blaine wrote:
I personally think she is, in fact, the greatest female marathoner of all time, but unless she goes without a loss in the remainder of her marathons and continues to post incredible times, she won't be considered the greatest very long. Someone faster will come along, win consistently, AND win an olympic gold. The olympic gold is what would have given her an enduring legacy.
Jackhole Productions wrote:
Using your logic, it doesn't matter whether she wins 10 Olympic Golds and retires at 75 with a 2:11 PR, she'll only be the best until someone better comes along.
I think the idea in these "all-time best" arguments is to limit the scope of performances to those that have already been posted.
Jackhole, your peception of my logic is exactly opposite from what I said. My logic is that ONE gold medal would probably have ensured that hers would be a name mentioned as "all time greatest" for decades and decades to come, when taken into consideration ALONG with the performances she already posted. As it is, without a gold medal, her legacy may not be AS enduring because her times will be bettered sooner or later.
I did say that I think she is presently the greatest female marathoner.