Who are the top 5 marathoners right now?

you are stupid wrote:

I see. So even though Rupp hasn't run anything faster than a 2:09, he's a 2:06, or 2:05, (or whatever) guy in your mind?

What universe do you live in? lol

In your example, runner A is a 2:10 guy. Period. End of story. Not only is that his PR, that is also "what he is." He is a 2:10 guy. He hasn't run 2:09, 2:08, 2:07, 2:06, 2:05, 2:04, 2:03, or 2:02. I don't care if he covered the last 5 miles of a 2:10 marathon in 20 minutes. He is a 2:10 guy, and always will be until he actually crosses the finish line of a marathon in a faster time than 2:10.

I live in a universe based on science and physics. If a guy finishes his PR race with a negative split or a clear amount of energy remaining, then he is able to run faster than his PR.

For Rupp, all I think is that he is faster than his PR. I don't know if that means 30 seconds faster or 3 minutes faster.

What you are saying is about official and recorded times not ability.

you are stupid wrote:

... you can say runner A has the POTENTIAL to run 2:06. I'm more than fine with that. But until he does, he's a 2:10 guy.

No, not potential. The word is ability. And it is not "a 2:10 guy". It is "a guy with an official PR of 2:10".

delusional rupp hater wrote:

survey says wrote:

Rupp hasn't even run within two minutes of his teammate Osako. Osako definitely belongs ahead of Rupp on the list.

Yeah let's put Osako ahead of Rupp even though Rupp crushed him in Boston this spring. Please explain to me how you think Rupp is only capable of 2:09 on a fast, rabbited course even though he ran 2:09 with a blistering 10k finish. That would be like if someone closed a 5:00 mile in 60 seconds and you argued they weren't capable of breaking 5 in an even paced race.

Well, A, you're comparing an Olympic medalist to somebody running their first marathon, and B, that was in the spring. In the fall Rupp improved by a few seconds. Osako improved by 3 minutes. 3rd in Fukuoka in 2:07 is also more impressive than a minimum-effort win in Chicago. Whatever you think Rupp is capable of, he hasn't done it yet. Osako has. No question who goes higher on the list.

Ifu wrote:

I live in a universe based on science and physics. If a guy finishes his PR race with a negative split or a clear amount of energy remaining, then he is able to run faster than his PR.

Yes, that is called potential. I agree 100% with that. Rupp certainly has shown potential that he should, and likely will run faster than 2:09.

However, where you are flat-out wrong is jumping the gun and calling him a 2:06 guy, or whatever you think he is. He's not. Until he demonstrates his potential by actually running a marathon in less than 2:09, it is nothing more than potential.

Let me put it to you another way. If he retired today, I don't think his bio would say:

Galen Rupp was potentially a 2:06 marathoner, so we will officially remember him and classify him as such.

survey says wrote:

delusional rupp hater wrote:

Yeah let's put Osako ahead of Rupp even though Rupp crushed him in Boston this spring. Please explain to me how you think Rupp is only capable of 2:09 on a fast, rabbited course even though he ran 2:09 with a blistering 10k finish. That would be like if someone closed a 5:00 mile in 60 seconds and you argued they weren't capable of breaking 5 in an even paced race.

Well, A, you're comparing an Olympic medalist to somebody running their first marathon, and B, that was in the spring. In the fall Rupp improved by a few seconds. Osako improved by 3 minutes. 3rd in Fukuoka in 2:07 is also more impressive than a minimum-effort win in Chicago. Whatever you think Rupp is capable of, he hasn't done it yet. Osako has. No question who goes higher on the list.

"minimum-effort win" lol

you are stupid wrote:

Ifu wrote:

I live in a universe based on science and physics. If a guy finishes his PR race with a negative split or a clear amount of energy remaining, then he is able to run faster than his PR.

Yes, that is called potential. I agree 100% with that. Rupp certainly has shown potential that he should, and likely will run faster than 2:09.

However, where you are flat-out wrong is jumping the gun and calling him a 2:06 guy, or whatever you think he is. He's not. Until he demonstrates his potential by actually running a marathon in less than 2:09, it is nothing more than potential.

Let me put it to you another way. If he retired today, I don't think his bio would say:

Galen Rupp was potentially a 2:06 marathoner, so we will officially remember him and classify him as such.

Sammy Wanjiru was potentially a 2:02 or 2:01 guy, but of course he doesn't get that benefit of the doubt in the history books.

Hilarious thread on r/running right now - that places never ceases to provide entertainment

https://www.reddit.com/r/running/comments/7jsp3t/was_steve_prefontaine_the_greatest_runner_of_all/

Yes wrote:

you are stupid wrote:

Yes, that is called potential. I agree 100% with that. Rupp certainly has shown potential that he should, and likely will run faster than 2:09.

However, where you are flat-out wrong is jumping the gun and calling him a 2:06 guy, or whatever you think he is. He's not. Until he demonstrates his potential by actually running a marathon in less than 2:09, it is nothing more than potential.

Let me put it to you another way. If he retired today, I don't think his bio would say:

Galen Rupp was potentially a 2:06 marathoner, so we will officially remember him and classify him as such.

Sammy Wanjiru was potentially a 2:02 or 2:01 guy, but of course he doesn't get that benefit of the doubt in the history books.

And where do you think Wanjiru ranks in the "history books"?

george oscar bluth wrote:

Yes wrote:

Sammy Wanjiru was potentially a 2:02 or 2:01 guy, but of course he doesn't get that benefit of the doubt in the history books.

And where do you think Wanjiru ranks in the "history books"?

Good question - he ran one of the better olympic marathons ever and won Chicago. That alone doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a flash in the pan, but it's hard to believe he would have been. He's a once-in-a-while talent with a deeply unfortunately incomplete grade on results.

1) Eliud Kipchoge

2) Guye Adola

3) Wilson Kipsang

4) Tim Chichester

5) Galen Rupp

hard to say wrote:

george oscar bluth wrote:

And where do you think Wanjiru ranks in the "history books"?

Good question - he ran one of the better olympic marathons ever and won Chicago. That alone doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a flash in the pan, but it's hard to believe he would have been. He's a once-in-a-while talent with a deeply unfortunately incomplete grade on results.

If you ask me he's in the top 3 marathoners of all-time. If you ask the PR rankings guys, he's about 36th. Times aren't everything.

survey says wrote:

delusional rupp hater wrote:

Yeah let's put Osako ahead of Rupp even though Rupp crushed him in Boston this spring. Please explain to me how you think Rupp is only capable of 2:09 on a fast, rabbited course even though he ran 2:09 with a blistering 10k finish. That would be like if someone closed a 5:00 mile in 60 seconds and you argued they weren't capable of breaking 5 in an even paced race.

Well, A, you're comparing an Olympic medalist to somebody running their first marathon, and B, that was in the spring. In the fall Rupp improved by a few seconds. Osako improved by 3 minutes. 3rd in Fukuoka in 2:07 is also more impressive than a minimum-effort win in Chicago. Whatever you think Rupp is capable of, he hasn't done it yet. Osako has. No question who goes higher on the list.

People are using different definitions of "top 5". If top 5 means the fastest times run (with some adjustment for course difficulty/conditions), then there isn't really much of a discussion here. A guy like Osako (and the hundreds of others that have recently run faster than 2:09) rank higher Rupp.

Another (more meaningful IMO) definition is the "best" 5 marathoners. If you took all of the elite fields in the major marathons in 2017 and had them all run in a paced race and a non-paced race, who would you expect to see in the top 5? I'm not sure about top 5, but I would bet on Rupp to be in the top 10 in both races. On the other hand, I wouldn't bet on Sisay Lemma finishing ahead of Rupp in either race, even though Lemma's PR is more than 4 minutes faster than Rupp's.

george oscar bluth wrote:

hard to say wrote:

Good question - he ran one of the better olympic marathons ever and won Chicago. That alone doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a flash in the pan, but it's hard to believe he would have been. He's a once-in-a-while talent with a deeply unfortunately incomplete grade on results.

If you ask me he's in the top 3 marathoners of all-time. If you ask the PR rankings guys, he's about 36th. Times aren't everything.

Also, while 2 races "doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a flash in the pan", that clearly is not painting a full picture of Sammy's performances. These results show that even in his short career, he most certainly wasn't a flash in the pan:

Fukoaka - 1st

London - 2nd

Beijing Olympics - 1st

London - 1st

Chicago - 1st

London - DNF (injured)

Chicago - 1st

But he only ran 2:05:10 so I guess he was worse than Dino Sefer and Getu Feleke, right guys?

george oscar bluth wrote:

george oscar bluth wrote:

If you ask me he's in the top 3 marathoners of all-time. If you ask the PR rankings guys, he's about 36th. Times aren't everything.

Also, while 2 races "doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a flash in the pan", that clearly is not painting a full picture of Sammy's performances. These results show that even in his short career, he most certainly wasn't a flash in the pan:

Fukoaka - 1st

London - 2nd

Beijing Olympics - 1st

London - 1st

Chicago - 1st

London - DNF (injured)

Chicago - 1st

But he only ran 2:05:10 so I guess he was worse than Dino Sefer and Getu Feleke, right guys?

Yeah I mean I agree, I don't think he was about to just fall off. He could have been a legitimate challenger to Eliud right now, which would have been quite something to watch.

Take all the guys running now, average their top 3 times and rank them.

Rupp would be lucky to see the top 15

1) Kipchoge

2) Adola

3) Kipsang

4) Bekele

5-9) 5 other Kenyans

10) Moen

11) Rupp

12) Parker Stinson

It's really quite remarkable; Rupp is not the most talented, but his racing acumen, training discipline, and desire have none-the-less allowed him to be competitive at the highest levels against opponents that, genetically, far outclass him.

This makes me only respect him more. After all, I don't really respect talent; I respect other qualities. It's just a shame he has the charm of a newt. Regardless, I love watching him race. He's a major draw, love him or hate him.

Kipchoge is, of course, #1. Both tactically and time trial. My bet is he doesn't have much longer; age (not official age, but actual age) and wear and tear. It's hard to stay on top for so long, especially in the marathon. He's not wolverine.

Kipsang. I don't think he's done yet, but he only has a couple years at most (he may have none, e.g., injury is a fact of life as you age and bouncing back becomes harder and harder).

Bekele. There are two problems he faces. First, there is a disproportionately high probability that he'll DNF. If he doesn't DNF, he'll do quite well. If he does really well, there's a good chance he'll injure himself and not do well for the next year. The dude is just old and his training seems to leave something to be desired. Still, he's a massive talent and there hasn't been a race he's been in yet where he could be discounted. He's always a contender, no matter who's there next to him on the line.

Galen, assuming it's a race without a time trial. I don't know he he'll do in a time trial. It's plausible that he has a 2:07 in him, but I can't say much more than that. Hey, we all want to see what he can do in a time trial, but he will prioritize winning the majors -- especially in America (all three would be quite an accomplishment) for the foreseeable future.

Kamworor. This guy has huge potential. We'll see what he does with it.

1) Saying anyone far outclasses Rupp genetically is just silly. He just destroyed everyone you would have thought was "genetically superior" to him in Chicago. He is a machine. A very fast machine.

2) Rupp is most definitely a time trialer. His 26:44 10000 is proof of that. If you think he can't run a 2:03-2:04 than that's your problem.

3) If you can earn $1,000,000 (with endorsements, bonuses, being a guest in shows) with a win in Boston vs $100,000 for a win in Berlin, which would you do?

April fools wrote:

Have some of you lost your minds??? How is Galen Rupp ranked ahead of Bekele?!

Because he's white and most people who post here are white.