Wang Junxia would have lapped Dibaba tonight

Wang's 10,000m PR is only 22 seconds faster than Dibaba's.

So she is not over a minute slower than Wang.

And I pointed out that Dibaba's championship time yesterday was faster than Wang's championship time.

Wang has 2 global titles on the track.

Dibaba has 8 global titles on the track plus 5 XC titles.

Even if you let Wang's performances stand, Dibaba has had a better career.

Who's arrogant, the BBC or you?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Tirunish's PR is only ~23 seconds slower.

1s per lap. That's about the difference between Bekele and Rupp.

I would argue they're not in the same league.

wr potential,

once again, only stating that white women can hold legit WR. Come on, man. Wang is a proven champion, and there should be several athletes at least 30-sec faster than a doped Radcliffe over 10,000m since Radcliffe was so freaking slow.

Nutella1 wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Tirunish's PR is only ~23 seconds slower.

1s per lap. That's about the difference between Bekele and Rupp.

I would argue they're not in the same league.

OK, that is a substantial difference. Is that the only basis for your argument?

Nutella1 wrote:

... Therefore it is rather arrogant of the British (BBC) to pronounce Dibaba the greatest female distance runner when she is over a minute slower than Wang.

Dibaba was as much slower than Wang as Farah was slower than Bekeles WR. Is Farah the greatest distance runner of all times? Would he have had a chance against Bekele in his prime? NO WAY.

There's always going to be some subjectivity to "greatest" across different eras, but one clear difference is medal count. Dibaba (and Bekele) dominated over multiple Olympic and World Championships, something that Wang didn't do even if she were faster.

Wang has run below 30:30 just once.

Dibaba, 6 times.

Different leagues.

Nutella1 wrote:

When I created this thread I already knew which turn it would be taking.

My point is, there are many speculations about what's wrong with these records, short track, faked clock, moved starting line, drugs or even males competing as females. Yet we don't have any proof for it. Therefore it is rather arrogant of the British (BBC) to pronounce Dibaba the greatest female distance runner when she is over a minute slower than Wang.

There's quite a bit of evidence that everyone in Ma's army was doping, as I posted before. It's odd that you would throw drugs in there as an afterthought, given the reasons that Ma is no longer coaching...

The BBC commentators are free to analyze that information and conclude that Wang Junxia was one of the most blatant dopers of all time, and therefore leave her out of the conversation.

Robin Johnson wrote:

Guys she never failed a drug test and look at her legs if dibaba was 5'10 she'd be sub 29. Long live usain bolt

The 2 fastest men at 10,000 are quite a bit shorter than 5'10.

isjsmz wrote:

Did Wang Junxia ever fail a drug test?

Was Wang Junxia ever even tested? Given the time and circumstances, I doubt it. When the IOC started testing before Sydney in 2000, 6 out of 7 of Ma's athletes tested positive.

As clean as radcliffe, rupp, marion, lance, flojo, salazar, arod.

rewq wrote:

isjsmz wrote:

Did Wang Junxia ever fail a drug test?

Was Wang Junxia ever even tested? Given the time and circumstances, I doubt it. When the IOC started testing before Sydney in 2000, 6 out of 7 of Ma's athletes tested positive.

Yes, they were drug testing in 1993 and 1996. As a winner in the world championships and the Olympics she would have been tested. They have been doing out-of-competition testing since 1988ish (wake of Ben Johnson).

rewq wrote:

isjsmz wrote:

Did Wang Junxia ever fail a drug test?

Was Wang Junxia ever even tested? Given the time and circumstances, I doubt it. When the IOC started testing before Sydney in 2000, 6 out of 7 of Ma's athletes tested positive.

Of course she was tested but this was before EPO could be detected. So ca. 1990+/- when it became available to about 2000, athletes were being tested but could fly through and not be detected. Some US athletes got away with it too; Jacobs almost did.

The Chinese were suspicious for a lot of reasons. They came from nowhere set records for one or two seasons under rather dubious circumstances and then disappeared.

Wang went to grad school in Colorado about a decade later. She was intereviewed in a college paper, but refused to talk much about her running days.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

LM wrote:

Already determined in a previous thread that in those "WR" performances they were starting from incorrect places on the track. Wang Junxia did not cover 10,000m 29:31.

Impossible. They didn't have some local in house company working timing. They had Omega there, the same team that times the Olympics.

1:59 for the last 800m

Jacobs was only accused, but never failed any test.

wrong again wrote:

Jacobs was only accused, but never failed any test.

wrong again

wrong again wrote:

Jacobs was only accused, but never failed any test.

False:

wrong again wrote:

Jacobs was only accused, but never failed any test.

Whaaaat!?

Track and field fan wrote:

Dibaba would beat Wang Junxia hands down due to her sit and kick tactics. Dibaba in her prime (2007-2008) could have easily beat 29:31.

Sit and kick? On a 3:51 1500 runner? Who's 10000 is 23 seconds faster than yours? LOL! Maybe Wang is legit and maybe she isn't, but she would have waxed Dibaba.

And didn't attempt the world record . . . yeah, because she knew she had no chance.

Rae got it goin' on pal wrote:

Track and field fan wrote:

Dibaba would beat Wang Junxia hands down due to her sit and kick tactics. Dibaba in her prime (2007-2008) could have easily beat 29:31.

Sit and kick? On a 3:51 1500 runner? Who's 10000 is 23 seconds faster than yours? LOL! Maybe Wang is legit and maybe she isn't, but she would have waxed Dibaba.

And didn't attempt the world record . . . yeah, because she knew she had no chance.

Not as convinced on that last line. Dibaba is good for 14:11, which is generally considered good for 29:15 ish, especially considering women tend to be a little stronger at longer distances.