only raced those who showed up. Does that mean he's better than the guy who finished 4th in the Division I race? That's how I see Shorter vs. KK, only in KKs case, he was winning against the biggest of the big with the very best times.

If KK had a time maybe just a minute faster than Shorter, then maybe I would say Shorter was better, but his times CRUSH Shorter's best times, and the competition he's faced is WAY better than what Shorter faced, and it's not like KK was coming in second in all those races. He WON a LOT.

Oh well. To each his own.

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.

HE IS A MARROCAN IDIOT!!!

rodgers and shorter!!!! NO DOUBT!!!

Flagpole Willy wrote:

True. He gets credit for winning, but what about the state that has three different high school divisions? The kid in Division III wins his third state championship in a row in 15:38. His time would never have won the Division I championship in any of those years, and in this last year, he would have finished 8th.

He only raced those who showed up. Does that mean he's better than the guy who finished 4th in the Division I race? That's how I see Shorter vs. KK, only in KKs case, he was winning against the biggest of the big with the very best times.

Well first of all, the kid who wins division 3 does it in the same era as the others - probably on the same DAY. You are comparing runners of different eras and saying the same thing. This is the logic that leads us to conclude that, say, Jorge Torres is a greater 5k runner than Emil Zatopek because his time is faster.

If someone starts calling the kid who wins division 3 of some state's cross country championship the greatest American cross country runner we can revisit this argument. Fortunately, we have single championships to resolve such matters.

I'll give the division 3 kid credit. At least he MADE it to the state finals. Not only has KK failed to win a major medal, he hasn't even made it to the competitions.

KK has to to win some major championship before he's the greatest. Until then, he remains, merely the fastest.

SAID wrote:

HE IS A MARROCAN IDIOT!!!

If you can't spell Moroccan, doesn't that make you the idiot? Besides, Khalid is an American citizen so once again I believe the idiot would be you.

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.

Comparing times...

So we're saying everyone who has bettered Shorter's PR was a better marathoner? You can't simply go by time. You have to go by accomplishments. You can't expect Shorter to run 2:05 when second place would be 2:10. Overall, Shorter's accomplishments are better than KK or any other marathoner to wear the Red, White, and Blue.

Alan

Good point Frank's 2: 10:30 in Fukouka was (I think ?) the fourth fastest time ever run at that time. Clayton, 2:08:34, 2:09, Hill 2:09

Frank gold and silver at the OG, Four time winnner in Fukouka which was considered the "unofficial marathon world champoiinships" in that day.

Gotta go with Shorter, always ran well when it counted.

Ted Corbitt and Bill Rodgers as most respected US Marathoner's from my side of the table.

Buddy Edelen was the WR holder in 1963 with 2:14:28 he was faster than everyone else IN THE WORLD AT THAT TIME. Khannouchi held that same honor in 2002. Both those men held it for about a year. In 1925 Albert Michelson lowered the World Record by about 3mins 30 secs to 2;29:01 and that held for almost TEN years. Since then only Clayton(12) and Densimo(10) held it for longer than 5 years.(Kitei Son/Sohn Kee Chung held it from '35 to 47 but WWII has to be factored into that).

If you think that how fast you ran versus your peers is important then Michaelson has a strong case going for him as the best ever American marathoner.

As far as honors won I really do not have knowledge of Alberts era other than he does not hold an Olympic marathon medal-some help here please?

It's difficult to judge runners in Alberts era because of the lack of training. They did a lot of walking in that era. Jim Peters simply ran hard every day, up to 100+ miles a week. He lowered the record from 2:25 to 2:17. In terms of statistical improvement, his would have to be the greatest in the modern era.

Alan

48 wrote:

Frank's 2: 10:30 in Fukouka was (I think ?) the fourth fastest time ever run at that time.

And Khannouchi twice ran faster than anyone else ever had.

He wasn't just fast compared to an earlier era.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

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.

Done enough? He hasn't even shown up for an olympic TRIALS much less won an olympic medal. Has he even completed a world championship race?

Whatever, your logic says that Dathan Ritzenhein is a greater 5k runner than Emil Zatopek. Of course he isn't. just faster.

Funny how "oh well, it's all just opinion" to you. Right up until the moment you find you haven't had the last word.

This is like asking whether Barry Bonds is better than Babe Ruth.

You have to compare the athlete to there area, not records.

Oh Yeah, and there is that whole shady thing about being a DOPER! How has KK done in the Olympics?

KK not even the best marathon of his generation b/c Meb's got a medal and KK can't pass a test to toe the line.