Greatest Female Marathon of All-Time: P. Radcliffe, C. Ndereba, N. Takahashi....?

SJD wrote:

The comparison with Kwan is slightly off. In figure-skating, the winter Olympics is the absolute pinnacle for them. However, like many people have observed on this thread, an Olympic title is NOT the be-all and end-all of a Marathon runners' career. If it was, then neither Radcliffe, Ndereba, Waitz or Kristiansen could be classed as the greatest marathoner of all time (when in reality, we all know that they are the top four women of all time).

slightly off, i agree. but it's about titles with both of them. technically and in terms of consistency and dominance, both are better than anyone in history (kwan has double the number of perfect 6.0s than anyone else, including men--ok, the artistic crap probably accounts for some of that, but it still counts).

you can still be the greatest athlete in your sport of all time, and yet not be as influential as your predecessors--eg. kwan didnt break huge barriers (except on the ethnic side) and i still maintain that paula takes a back seat to grete as far as breaking barriers go.

princess of wales wrote:

slightly off, i agree. but it's about titles with both of them. technically and in terms of consistency and dominance, both are better than anyone in history (kwan has double the number of perfect 6.0s than anyone else, including men--ok, the artistic crap probably accounts for some of that, but it still counts).

you can still be the greatest athlete in your sport of all time, and yet not be as influential as your predecessors--eg. kwan didnt break huge barriers (except on the ethnic side) and i still maintain that paula takes a back seat to grete as far as breaking barriers go.

We're going to have to agree to disagree re: breaking barriers, but one key thing is that Paula still has several years left ahead of her and it seems as though, by the time she retires, she will be regarded as the greatest female marathoner of all-time.

It's been fun discussing this with you - you obviously have a great knowledge and love for athletics and distance running in particular.

;-)

SJD wrote:

...either Radcliffe, Ndereba, Waitz or Kristiansen could be classed as the greatest marathoner of all time (when in reality, we all know that they are the top four women of all time).

Kristiansen? Really? We all know they're the top 4? Hmmm, I think this is where 'all' ends and 'some of us feel' begins.

You've been persuasive so far but, in my book, come up short w/IK's place near the top.

SJD wrote:

...either Radcliffe, Ndereba, Waitz or Kristiansen could be classed as the greatest marathoner of all time (when in reality, we all know that they are the top four women of all time).

scotth wrote:

Kristiansen? Really? We all know they're the top 4? Hmmm, I think this is where 'all' ends and 'some of us feel' begins.

You've been persuasive so far but, in my book, come up short w/IK's place near the top.

True, I shouldn't have been so sweeping with that statement. What I should have said is "it is widely regarded that they are all amongst the best marathoners ever." You get my point though ;-)

[quote]SJD wrote:

The 2:30 barrier only seemed ground-breaking because people were uneducated about the women\'s marathon at the time (and surely people must have been waiting for some sort of break-through, given that it was a fledgling event in the late 70\'s/early 80\'s). You say yourself that we now know that women aren\'t as weak as people make them out to be. So, we can NOW look back on the 2:30 barrier and see it as quite insignificant.

The very fact that (in your opinion at least) \"the 2:15 barrier is not that big a deal today\" shows how far it has progressed since its lowly 2:30 days. However I maintain that, in the long run, people will look back and see that Paula had much more of an impact on the record books than anyone else that had gone before her. I mean, the IAAF rated it as one of the strongest world records around - how can it not be impactful, and how can anyone down-play it??!

[quote]princess of wales wrote:

with less training/scientific information available to women back in the day, and the general consensus, at least according to the IOC, that women should not run more than one mile, grete set four consecutive WRs and, in breaking the 2:30 barrier, she went from 2:32 to 2:27--a huge 5 minute jump.

2:25'28" Grete Waitz, NOR, 17 Apr 83, London.

2:25'41" Grete Waitz, NOR, 26 Oct 80, New York.

2:27'32" Grete Waitz, NOR, 21 Oct 79, New York.

2:32'29" Grete Waitz, NOR, 22 Oct 78, New York.

there's a difference between being most influentual vs. the greatest runner of all time. the barriers grete broke involved skepticism that women should or could run at all, let alone fast--she broke both barriers, and in times that could still be competitive today (her 2:25 at NYCM 1980 would have been faster than 9 NYCM winning times between 1990-2005). paula and all the other runners today only have to contend with time barriers, just like the guys.

come to think if it now, no, i wouldnt call grete the greatest of all time. but definitely most influential.

princess of wales wrote:

come to think if it now, no, i wouldnt call grete the greatest of all time. but definitely most influential.

What's your top-ten list? Can't remember if you've already posted one, and I'm too lazy to trawl through the 140+ posts to find it! :-)

there's really only one way to settle this.

head to head matchup with paula and grete. grete gets a ten mile headstart on account of her age. winner takes all titles: "most influential" and "greatest of all time."

the showdown: New York City 2005

princess of wales wrote:

there's really only one way to settle this.

head to head matchup with paula and grete. grete gets a ten mile headstart on account of her age. winner takes all titles: "most influential" and "greatest of all time."

the showdown: New York City 2005

Lol! I'd pay to see that!! :-)

Actually, Ingrid K still keeps herself in shape, as does Joan Benoit. I don't know what Grete Waitz and Rosa Mota are currently up to, but imagine them all having a re-match of the 1984 OG (seeing as they all finished in the top four there) nowadays?? Don't know about a 10 mile (!!) head start over Paula, but yeh - throw Paula, Ndereba, Loroupe and Takahashi in there somewhere, and watch them all go at it!!!

SJD wrote:

(to: princess of wales) -

What's your top-ten list? Can't remember if you've already posted one, and I'm too lazy to trawl through the 140+ posts to find it! :-)

He had the same as me; Ndereba, Waitz, Radcliffe & Benoit but went w/an unnamed Japanese runners for #5. Ah well, no accounting for ranking ability...ha-ha.

SJD wrote:

princess of wales wrote:

come to think if it now, no, i wouldnt call grete the greatest of all time. but definitely most influential.

What's your top-ten list? Can't remember if you've already posted one, and I'm too lazy to trawl through the 140+ posts to find it! :-)

id pretty much agree with that list you posted (athletics weekly was it?), though not ncessarily in the same order, and i wouldnt include lisa ondieki--i'd stick in fatoma roba (96 olympics, and 3 boston wins) or alison roe (WR, boston and NYC wins)instead --not that any of these three names scream out at me when i think of greatest marathoners. not too impressed with lisa's "commonwealth" wins. really, was the "commonwealth marathon" ever that big of a deal--who was the competition, the Queen and Princess Diana? the british have let go of the commonwealth, but that's really a subject for another thread.

then again, im just a monday morning front-of-the-middle of the packer giving my two cents on all of this.

princess of wales wrote:

the british have let go of the commonwealth, but that's really a subject for another thread.

correction: meant to say "the bristish HAVE to let go of the commonwealth...."

princess of wales wrote:

id pretty much agree with that list you posted (athletics weekly was it?), though not ncessarily in the same order, and i wouldnt include lisa ondieki--i'd stick in fatoma roba (96 olympics, and 3 boston wins) or alison roe (WR, boston and NYC wins)instead --not that any of these three names scream out at me when i think of greatest marathoners. not too impressed with lisa's "commonwealth" wins. really, was the "commonwealth marathon" ever that big of a deal--who was the competition, the Queen and Princess Diana? the british have let go of the commonwealth, but that's really a subject for another thread.

then again, im just a monday morning front-of-the-middle of the packer giving my two cents on all of this.

Yes, it seems as though there's a definite 8/9 women that most people tend to agree on. My replacement to Ondieki was Katrin Dorre (three top-5 placings in three separate OGs; WCh bronze; 15+ years in the world top-ten; great longevity; several big-city wins, etc), but to be honest Fatuma Roba and Alison Roe (and perhaps even Wanda Panfil and Mizuki Noguchi) are just as worthy candidates for the 9/10th greatest.

FWIW, I dug up the list of the top 10 women that appeared in the aforementioned Marathon & Beyond. The list was in the Mar/Apr '99 edition...much has happened since!

10. Valentina Yegorova

9. Lisa Ondieki

8. Katrin Dorre

7. Uta Pippig

tie 5. Fatuma Roba

tie 5. Tegla Loroupe

4. Rosa Mota

3. Ingrid Kristiansen

2. Grete Waitz

1. Joan Benoit Samuelson

hmm, when i see benoit all the way up there, and mota down there, im just not feeling it for benoit. given that marathon courses are so different, it's not really fair to compare different times from different courses. so although mota never set a world record, she has so many wins (WCs, Olympics, an long string of big city races), she achieved so much more than benoit--and she accomplished all that while being noticeably shorter than her competitors. short legs work more.

placing myself in the year 1999, when that edition came out, performance wise, i'd have to knock joan down on that list to #4 and mota to #1. timing isnt everything!

This is just wrong, plain and simple, wrong. By your arguement the Dartford 10 mile Road race must be a higher standard than the Olympics because its open to as many Kenyans as want to run. See how stupid your argument is?The Olympic Marathon is the number one marathon event in the world BY FAR. Just ask any top runner, ask Paula or Grete what they think. Ask Tergat or Rodgers. The Olympic games are what all athletes aspire to, everything else is just payday.London and Chicago have the money to buy the athletes appearances but they cant buy their commitment. Athletes will routinely 'just run' big city marathons for the pay cheque. Would they do the same four months before the Olympics? Not unless their Olympic berth depended on it.Consider the number of sub 2'12 marathoners in Athens. There were 56 runnesr with a PB faster than 2'12. There were 39 with sub 2'10 times and 28 faster than 2'09. London doesnt have anywhere near that depth (and Athens did gave the top guys that were fit). It is the depth that makes the Olympic marathon so strong. The winning times are usually 2'10-2'12 (given the tough conditions) so more than half the field considers themselves 'in the hunt'. This is why guys like Meb and DeLima feel they can justify going for it, stick their necks out and try to upset the form guide. This is why the favourite rarely wins and why it is BY FAR the number one marathon in the world every four years.

championship records wrote:

One thing that has to be taken into account is that WC and Olympic marathons are nowadays LESS competitive than Chicago and London. Think about the mens race at London - even with HaileG and Abera and Meb, it was up front a more competitive race than Athens. The womens race was probably en par with Athens, but past WC's in the last 4 sessions definitely haven't been as good as the big-city counterparts. Point is, London and Chicago are more like the big championship races for the marathon these days, so I would actually weight winning one of those more heavily than the actual championship ones.

championship records wrote:

One thing that has to be taken into account is that WC and Olympic marathons are nowadays LESS competitive than Chicago and London. Think about the mens race at London - even with HaileG and Abera and Meb, it was up front a more competitive race than Athens. The womens race was probably en par with Athens, but past WC's in the last 4 sessions definitely haven't been as good as the big-city counterparts. Point is, London and Chicago are more like the big championship races for the marathon these days, so I would actually weight winning one of those more heavily than the actual championship ones.

[/quote]

you think london 2005 was a championship race? did that field look like a field of champions? (well, maybe the men--certainly not the women)

was chicago 2004 a championship race? if it was, then why did the world's best women choose to run athens instead, over chicago a couple months later?

there's a reason why all those women, many of whom could have collected some nice cash in chicago, run the olympics, which awards $0.00 to the winner. what do you think that reason is?

To both posters above, chill out. Yes the womens Olympics was a very good race, I'm not questioning that, and in fact I actually wrote that (reread my post). But you have to agree that the womens WC marathon isn't typically as good as the big city counterparts. Another reason why the Olympics/WC gets watered down is that we have people who run the 10k instead of the marathon (like Geb and the Chinese woman). Listen, is the Olympics still up there? yes. But you're crazy if you think WC's is typically a better race than the big city ones. And for London men this year, seriously, I said the field was better up front than the Athens race. This is true because Korir and Rutto and Geb and Abera were going to be there. Yeah the Olympics has a ton more guys with sub2:12 PR's, but you also have to remember that probably half of the guys with those PR's hadn't run them in the last three years either. Not saying the Olympics race sucked, just you have to see how London could be seen as slightly better.

So here is my final point which I'll reiterate - given how London and Chicago are so important these days you have to wait their competitiveness higher than you would say ten years ago. So when you are comparing people across decades please take into account the importance of the races and competitiveness is all. Winning London the past 5 years means a whole lot more than winning it 20 years ago and you have to take that to account. Likewise, the importance of the Olympics should be raised in relation to the big city races for women 20 years ago, whereas the Olympics would probably weighted en par with London and Chicago nowadays, and the WC would be behind. Make sense now?

'The Olympic Marathon is the number one marathon event in the world BY FAR. Just ask any top runner, ask Paula or Grete what they think. Ask Tergat or Rodgers. The Olympic games are what all athletes aspire to, everything else is just payday.'

So where does that place Noguchi?

Has her name even been mentioned so far?

you didnt answer the questions.

did the 2005 london field (women's) look like a champion field to you? did chicago 2004?