Men's Marathon World Rankings: Geoffrey Kirui is #1, Eliud Kipchoge #2... Galen Rupp #6

MissedMark wrote:

Breaking2 was impressive but it was still a failure.

Nike stupidity at its best.

Acobo de comer wrote:

moist wrote:

Nah, I think what you're doing is stirring up debate to drive activity on the site. It's good business, after all.

Berlin was head and shoulders better than either of Kirui's wins. Breaking2 was so impressive that even if you rank it behind Kirui's WMM wins, it can only be just behind. That kind of weighting favors Kipchoge. That's not an argument based on "well so-and-so wins head-to-head every time." That's purely performance driven.

it was NOT a marathon, but a great controlled run

going out of tradition for lets run i did a bit of research the definition of marathon is a long-distance running race, strictly one of 26 miles 385 yards (42.195 km) which breaking two was

Stop saying turned the trick! That’s not what that expression, which refers to prostitution, means! You’re thinking of a hat trick. You guys started using it earlier this year but you seriously need to stop!

Have to agree with others that Kipchoge should be ranked #1 this year. While I understand the logic being used, Kipchoge pretty clearly had two of the three best marathon performances of the year (Kipsangs Tokyo record is comparable). His exhibition wasn’t a race, fine, but it was at least as impressive as winning Boston or the world champs.

I take issue with giving the World Championships Marathon more weight than Breaking2.

First, the world championships marathon was pretty watered-down. Breaking2 was a closed exhibition, but practically the only competition for Kirui in the WCs was Tola. Re-read what you wrote about it back then. Which do you think was the more impressive result? Clearly Breaking2.

So you're basically claiming your perception of the prestige of the event is more important than the performance, regardless of result.

The tennis analogy isn't very good because there aren't absolute performances (like running times), and because they have established rankings, and because they're required to actually show up for all the big tournaments (or else they get penalized)! I will say however that one of the interesting things about tennis though is when you have someone like Venus who shows up rarely and doesn't have many rating points, but is by far the best player when she does manage to play.

Actually I meant Serena but Venus works too :)

Lol~ wrote:

Come on this is just ridiculous. Who are you taking lining up in a marathon right now - Kipchoge, period. Any major course, he'd win.

Agree with this and the numerous amount of others saying the same thing. You guys messed up with this one.

I think, by their it’s own stated criteria, LR’s bigger fail is ranking Rupp #6 (1st and 2nd at two WMMs) and not ranking Kipchoge second.

The rankings are supposed to be descriptive (telling who performed the best in major marathons—which is a slightly broader group than Workd Marathon Majors, although WMMs of course receive extra weight—last year), not prescriptive (telling you what will happen in future major marathons). Based on what happened in major marathons, Rupp belongs in the top 4 (and possibly as high as #2) and in the #5 spot at worst.

And based on only running one major marathon last year (which, while a spectacular run, wasn’t even a dominant win as his winning margin was only 14 seconds over a debutant), Kipchoge should rank behind at least Kirui, who won two WMMs (and both by a larger margin than Kipchoge won his one—including a dominant win by over a minute at the World Championship Marathon) and possibly at least some of Kipsang, Cherono, Rupp, and Tola, all of whom had at least two high-quality runs (although their order and which of them belong above Kipchoge can certainly be debated based on how exactly you assess their runs and which criteria you emphasize the most heavily—WMM vs major marathon, wins, CRs, quality of field, margin of victory, ranking on annual descending order list, no duds, etc).

In summary: it’s a good list, not great, Rupp is probably ranked too low, Kipchoge very near right (but doesn’t belong at #1–possibly lower, if anything) but is also the best marathoner in the world (which isn’t what this ranking is supposed to describe).

Also, and I’m apparently in the minority here, but I applaud LR for not taking Breaking 2 into account at all in calculating the rankings. We have rules of competition, and Breaking 2 didn’t follow them, so it shouldn’t be included when assessing the best performances of the year conducted within the rules of competition. Otherwise those rules of competition mean nothing, and athletes should only “race” when a race has set up the most advantageous conditions possible for them. And that’s not what any of us want out of this sport (I think).

None of which is to take away from Breaking 2, which was awesome, but was also something different than competitive marathoning.

Kipchoge's Berlin and Breaking2 are both world's away from anything Kirui did this year. Let's put it this way...

When Kipchoge finished Breaking2, Kirui still has 1.8 miles to go.

When Kipchoge finished Berlin, Kirui still has nearly 1 mile to go.

Kirui gets #1 ranking. Kipchoge is a zip code or two ahead of Kirui. Good job guys.

wejo wrote:

If Federer blasts everyone at Wimbledon but someone else wins the French and Australian, the French and Australian guy is likely going to be #1.

Not necessarily at all. Some education for you:

Tennis has more than majors, and the events all have ranking points. There are 500-level events, 1000-level events, and so on. If you follow golf, it is similar to their majors and the regular PGA events. If someone wins 5 regular events in a year and another guy wins a major, the first guy may very well end up #1 at the end of the year.

Tennis can be like that as well - there have been recent instances on the women's side of someone being ranked #1 in the world without having ever won a major! And if Federer wins Wimbledon and is also the semi-finalist at Miami, Toronto, Madrid, and Brisbane, the other guy can win the French and Australian and still end up #2 to Federer. That's how it works.

I'd like to raise another point:

I disagree with the relative rankings of Guye Adola vs Geoffrey Kamworor. I think Adola is ranked too high.

It's interesting that you rank Adola over Kamworor, primarily due to the time he ran rather than the competition he beat. Apparently first place in NYC over an all-star cast (Kipsang, Desisa, Berhanu, etc) doesn't give you a higher ranking than a fast time and a narrow loss to Kipchoge. No knock against him for losing to Kipchoge, to be sure, but who did Adola beat?

It's also worth pointing out that Kamworor beat Kipsang in NYC, who was higher ranked than Adola too.

Adola is definitely an exciting guy, maybe more exciting than Kamworor, but I don't think I'd *rank* him higher than Kamworor for the year. The only reason to do so is because of the time he ran (although you'd need to take into account the NYC course and tactics against Berlin's), which is then inconsistent with ranking Kipchoge below Kirui.

Barabbas wrote:

Look, with all due respect to LRC, I'm sorry but your rankings carry about the same weight as Todd's Road Stumblers' or some list I might jot down. The gold standard in yearly rankings, and the only rankings that matter, especially in the US, is Track & Field News. They have Kipchoge first, and they are right. The rest of the list is pretty close to what LRC or anyone else might come up with: 1)Kipchoge 2)Kirui 3) Tola 4)Kipsang 5)Wanjiru 6)Rupp. Personally, I would like to rank Rupp a little higher, but T&FN (and LRC) are probably right.

How much money does Kipchoge get for being ranked #1 in Track& Field News?

It isn't brojos' fault Kipchoge chose to run a stunt rather than actually race a marathon. He was paid handsomely for his effort and these rankings are only for discussion.

Kipchoge by a mile (literally) is number 1.

Sorry, Kirui, but winning Boston ...

And Worlds, when again each country can only send 3 and it's Worlds anyway ...

Everyone here can talk WMM all they want. The fact is, everyone knows which races are fast, which races you must win, and which races these best guys DO win. Boston/Chicago/NYC were relevant forever ago, and unless someone goes 2:04 or better without crazy Boston wind they're irrelevant.

And Kipchoge's 2:00 was aided, etc, but was still a 2:00 on a non-downhill course. I didn't think he'd be on pace at 21-22 miles, did you? Come on.

Kipchoge is a legend, and when they write about that legend his 2:00:25 is going to be front and center in that narrative. And the sentence is not going to say "unfortunately he squandered an opportunity to run 2:09 and win Boston."

Shouldn't Rupp be ranked higher since so many people claim he is a 2:06 guy?

wejo wrote:

If Federer blasts everyone at Wimbledon but someone else wins the French and Australian, the French and Australian guy is likely going to be #1.

Federer won the Australian open as well. But Nadal won the French and US opens and was 2nd in the Australian Open.

CKidd wrote:

Kipchoge is a legend, and when they write about that legend his 2:00:25 is going to be front and center in that narrative. And the sentence is not going to say "unfortunately he squandered an opportunity to run 2:09 and win Boston."

If "they" is the brojos that's almost word for word what it will say.

Why did you not use this criteria when ranking Coburn?

It is a while since we had anyone make a serious attempt at a distance record on the track, but it used to happen with some frequency that an attempt would be made with pacers and no serious competition for the win, so the athlete could race the clock. I guess Roger Bannister's famous run could even be considered one of the first of these "go for the clock" event. Those runs/races still counted towards the world rankings over at Track and Field News. In fact, the timed event often contributed significantly towards a world ranking standing.

So, I am going with the Monza event as having meaning. There was some competition, too, of course, but they did not show Kipchoge, or the clock, any kind of challenge. Which makes Eliud's performance even more remarkable.