Look at that string of races and try to think of anyone who could match it. Komen’s 1997 season alone is enough to make him one of the greatest of all time (don’t forget he broke 8:00 for 2 miles in July of that year).
Komen was the first man to break 12:40 and you’re saying he can’t hold a candle to Geb or Bekele over 5k? He may not have had their longevity or championship success, but in terms of pure ability he was absolutely on their level.
I think you're a little blinded by your love of Komen.
You've cherry-picked his best string of races and yet you've still only managed to come up with a 60% win rate; that's hardly GOAT territory.
He was a phenomenal athlete, but the dude never dominated for any significant period of time. Even at his best, he would often lose races.
Geb won 4 World Championship 10,000m in a row - with 2 Olympic golds sprinkled in (along with setting the WR at 5 and 10).
Bekele went something like 8 years without losing a 10,000m race (won 3 Olympic gold medals and 5 WC gold medals), along with WRs at 5 and 10.
Komen wins the Monaco 1500m a week before breaking the 5k world record and your takeaway is that he lost to Geb three days after winning World Championships and then lost to the greatest miler of all time…in a mile race? Way to miss the point. You don’t seem to understand the difficulty of what he accomplished over those ~2 weeks. Can you name even one other athlete who could put together a comparable series of races?
Why are you bringing up Geb and Bekele’s championship exploits? Obviously Komen cannot compete with them and no one has argued otherwise. The whole point of my post was to show that Komen’s greatness goes beyond his 3000m record, and also that he could definitely “hold a candle” to Geb and Bekele over 5000m. The fact he beat Geb in a 12:45 race and also ran 12:39 should be enough for most people to realize that.
How is your reading comprehension? Komen wins World Championship Gold on 8/13. Then on 8/16 he does lose to Geb BUT he runs 12:44, and you are criticizing him for losing? Then 4 days after running 12:39 Komen loses a mile to Hicham and you are criticizing him despite the fact he ran 3:46? Komen was losing races while not fresh to the best runners who have ever lived, and he was as good as they were.
My reading comprehension is just fine. I don't believe I said anything out of place, so I think maybe you should question own ability to comprehend.
The post is about the greatest of all time. The greatest of all time, in any field, doesn't get beaten 40% of the time when they're at their absolute peak.
People have listed at least 5 different runners - on this very post - with better records and better winning rates against the best in the world for significantly longer portions of time, and yet you still continue to argue that he was as good as them.
The history of running is littered with athletes who bob up and run extraordinary times but then disappear a year or so later. To be eligible for GOAT status, you need sustained dominance as well as a long list of achievements. Komen doesn't make the cut.
Comprehend that.
I’m with Jerrier; your reading comprehension sucks. Somehow you’ve turned this into a GOAT debate when that’s never what it was.
Komen is not THE GOAT, but he is still one of the greatest distance runners of all time. He gets more attention than other flash-in-the-pan types because he did things that no one else in history was capable of doing. It doesn’t hurt that he has a 25-year-old world record nobody has ever come close to breaking.
My reading comprehension is just fine. I don't believe I said anything out of place, so I think maybe you should question own ability to comprehend.
The post is about the greatest of all time. The greatest of all time, in any field, doesn't get beaten 40% of the time when they're at their absolute peak.
People have listed at least 5 different runners - on this very post - with better records and better winning rates against the best in the world for significantly longer portions of time, and yet you still continue to argue that he was as good as them.
The history of running is littered with athletes who bob up and run extraordinary times but then disappear a year or so later. To be eligible for GOAT status, you need sustained dominance as well as a long list of achievements. Komen doesn't make the cut.
Comprehend that.
I’m with Jerrier; your reading comprehension sucks. Somehow you’ve turned this into a GOAT debate when that’s never what it was.
Komen is not THE GOAT, but he is still one of the greatest distance runners of all time. He gets more attention than other flash-in-the-pan types because he did things that no one else in history was capable of doing. It doesn’t hurt that he has a 25-year-old world record nobody has ever come close to breaking.
+1
First, Surge replies to a post that clearly states something like “Obviously, his longevity and championship success doesn’t compare with Geb and Bekele” by citing Geb and Bekele’s longevity and championship success as his argument for why Komen’s not on their level (hint: nobody is saying he’s on their level of career greatness). Then Surge states “The post is about the greatest of all time” in a way that implies the thread is about the GOAT distance runner, which it’s definitely not. It’s about the greatest single PERFORMANCE. Someone would hypothetically only have to race once in their life to qualify for that title.
1. Daniel Komen 7:20.67 3000m. Standing about 25 years, almost three seconds better than the second best performance, by El Guerrouj, a 3:26.00 guy.
2. Bob Beamon, 29'2 1/2", broke the world record by 2 1/2 feet at the Olympic games.
3. Karsten Warholm, 45.98 400mH, 0.8 seconds faster than the long-standing world record of Kevin Young, 46.78, for Olympic Gold with second a massive drop below that same world record as well in Rai Benjamin.
My reading comprehension is just fine. I don't believe I said anything out of place, so I think maybe you should question own ability to comprehend.
The post is about the greatest of all time. The greatest of all time, in any field, doesn't get beaten 40% of the time when they're at their absolute peak.
People have listed at least 5 different runners - on this very post - with better records and better winning rates against the best in the world for significantly longer portions of time, and yet you still continue to argue that he was as good as them.
The history of running is littered with athletes who bob up and run extraordinary times but then disappear a year or so later. To be eligible for GOAT status, you need sustained dominance as well as a long list of achievements. Komen doesn't make the cut.
Comprehend that.
I’m with Jerrier; your reading comprehension sucks. Somehow you’ve turned this into a GOAT debate when that’s never what it was.
Komen is not THE GOAT, but he is still one of the greatest distance runners of all time. He gets more attention than other flash-in-the-pan types because he did things that no one else in history was capable of doing. It doesn’t hurt that he has a 25-year-old world record nobody has ever come close to breaking.
Yes totally agree.
This is the classic "great" vs "best" dilemma right. Where you look at pure ceiling of ability/talent vs a career body of work/legacy etc.
Komen isn't the greatest ever - you can't be without an Olympic medal (of any color let alone the gold) and his flame simply didn't burn long enough. But you can make a strong case he is the most talented runner ever seen - possibly the best in terms of pure ability.
It's hard to imagine that Komen in todays climate at his absolute peak (7.20 for 3000m - a record I might die never seeing broken) with the benefit of product and wavelight (which I legitimately cannot think of a better candidate in history that this huge advantage would have suited better than Komen) would not have been testing the 12.33-34 range over 5000m and we might even have a 3000m record in the even more unfathomable 7.18/19 range.
It's fun to speculate because we will never know. But to your point, you simply can't have a discussion of the greats without mentioning Komen in detail because you aren't one of the greats without pure ability and Komen almost certainly had more of it than anyone else in history.
Agreed with your points JWH. The GOAT runner debate can be had another day.
I just wanted to hear who had the best singular PERFORMANCE in history. Obviously all world records become part of the conversation, but many of them (especially in distance) feel a bit hollow with the use of pacers or technology.
This is why, for me, the ability displayed in the 2008 5k final was so awe inspiring, because he clearly had WR fitness, but then used it in a classical race in the most dominating of fashions.
I’m with Jerrier; your reading comprehension sucks. Somehow you’ve turned this into a GOAT debate when that’s never what it was.
Komen is not THE GOAT, but he is still one of the greatest distance runners of all time. He gets more attention than other flash-in-the-pan types because he did things that no one else in history was capable of doing. It doesn’t hurt that he has a 25-year-old world record nobody has ever come close to breaking.
Yes totally agree.
This is the classic "great" vs "best" dilemma right. Where you look at pure ceiling of ability/talent vs a career body of work/legacy etc.
Komen isn't the greatest ever - you can't be without an Olympic medal (of any color let alone the gold) and his flame simply didn't burn long enough. But you can make a strong case he is the most talented runner ever seen - possibly the best in terms of pure ability.
It's hard to imagine that Komen in todays climate at his absolute peak (7.20 for 3000m - a record I might die never seeing broken) with the benefit of product and wavelight (which I legitimately cannot think of a better candidate in history that this huge advantage would have suited better than Komen) would not have been testing the 12.33-34 range over 5000m and we might even have a 3000m record in the even more unfathomable 7.18/19 range.
It's fun to speculate because we will never know. But to your point, you simply can't have a discussion of the greats without mentioning Komen in detail because you aren't one of the greats without pure ability and Komen almost certainly had more of it than anyone else in history.
I would push back a little on the whole “Komen had more ability than anyone” narrative. I think the ability Bekele had to change pace, handle hills, drop a 53 second quarter, drop a sub 4 mile, etc. was proof of the greatest ability we’ve ever seen in a distance runner. That adaptability and diversity is what made him lethal in XC, on the road, and on the track.
Take this scenario: 2022. Wavelight technology. Super shoes. 5000m. Line up LIFETIME PEAK:
Bekele
Komen
Gebrselassie
Cheptegei
Who do you see getting dropped? I see Cheptegei and Geb getting dropped with 400-300 to go. It’s hard to fathom either Komen or Bekele getting dropped, but I personally feel Bekele would pull away with 200 left (or earlier) and can’t envision a scenario where he is dropped….
I agree with you up to a point but have to stick with Ngugi as the most audacious performance in an Olympic final. Ismael Kirui at the 2003 worlds is the only other that even comes close.
Better video of the Ngugi performance (in two parts) Sheer balls.
I have no particular preference between Komen and Bekele, I just think Komen was the better runner, whereas Bekele is definitely greater in terms of career. For me "best of all time" is different than "greatest all time". "Best" relates to natural ability. Greatest relates to consistency at the top & achievements.
Similar discussion would be Rudisha x Kipketer. Rudisha definitely greater. Now watch Kipketer World Records, especially the one with a ridiculously fast first lap (48.2 if i am not mistaken) and think rationally if that runner, in terms of raw natural ability, was not simply superior than Rudisha ever was (even if by a tiny little - we're comparing peak greatness here so obviously the margins are narrow). There's no diminishing to Rudisha to state that. Kipketer was slightly better. Rudisha undeniable greater.
Judging natural ability only, I think Komen was better than Bekele and there's enough evidence to make a case for that.
First, he was faster than Bekele in 1,500m.
Bekele challenged his 3,000m WR and was not even close. In fact, even El Guerrouj was 3 seconds away. That WR is widely considered the strongest WR in middle/long distance running for a reason. Also to say that Haile was 2.5s away of Komen's 2 miles WR -- which is slightly worse than his 3,000m one. He remains the only runner to have ever broken 8 min for two miles, which is underated in my opinion given how important breaking the 4 min miles was for so many years.
Now the 5,000m, well Bekele is 2 seconds faster, he certainly raced the distance more often, got better at it from a strategic point, definitely had more experience -- there's the "legend" that Komen didn't even know how many laps he was running. It is actually remarkable that a prime Bekele only ran 2 seconds faster than Komen when the latter had only 02 seasons at his prime. Give Komen a few more years of consistency, training and experience as Bekele had and I have little doubts he would have bettered the 12.37.
No other runner in history could have run the following, which has been posted here before. Oh yes "he won only 60% of these races", well yes in the spam of 15 days he was beaten in two out of five races by two of the all-time greats as well, in fact, the greatest 1,500m / Miler ever (and by the way, he still ran one of the fastest miles all time by losing it) and simply Haile Gebrsellasie in arguably his best 5,000m run ever. Simply unparalled in the history of running.
Aug 10 - 13:07 Athens (WC gold) Aug 13 - 12:44 Zurich (2nd to Geb) Aug 16 - 3:29 Monte Carlo (1st) Aug 22 - 12:39 Brussels (WR) Aug 26 - 3:46 Berlin (2nd to El G)
Komen simply didn't last long enough to challenge the crown for "greatest runner ever". That's discussion for Bekele, Kipchoge & Haile. Either because he lacked focus, discipline, or whatever. But there's no other runner -- not even the 03 greats -- who reached his peak of 1996-1997.
That runner -- Komen in those two seasons -- is the best runner the world has seen.
Yes, my money would be on a prime Komen over a prime Bekele as we've seen in Beijing 2008.
Would Komen have won that race? Well, would the race have unfolded in the same way if he was in? How earlier would he start dropping 60s laps in that race? How would that affect Bekele's kick in the end? Bekele could produce a 2:25 last k with a 53s lap. That's impressive. Could he drop a 4.50 last 2k? A prime Komen maybe could. It doesn't make sense to say if he would've won that race because the race would have been different. It is the same that saying, well, both Bekele and Komen couldn't have beaten Mo Farah in his WC/Olympic 5,000m titles. That's probably true if you put them both at the bell to run the last 400m of the race and ask them to beat Mo Farah. It probably wouldn't happen, but there's little doubt prime Bekele and prime Komen were both superior to a prime Mo Farah.
I have no particular preference between Komen and Bekele, I just think Komen was the better runner, whereas Bekele is definitely greater in terms of career. For me "best of all time" is different than "greatest all time". "Best" relates to natural ability. Greatest relates to consistency at the top & achievements.
Similar discussion would be Rudisha x Kipketer. Rudisha definitely greater. Now watch Kipketer World Records, especially the one with a ridiculously fast first lap (48.2 if i am not mistaken) and think rationally if that runner, in terms of raw natural ability, was not simply superior than Rudisha ever was (even if by a tiny little - we're comparing peak greatness here so obviously the margins are narrow). There's no diminishing to Rudisha to state that. Kipketer was slightly better. Rudisha undeniable greater.
Judging natural ability only, I think Komen was better than Bekele and there's enough evidence to make a case for that.
First, he was faster than Bekele in 1,500m.
Bekele challenged his 3,000m WR and was not even close. In fact, even El Guerrouj was 3 seconds away. That WR is widely considered the strongest WR in middle/long distance running for a reason. Also to say that Haile was 2.5s away of Komen's 2 miles WR -- which is slightly worse than his 3,000m one. He remains the only runner to have ever broken 8 min for two miles, which is underated in my opinion given how important breaking the 4 min miles was for so many years.
Now the 5,000m, well Bekele is 2 seconds faster, he certainly raced the distance more often, got better at it from a strategic point, definitely had more experience -- there's the "legend" that Komen didn't even know how many laps he was running. It is actually remarkable that a prime Bekele only ran 2 seconds faster than Komen when the latter had only 02 seasons at his prime. Give Komen a few more years of consistency, training and experience as Bekele had and I have little doubts he would have bettered the 12.37.
No other runner in history could have run the following, which has been posted here before. Oh yes "he won only 60% of these races", well yes in the spam of 15 days he was beaten in two out of five races by two of the all-time greats as well, in fact, the greatest 1,500m / Miler ever (and by the way, he still ran one of the fastest miles all time by losing it) and simply Haile Gebrsellasie in arguably his best 5,000m run ever. Simply unparalled in the history of running.
Aug 10 - 13:07 Athens (WC gold) Aug 13 - 12:44 Zurich (2nd to Geb) Aug 16 - 3:29 Monte Carlo (1st) Aug 22 - 12:39 Brussels (WR) Aug 26 - 3:46 Berlin (2nd to El G)
Komen simply didn't last long enough to challenge the crown for "greatest runner ever". That's discussion for Bekele, Kipchoge & Haile. Either because he lacked focus, discipline, or whatever. But there's no other runner -- not even the 03 greats -- who reached his peak of 1996-1997.
That runner -- Komen in those two seasons -- is the best runner the world has seen.
Yes, my money would be on a prime Komen over a prime Bekele as we've seen in Beijing 2008.
Would Komen have won that race? Well, would the race have unfolded in the same way if he was in? How earlier would he start dropping 60s laps in that race? How would that affect Bekele's kick in the end? Bekele could produce a 2:25 last k with a 53s lap. That's impressive. Could he drop a 4.50 last 2k? A prime Komen maybe could. It doesn't make sense to say if he would've won that race because the race would have been different. It is the same that saying, well, both Bekele and Komen couldn't have beaten Mo Farah in his WC/Olympic 5,000m titles. That's probably true if you put them both at the bell to run the last 400m of the race and ask them to beat Mo Farah. It probably wouldn't happen, but there's little doubt prime Bekele and prime Komen were both superior to a prime Mo Farah.
Kipketer breaking the world indoor record twice in the same championship was unreal.
Now the 5,000m, well Bekele is 2 seconds faster, he certainly raced the distance more often, got better at it from a strategic point, definitely had more experience -- there's the "legend" that Komen didn't even know how many laps he was running. It is actually remarkable that a prime Bekele only ran 2 seconds faster than Komen when the latter had only 02 seasons at his prime. Give Komen a few more years of consistency, training and experience as Bekele had and I have little doubts he would have bettered the 12.37.
Doesn’t really work logically considering Bekele’s 12:37 was run in ‘04. If he’d faded away after that, he too would have only had two years in his prime.
Now the 5,000m, well Bekele is 2 seconds faster, he certainly raced the distance more often, got better at it from a strategic point, definitely had more experience -- there's the "legend" that Komen didn't even know how many laps he was running. It is actually remarkable that a prime Bekele only ran 2 seconds faster than Komen when the latter had only 02 seasons at his prime. Give Komen a few more years of consistency, training and experience as Bekele had and I have little doubts he would have bettered the 12.37.
Doesn’t really work logically considering Bekele’s 12:37 was run in ‘04. If he’d faded away after that, he too would have only had two years in his prime.
I see your point here. But still, Komen 7:20 was 02 years younger than Bekele 12:37. Komen's prime in fact lasted 1.5 years (outdoor season 96 to indoor season 98 where he ran his WR 3,000m indoor). Give him another year and it is well possible he'd be under 12:37.
Agreed. 200-600m was a 72s lap and he still ran 12:57, with a 53.x close while leading 3k+ of the race. I don't believe anyone in history was capable of beating Bekele on this day. Threw in a string of 59/60 second laps and then still closed like it was a tactical race.
I wonder if Jakob could have beaten him on that day. Such a shame that they are not competing in the same era
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.