I agree with you on that, JO, it's just that his overall record in the marathon is probably the most disappointing part of his career. But now that he is doing it full-time, that may change. He still has plenty of chances to move himself up that ladder.
HRE wrote:
Of course there's room for debate. The thread asks for "greatest," not "fastest." If it were the latter there would be no room for debate, nor would there be if the two terms were interchangable.
Following the line of reasoning you're using, Alan Webb is a greater miler than Herb Elliott.
HRE,
You know I like you and all, but I will agree with you then that Alan Webb is a greater miler than Herb Elliott. Is he not faster? Just because there happen to be LOTS of other faster runners now than Herb Elliott shouldn't take away from Alan Webb.
Herb Elliott was better compared to the runners of his era than Alan Webb is currently compared to the runners of his era, but when compared to each other, Alan Webb is better.
SalIy D wrote:
Flagpole, if you ask any world class runners what is their motivation for racing, very few will tell you that its to run fast times and set records.
Sally D,
It matters not what a world class runner thinks is important. It only matters what happens in a race against the clock. The fastest are the best every time without debate.
"It matters not what a world class runner thinks is important. It only matters what happens in a race against the clock. The fastest are the best every time without debate."
Flagpole, since you seem to think you are the authority on what constitutes the best runner, take a look at track and field news magazine. Every year, they publish their rankings of the top 10 runners in each event. The criteria they use is as follows:
1) Performance in championship events and big meets (i.e. olympic games, world championships, european championships, london, chicago, berlin, rotterdam, new york marathon for marathoners)
2) Head to head record vs competitors
3) Fastest times run in the event (they usually look at your five best performances
As for Tergat, he had a faster 10k time than Geb in both 1997 (he set the wr) and in 2000, but guess who was ranked 1st in the world both years. Because Geb beat him in the world championships in 97 and in the olympics in 2000 (their only head to head meetings those two years in the 10k), Geb was ranked #1 in the world, and Tergat was ranked #2.
Sally D,
Track and Field News is allowed to be wrong, and so of course are you. You're both wrong here.
"Track and Field News is allowed to be wrong, and so of course are you. You're both wrong here."
This is true, but they are more likely to be right than you are, given that they are experts on track and field, and you are not.
SalIy D wrote:
"Track and Field News is allowed to be wrong, and so of course are you. You're both wrong here."
This is true, but they are more likely to be right than you are, given that they are experts on track and field, and you are not.
They are experts who publish a magazine. I am an expert who does not publish a magazine.
You are an expert on annyonance and irrationality.
SalIy D wrote:
You are an expert on annyonance and irrationality.
I am an expert in many things.
c wrote:
yep.... drugs do not make a truly great marathoner.
Another f***ing stupid yank throwing round the accusations and hiding behind the brave name of 'C'.
Fucking twat.