Jon Brown ran 2:09.31 in London in 2006 and Mark Steinle ran 2:09.17 in 2002. You can check on the power of 10 website
Jon Brown ran 2:09.31 in London in 2006 and Mark Steinle ran 2:09.17 in 2002. You can check on the power of 10 website
Aussiemiler wrote:
According to the idiot O.P.'s criteria you can scratch 2:09:55 - Waldemar Cierpinski Montreal 1976 off the German list. He was not born in the Federal Republic of Germany. However, you can replace him with Frank Shorter, who was born in the Federal Republic of Germany.
1) The OP is certainly NOT an idiot. He put together some good research on an actual running-related topic (unusual for these boards), generated some good discussion, and gave the American majority on these boards something of a wake-up call that the mighty USA does not seem to be so mighty after all.
2) The criteria could be chosen in any number of ways. Choosing to only include those born in and competing for the same country eliminates some problems while introducing others. Nonetheless it is a reasonable way to look at things and there is no perfect way.
3) Cierpinski should not be included on any list for reasons having nothing to do with place of birth or country represented.
4) You sir, unlike the OP, are indeed an idiot.
Since this list excludes all runners from all countries who are not native-born citizens, it would be intersting:
1. to see what the list would look like with them added back in;
2.To see a list consisting ONLY of top all-time marathoners who have for countries other than those of their nativity.
A further reaction: DAMN! Nailed by Eritrea AGAIN!
The world's best team is Team Non-Native Borns!
Yeah idiot O.P., where does Team Non-Natives rank?
K.K.
Meb
Alberto
The French Moroccans
Derek Clayton
Frank Shorter
noticer of things wrote:
A few notes:
-Although France has had six men break 2:10, it is not listed because all six are foreign-born: one Belgian, four Moroccans and one Kenyan. Similarly, four of the U.S.' all-time top five on unaided courses are foreign-born, but the U.S. makes the list on the grounds of a base of domestic talent.
-Spain's Julio Rey and Italy's Albercoo Di Cecco both had positive drug tests in their careers but not at the races listed. South Africa's Gert Thys also had a positive drug test but it was overturned by the CAS due to lab errors. The Swiss Supreme Court ruled against the CAS on jurisdictional grounds but the lab errors in Thys' test appear factual. German Waldemar Cierpinski is purportedly named in E. German gov't doping program documents but was never found to have doped.
-Eliminating the fastest performer from each list to account for lone talented individuals and better reflect overall depth, Brazil drops to 10th, Great Britain to 13th, and the U.S. to 17th, last place, while Russia moves ahead of Germany to 15th.
To summarize, you're racist.
Thanks for the variety of responses. I'm glad to see that some people find this thread of interest.
To those who object to the premise of my criteria, I am not the IAAF. I simply established criteria of interest to me and spent the time looking at how the numbers played out according to those criteria. If you are interested in other criteria, by all means, instead of predictably engaging in ad hominem attacks you are of course free to likewise spend the time exploring the numbers using parameters of your own preference. That may well generate other interesting dialogue.
In contrast to Meb, Clayton and others, Khalid is listed as a Moroccan because he competed for Morocco for a substantial part of his career. One valid line of argument could suggest that Meb and Clayton be counted for Eritrea and Great Britain although their inclusion would not substantially change the rankings for those countries, particularly if Clayton's legitimate 2:09 mark is used. The opposing argument would say that this is silly. I have chosen to count Khalid as Moroccan on the basis of his history of competition at the international level as a Moroccan citizen. Neither Meb nor Clayton have such a history, but neither do they meet the criteria of being native citizens of their adopted countries. As another poster insightfully contributed, no particular set of criteria is perfect.
For those who disagree, I would ask how you would consider the example of someone like 2:06:16 Kenyan Daniel Njenga. He went to Japan as a kid, ran in Japan through high school, university, and throughout his entire pro career, still lives there, works there, speaks the language, follows the customs of the society, and is every bit as Japanese as Meb, Abdi or Khalid are American or Clayton is Australian. The only difference is that Japanese law is nowhere near as conducive to naturalization as in the U.S., Australia, or, evidently, France. Draconian naturalization procedures in his adopted nation of choice don't seem like a very fair criterion by which to exclude one extremely talented runner while accepting runners in identical circumstances in other countries on the basis of more lax regulations there. If you feel that Meb or Clayton should be counted, don't you think somebody like Njenga should be counted as Japanese?
Similarly, how would you treat countries like Qatar which clearly are simply buying foreign ringers? A different case entirely, but no less complex an issue. Hence, I have chosen a particular set of relatively clear-cut criteria and spent the time looking at the ramifications of the data. I encourage you to do the same as it may help to generate discussion and thought as to what each of our nations, whichever they may be, can do to progress.
An educated person wrote:
To summarize, you're racist.
No, I'm neither American nor white. I am in fact a foreign-born runner in an adopted nation. You may have heard of me if you follow the sport.
noticer of things wrote:
An educated person wrote:To summarize, you're racist.
No, I'm neither American nor white. I am in fact a foreign-born runner in an adopted nation. You may have heard of me if you follow the sport.
Thanks for starting this thread and pulling together the research. Certainly "An educated person"'s remark was unjustifiable.
That said, I really don't get your response. "No, I'm neither American nor white." What the heck does that have to do with being a racist?
Your assertion that you can't be racist because you are neither American nor white makes you a RACIST.