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

Let's face it, unfortunately the Olympic marathon is a LOT less relevant in the sport today than it was in Shorter's heyday, while at the same time the marathon itself (outside of the Olympics) has become much more competitive. Is Cierpinski better than KK, then? How about better than Bikila? Cierpinski has two golds and the era he won them in was more competitive than Bikila's. The logic that weights Olympic performances so heavily says that Cierpinski a better marathoner than either Bikila or KK. It's head-scratching rationale that would consider Baldini, Thugwane, Young-Cho, Bordin, and Cierpinski to all be KK's superiors simply because they have won Olympic marathon gold and KK has not.

Flagpole,

I think that Mamo Wolde was doing something more than just showing up at Munich. Same for Keino and Mike Boit.

As to Wottle and Mills as our best 800 and 10,000 guys; probably not. But if you bring them back for a second medal at another Olympics, I'd say perhaps they are. I think one medal might be the product of good fortune, but a second, with perhaps some other impressive wins, may make you a candidate for "best ever."

We've got that with Shorter. In fact, if he hadn't won ANY Olympic medals but still had his streak of wins at Fukuoka, which was the de facto world championship in those years, I'd still think he was better than Khannouchi.

On another note, could you drop me an e-mail when you get a chance?

jer wrote:

I think its Frank Shorter who is the best because he was born in america, KK was not. KK is great but not the greatest "american"

FS all the way

FWIW, technically, Frank Shorter was not born in America. He was born in Munich, Germany (granted it was an American military base).

SB wrote:

There's certainly a lot of room for argument in my opinion. I also wonder what Meb would run if he ran in good conditions on a really fast course. I don't think he'd run KK's times, but I think a 2:07 is reasonable, maybe better. How would you then fit him in?

times:

KK

MK

FS

important places:

FS

MK

KK

Okay, so you are saying that Meb has placed better in marathons because he was 2nd in the Olympics? I don't care how silver that medal is, I don't see how you can argue that someone who has never won a marathon has a better career of marathon places over someone who has won multiple Chicago/London Marathons against some of the deepest fields in history.

Remember, the Olympics only allow 3 Kenyans to run.

oh please wrote:

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.

1) The Olympics is HUGE, but it isn't everything.

2) Yes, I would say Ritzenhein is a greater 5K runner than Emil Zatopek. Zatopek was more dominant during his time and more revolutionary, but Ritz is better.

3) Fact is that with more and more people on the planet now and more and more countries pulling themselves out of Third World status, and more and more people RUNNING and competing each year in the world than ever before, the pool is getting larger and larger from which to find the next great runner. Along the way are going to be also rans who are greater than Zatopek ever hoped to be. His name will live on because he was a champion of his time, but by the time this world is done, there will be thousands of runners if not more who were greater 5k runners than he was. The US right now has several.

Distance running is one of the simplest sports there is. There's a distance. There's a runner. The one who completes the distance the fastest is the winner.

[and NO, I don't care about "time trial" races or rabbits or whatever. The runner still had to do it on his own power.]

Fastest time wins just about every single time. KK is far enough ahead to be the greatest American marathoner in my opinion. If not for Tergat, he'd be the greatest EVER (still giving him the nod over faster times simply because he's done more than a flash in the pan (kind of an exception to my rule, but like I said there are exceptions).

hardset nipples wrote:

It's head-scratching rationale that would consider Baldini, Thugwane, Young-Cho, Bordin, and Cierpinski to all be KK's superiors simply because they have won Olympic marathon gold and KK has not.

Agreed! This is what I'm getting at.

It's not like KK was running 2:12, 2:12, 2:11 and then busted a 2:05. Dude was 2:08, 2:07, 2:05, 2:05 (something along those lines anyway). Absolutely sick. It's also not like he ran those marathons against nobodies in second tier marathons either. Chicago and London are probably the two most competetive marathons today. Dude is a stud.

1) being an immigrant makes KK very american. He has the pioneer spirit of leaving home and making it in a different land, which is what the country was built on.

2) All time? Maybe. To date? Quite possibly. Why do people insist on speaking in superlatives that do not fit? They call sport finalist that are almost exclusively played in the US "World Champions". If ever the USA is over you can determine who was the all time best US whatever. Meanwhile...

Two Olympic medals, four straight Fukouka wins ( race considered to be the unofficial world championship in that era), two time olympic trials winner all in era that did not have rabbits or race courses tailored for fast times.

To take nothing from Khannouchi even Shorter will tell you he has an incredible string of times,but no medals, no Olympic trials and could not finish at Edmonton, though his London race beating Tergat and Geb was incredible.

Still gotta give the nod to Shorter.

While we are speculating, I remember Charlie Vigil who trained with Shorter at that time commented later he felt Shorter was ready to run 2:07.

KK vs FS wrote:

Ten Fastest Marathons by an American (As of 10-27-06)

2:05:38 Khalid Khannouchi London 2002 (#3 All-time)

*2:05:32 Khalid Khannouchi Chicago 1999 (#4 All-time)

2:05:56 Khalid Khannouchi Chicago 2002 (#7 All-time)

2:07:01 Khalid Khannouchi Chicago 2000 (#54 All-time)

2:07:04 Khalid Khannouchi London 2006 (#59 All-time)

2:08:44 Khalid Khannouchi Chicago 2004 (#319 All-time)

2:08:51 Alberto Salazar Boston 1982 (#364 All-time)

2:08:53 Dick Beardsley Boston 1982

2:08:56 Abdi Abdirahman Chicago 2006

2:09:00 Greg Meyer Boston 1983

2:09:21 Alberto Salazar Fukuoka 1983

Take away the EPO/blood-doping aided performances and what have you got?

Or are you gonna pretend he's clean, just like Flo-Jo and Geb?

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.

And no EPO.

Cierpinski didn't need EPO.

hardset nipples wrote:

Cierpinski didn't need EPO.

And he never ran within 4 minutes of KK's PR, either.

FWIW, blood doping done right should get you very similar results to that of EPO, but it's VASTLY easier to use EPO than to repeatedly remove, freeze, thaw, and reinject your own blood. And of course it's tough to train after giving blood. And of course, if you use blood not your own, you get busted these days, etc.

Of course, some people (Lance, et al) use both blood doping and EPO. But that's more to beat tests for hemocrit.

The Olympic marathon probably is less relevant now than it was in Shorter's time. I wouldn't go with "far less relevant." But I'll grant you your point. But what is the current equivalent? There isn't one infrequently occuring race that everyone who's anyone wants to win today other than the Olympics. Yes, there are far more chances to show your stuff, but not EVERY great marathoner goes to London each year or to any other race. So I still see the Olympics as the ultimate proving ground.

Flagpole,

Every one who makes these "across the years" time comparisons always takes guys from the past and goes forward in time so naturally, Zatopek or Nurmi come up short. No one ever does the reverse. Do you honestly believe that if Ritzenhein had been born in 1928 he'd be running the times in 1952 that he's run recently? Honestly? And if so, why did no one turn in those sorts of times in the 50s? Physiologically we're no different, so there had to have been people with his physique. Better training? Igloi, Lydiard, van Aaken, Cerutty were all coaching then so the methods that have lead to today's performances were there. Do you really think Ritzenhein is doing better training than Halberg was? And even if you say "yes" to all of my questions you are still not factoring in faster tracks and pacemakers.

Wineturtle,

You've used times as a means of comparison in the only really useful way and make a good case for Michaelson on that basis if his 2:29 came on an accurate course. There was a time in the past, much further back than a lot of people today think, when measurements were more hit or miss.

HRE wrote:

><

Wineturtle,

You've used times as a means of comparison in the only really useful way and make a good case for Michaelson on that basis if his 2:29 came on an accurate course. There was a time in the past, much further back than a lot of people today think, when measurements were more hit or miss.

I am having no luck finding anything about the marathon course in Port Chester NY or anything about that race at all(except the various WR entrees)so your point about not having the exacting standards of todays courses may need some looking into.Say it were Yonkers-the sheer number of times it has been measured brings in into the same level of confidence as todays races I would think, but I have no idea how many times the race was run- a list of distance events that have at least 50 editions does not include a Port Chester Marathon.

I'll post a request for more info on another board. That may bring more info.

The Port Chester race was legit. I believe it was the first marathon ever run in the US. The course went from someplace in Port Chester to Washington Square. But I have no idea how long it lasted. It does predate the "standardiazation" of the distance that came from the London Olympics, but maybe they adjusted it, or got it right from the start.

Not even close, KK is way better then all of them. And yes KK did run well when it did count. He beat Geb and Tergat and averaged 4'45 for the marathon

What happened to KK at Chicago Mth last weekend? Injury problems back agian? What was the difficulty this time that kept him out of the race, bad foot?

When did KK become an American? I think everything before that should be thrown out of the debate.

hes not an american. look at his last name.