you're kidding, right? wrote:
No, he's using PRs, meaning he's looking at who ran faster. Mo is faster in one event. Are you really this stupid?
Why would you ONLY look at PRs? There is a lot more to determine who is the better runner. Are you really that simple?
Ask the OP, he's the one who set up their PRs side-by-side without any reference to medals. Kejecha's career has only just begun, so it doesn't make much sense to compare their medal counts anyway. As things stand, Kejelcha is already better (faster) than Mo. You can have more success and be a worse runner. Compare the track careers of Kipchoge and Mo. Kipchoge is way better but Mo had more success.
Why would anyone ever think that? Lagat ran 3:26.
you're killing me wrote:
Ask the OP, he's the one who set up their PRs side-by-side without any reference to medals. Kejecha's career has only just begun, so it doesn't make much sense to compare their medal counts anyway. As things stand, Kejelcha is already better (faster) than Mo. You can have more success and be a worse runner. Compare the track careers of Kipchoge and Mo. Kipchoge is way better but Mo had more success.
"Better" is not simply looking at who has a faster PR. That wouldn't be a discussion - it's an easily searchable question. By your "logic", Mo Farah would have routinely beat runners that are better than him. Which makes his accomplishments even more amazing!
Do you think Mo is better than Kipchoge? How about Komen?
......... wrote:
Do you think Mo is better than Kipchoge?
On the track? Yes. Easily.
......... wrote:
How about Komen?
Closer comparison. I'd entertain an argument for either.
Do you think Jonathan Maiyo is better than Samuel Wanjiru?
seasoned ranker wrote:
......... wrote:
Do you think Mo is better than Kipchoge?
On the track? Yes. Easily.
This is why I can't take you seriously. Kipchoge is 11-5 vs Farah.
Good day.
winning only matters when it benefits Mo I guess... wrote:
seasoned ranker wrote:
On the track? Yes. Easily.
This is why I can't take you seriously. Kipchoge is 11-5 vs Farah.
Good day.
You aren't able to think critically. Where was Kipchoge during Farah's global championship wins if he was a superior track runner?
Do you think Selemon Barega, Hagos Gebrhiwet, Dejen Gebremeskel, Isiah Koech, Yenew Alamirew, Thomas Longosiwa and John Kipkoech are better than Mo Farah?
seasoned ranker wrote:
winning only matters when it benefits Mo I guess... wrote:
This is why I can't take you seriously. Kipchoge is 11-5 vs Farah.
Good day.
You aren't able to think critically. Where was Kipchoge during Farah's global championship wins if he was a superior track runner?
Do you think Selemon Barega, Hagos Gebrhiwet, Dejen Gebremeskel, Isiah Koech, Yenew Alamirew, Thomas Longosiwa and John Kipkoech are better than Mo Farah?
So winning doesn't matter now that you realize how miserable Farah's record against Kipchoge was? Now you fall back on Farah's medals and denigrate Kipchoge simply because he was washed up by the time Mo really became successful? Keep in mind that Farah was completely irrelevant during the same period that Kipchoge was contending for medals against all-time greats.
so inconsistent wrote:
seasoned ranker wrote:
You aren't able to think critically. Where was Kipchoge during Farah's global championship wins if he was a superior track runner?
Do you think Selemon Barega, Hagos Gebrhiwet, Dejen Gebremeskel, Isiah Koech, Yenew Alamirew, Thomas Longosiwa and John Kipkoech are better than Mo Farah?
So winning doesn't matter now that you realize how miserable Farah's record against Kipchoge was? Now you fall back on Farah's medals and denigrate Kipchoge simply because he was washed up by the time Mo really became successful? Keep in mind that Farah was completely irrelevant during the same period that Kipchoge was contending for medals against all-time greats.
When did I ever say winning doesn't matter? Why are you trying to make everything one dimensional when there are a lot of factors in play on what makes a runner better? Are you only able to comprehend one thing?
Do you think Selemon Barega, Hagos Gebrhiwet, Dejen Gebremeskel, Isiah Koech, Yenew Alamirew, Thomas Longosiwa and John Kipkoech are better than Mo Farah? Times are all that matter, right?
seasoned ranker wrote:
so inconsistent wrote:
So winning doesn't matter now that you realize how miserable Farah's record against Kipchoge was? Now you fall back on Farah's medals and denigrate Kipchoge simply because he was washed up by the time Mo really became successful? Keep in mind that Farah was completely irrelevant during the same period that Kipchoge was contending for medals against all-time greats.
When did I ever say winning doesn't matter? Why are you trying to make everything one dimensional when there are a lot of factors in play on what makes a runner better? Are you only able to comprehend one thing?
Do you think Selemon Barega, Hagos Gebrhiwet, Dejen Gebremeskel, Isiah Koech, Yenew Alamirew, Thomas Longosiwa and John Kipkoech are better than Mo Farah? Times are all that matter, right?
You implied it by blowing off the fact that Kipchoge has a phenomenal win/loss record vs Farah. You said earlier that Mo is better than Kipchoge on the track. It's clear that the results of their head-to-head races don't matter to you.
If runner A runs 12:46 and runner B runs 12:53, runner A is better. If runner B beats runner A in a tactical championship race, runner A is still better. Finishing time actually matters. It amazes me you think there's an argument to be made that Farah > Komen.
Quite apart from the absurdity of asserting that pr's count for more than winning major championships, the debate is still only weighing up who is the better of the likely best doped athletes of the present era. I wouldn't give you a dollar for any of them being clean in a sport where 1 in 2 elite athletes have confidentially admitted to doping in IAAF surveys. But the band plays on.
you lost me wrote:
seasoned ranker wrote:
When did I ever say winning doesn't matter? Why are you trying to make everything one dimensional when there are a lot of factors in play on what makes a runner better? Are you only able to comprehend one thing?
Do you think Selemon Barega, Hagos Gebrhiwet, Dejen Gebremeskel, Isiah Koech, Yenew Alamirew, Thomas Longosiwa and John Kipkoech are better than Mo Farah? Times are all that matter, right?
You implied it by blowing off the fact that Kipchoge has a phenomenal win/loss record vs Farah. You said earlier that Mo is better than Kipchoge on the track. It's clear that the results of their head-to-head races don't matter to you.
If runner A runs 12:46 and runner B runs 12:53, runner A is better. If runner B beats runner A in a tactical championship race, runner A is still better. Finishing time actually matters. It amazes me you think there's an argument to be made that Farah > Komen.
"If runner A runs 12.46 and runner B runs 12.53, runner A is better. If runner B beats runner A in a tactical championship race, runner A is still better. Finishing time actually matters."
Clueless. A runner may achieve a faster time than in a tactical race and yet still lose - and many do run their pr's while not even placing. All races are to some extent "tactical", but you seem to think that unless they are run at the fastest possible pace from start to finish the results matter less than in a "tactical" and slower-paced race. Tell Seb Coe that after his loss in the 800 at the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Deverstated. The irrefutable argument against the "time is everything" argument is that the so-called faster runner lost to the so-called lesser runner. If the faster runner was better why didn't he/she win? Let's hear the excuses.
wtf are you talking about wrote:
Why would anyone ever think that? Lagat ran 3:26.
Webb’s mile PR is faster than Bernie B Sample’s. Consider that in the context of the previous nonsensical conversation.
A thread comparing PRs, then a bunch of whiners saying that speed isn't important in running.
Silly thread.
Obviously Mo has had the better career, but I'm inclined to say that right now Kejelcha is fitter than Mo ever was. Mo was able to beat a lot of runners who had faster PRs, but, compared to Mo, Kejelcha has faster PRs and a comparable kick. If prime Mo and current Kejelcha lined up for a 5000m, I'd bet on Kejelcha.
In 30 years we will look back at Mo's reign as just a filler between Bekele and the next true great (maybe Kejelcha, maybe someone else).
Lofty Goals wrote:
Obviously Mo has had the better career, but I'm inclined to say that right now Kejelcha is fitter than Mo ever was. Mo was able to beat a lot of runners who had faster PRs, but, compared to Mo, Kejelcha has faster PRs and a comparable kick. If prime Mo and current Kejelcha lined up for a 5000m, I'd bet on Kejelcha.
In 30 years we will look back at Mo's reign as just a filler between Bekele and the next true great (maybe Kejelcha, maybe someone else).
And Kejelcha may turn out to be just another footnote till the next great runner. But Farah's incredible tally of championship victories means that he will never be seen as a "filler" to his eventual successor.
The only race that Kejelcha has to
win if he is to get anywhere near Farah's 10 global championship golds (which is 2 more than Bekele) is the race to stay ahead of the testers. But that applies to most now.
Since you're intent on being an ass, let me rephrase. "If runner B beats runner A in a race without beating runner A's personal best, runner A is still better." Most championship races end up being slow which is why I used that as an example. There's no need for you to pretend that you didn't understand what I was getting at.
My argument is that time is the most important factor. Yours seems to be that it doesn't matter at all.
try harder wrote:
Since you're intent on being an ass, let me rephrase. "If runner B beats runner A in a race without beating runner A's personal best, runner A is still better." Most championship races end up being slow which is why I used that as an example. There's no need for you to pretend that you didn't understand what I was getting at.
My argument is that time is the most important factor. Yours seems to be that it doesn't matter at all.
Runner A is not better than runner B if he loses to him. Jeez, only in a sport like running will anyone argue the loser is the better. If time is the most important factor then championship medals should simply be handed out to the runners with the fastest career times. No need to race. The logic of someone with no grasp of competitive sport. You might ask yourself why most races are run tactically if proof of superiority is simply to run a fast time. Well, waddya know - most runners prefer to win. Time always comes second to winning.