Is Nico Young a better runner than Henry Rono?

Imagine a collegian today having these times: 7:17, 7:49, 12:27 and 26:05 ... that is what Rono was many years ago.

If your opinion is that the runner with a noticably faster time is always better than anyone he's faster than no matter the context that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But you're going to have some very unlikely "better" runners. By your criterion someone like Weldon Johnson is a better runner than Lindgren, Mills, Zatopek, Kuts, etc. Not many people who follow the sport are going to agree with you.

Statisticians and sports historians will tell you that you can't compare performances across eras if you're trying to decide whether one athlete is better than another because sports change over time and the numbers they generate change too. Near legendary NFL quarterbacks from the 1950s and 60s, Johnny Unitas, YA Tittle, Bart Starr, etc., rarely if ever had games where they passed for 300 plus yards while modern quarterbacks who most people will have forgotten once they've been out of the game for five years can have several such games. The game has changed. It's easier for offensive linemen to pass block and harder for linebackers and defensive backs to cover receivers without being penalized.

Much has been made of Caitlin Clark scoring more points in her NCAA career than Pete Maravich, the former all time scoring leader scored. There's no aruing that. But the game has changed. There was no three point shot in Maravich's time. If there had been he'd have scored a lot more points than he did. If someone is more impressed with Clark simply because she's got a bigger number than Maravich does that's their business as is it yours to think Young is a better runner than Rono was. But it is a really simplistic opinion.

Nooooooooo!!!! Can’t believe we’re even debating this bs. But here we are. Thanks cheat shoes. It’s not like distance running wasn’t already a clown show with all the PEDs. Not we have legalized performance enhancer in the form of shoes. Cheat shoes: erasing legacy athletes one at a time. Bunch of millennial 13:45 runners out there walking around bragging how they’re faster than Pre. Need to let this sport die already.

The former LSU basketball coach, Dale Brown, and a reporter looked at old tapes of Maravich's games and concluded that Maravich would have averaged about 54 points a game with the 3/pt line.

Is this a real question? Having world records in 1978 is better.

Also Fisher has the 12th fastest time in history, not the 7th (he is the 7th fastest performer).

You're writing fanfiction

When Nico can run 13:08 (a WR at the time) while drunk, get back to us.

I’m not sure *anybody* is a “better” runner than Rono.

I love what Nico has done but to compare him to Rono is silly. Get back to me when Nico can run 8:05 and 13:08 solo in a dual meet, in old spikes without pacers, wavelight, bouncy track and/or modern spikes.

All of that being said, I'm contemplating making a shirt celebrating the recent times. What do you think?

Open image

Young forgets his shoes and has to wear a pair from 2018 - doesn’t break 27:25, 13:15, or 7:45. Bet my next paycheck on it.

What does "MF" stand for?

Maybe put the Nico MF Young in three lines?

Michael Frederick - his middle names

There are several questions to ask when comparing an older runner against the top talent of today.

(1) Are Old Runner's times faster than New Runner's?
(2) Would Old Runner beat New Runner if transported to the future and thrown in a race with all the modern advances (shoes, track, pacing)?
(3) Would Old Runner beat New Runner if raised in the modern world with a comparable upbringing/training/etc.?
(4) Are Old Runner's accomplishments "greater" than New Runner's?

Most of the arguments are because we're asking slightly different versions of the question. And then some bad-faith debaters play motte-and-bailey with the whole thing, running around between the different versions of the question.

Clearly Young beats Rono on question (1). I would certainly choose Rono on (3) and (4), and probably (2) as well.

Comparing Rono to Cheptegei and other modern superstars, he certainly rates on (4), and I would put him with the very best today given situation (3). In situation (2), I would put Rono a bit behind, don't think that merely changing a pair of shoes and getting good pacing would help him run 12:40.

Nurmi and Zatopek are as legendary as anyone, so with or even above Rono on question (4). Zatopek in particular is one of my favorite runners. I would have a very hard time putting them close to the top on any of the other three questions, though. Zatopek's best time was 28:54, and that's with years of rigorous and reasonably smart training. A modern Zatopek probably could have run under 28:00, but 27:00 seems like a huge stretch under any circumstances.

The tracks Zatopek ran on were closer to today's cross country courses than they are to today's tracks. 28.54 cross country 10K is still a good time.

Oh man, to even give that a thought is laughable! Why are so many people in denial about how much the shoes help? I am a huge Nico fan and will likely root for him against anyone, but let’s be rational. Rono is the GOAT!!

Young wins 8/10 times at any distance besides steeple.

Henry Rono is the Wilt Chamberlain of distance track and field.

Just because Rono didn't have the luxury of modern training and technology doesn't mean you can just claim he'd be a 12:20 5k runner... You're giving him an arbitrary skill improvement based off your blatant favoritism.

How is your argument any different than me claiming that Ronaldo would easily run 11:55 in the 5k if he just trained for it? He is clearly athletically gifted and he is faster and stronger at shorter distances than Rono.

Seriously, this thread is absolutely ridiculous.