The point you avoid: you answered to someone who asked if it shouldn't count as a win from A over B, when A advances to the next round in a heat and B doesn't (in the same heat).
3. If you want, everyone who advances can count as a "win" over everyone who doesn't, but all non-qualifiers don't get to notch victories among each other.
That's from you: "You're the one who doesn't understand the easy points. Qualifying rounds don't count in the won-loss column. If they did then Ryun was 1-1 against Keino at Mexico City. Hes still something like 42-1 against him overall."
CAN count as a win?
A qualifies for the next round whereas B doesn't (in the same heat) - if you want to look at the head to head of A and B, do you count this as a win for A over B or not? If not, why?
And your laughable "42:1" for Ryun against Keino shows your clear bias and that you are not interested in a serious discussion. Before 68, Ryun clearly was the better Miler of the two, but not anymore from 68 onwards.
Keino clearly beat Ryun in Mexico 68 (and, no, not only because of altitude, but because Keino was better then he was in 67 and Ryun was not anymore as strong). And also in 72, when Ryun failed in his heat (while he and only he was the reason for his fall) and Keino got silver.
Ryun at his 1500m best (3:33.1 - 36.5 final 300m in a 3:38) was better than Keino at his best. But this takes nothing of Keino's wonderful Mexico gold and Munich silver. Keino was much more successfull at the big champs (also 2 golds at the commonwealths).
I've always said the winter classic should be played with old equipment that simulates what hockey was like during that time. Doesn't mean you go injure players, but take all the plastic out of the sticks at least. Guys play with wooden lacrosse sticks all the time. I think they should have a version of that for track raced on cinder at the very least.