Is Kejelcha or Mo a better runner?

Your analysis isn't wrong nor is it going unnoticed in this thread. There are just obstinate people who won't hear it.

I don't think anyone is saying times are all that matter, but in the context of this thread the faster guy is better. If we were talking about career accomplishments it would be a different story, but we aren't. Mo has had an incredible career and is one of the greatest championship racers of all time. There isn't any shame in saying he's slower than Kejelcha.

What I don't understand is why people feel the need to make all these unfair comparisons to prop Mo up. It's absurd to fault Kejelcha for losing to Mo in races when one was an up and comer and the other had been the top 5k/10k guy for several years. Do you guys also fault El G for losing to Morceli in 95? I doubt it.

Equally ridiculous is the way Mo is always given the benefit of the doubt. No one seems to have any problem saying 12:53 doesn't represent Mo's best (I agree that he could have run under 12:50), but why can't you also acknowledge that Kejelcha would have run faster in Brussels if he had better early pacing and didn't have to rabbit the last 2k?

For whatever reason, the clock suddenly doesn't matter whenever Mo is brought up. It's not like he was running 50 years ago with inferior technology and facilities. Earlier someone suggested that a comparison between Mo and Komen would be close. Am I seriously supposed to believe that the first man under 12:40, the first and only man under 8:00, one of only a handful to break 3:30, 7:30, and 13:00, a man who broke records multiple times and still holds the two strongest world records that several other legends have never come close to is worse than Mo Farah because he never made the Olympics and had a short career? Medals matter but this is unbelievable to me.

I know not every Mo fan has said these things, but there is a common theme of making comparisons that favor Mo and basing arguments on what he could've done instead of what he actually did. The constant regurgitation of "you're stupid if you only care about times" is a willful misrepresentation of what I and many others are saying.

Hey guys this thread ended back on page 4. You can stop D-riding Yomif now.

Runner A:

2x Olympic 5k Champion

2x Olympic 10k Champion

3x World Championship 5k Champion

2x World Championship 10k Champion

16x Diamond League Race Wins

Runner B:

2x Indoor 3k world champion

5x Diamond League Race Wins

So when evaluating who is better you are saying that times are all that matter. It's right there in your first sentence. There are many of us who are correctly pointing out that there is more to determining who is the better runner than who has a faster PR in a couple of events.

I agree that many of the head-to-head wins for Mo are when Yomif hadn't yet blossomed as a runner. That's yet another consideration besides times that should be considered when deciding the better runner.

I've never said that Kejelcha couldn't run faster, nor has anyone else on this thread that I've seen. This is another example of why PRs aren't a perfect measuring stick and why other factors are considered when deciding the better runner.

The clock does matter. The Olympics do matter. The medal haul does matter. The prolonged dominance does matter. It all matters. How many times does this have to be told to you?

How is it a willful misinterpretation of "but in the context of this thread the faster guy is better"? That is the definition of a simple minded approach to deciding who is the better runner. It's being constantly regurgitated because you keep falling back on it.

It seems abundantly clear that you think better is synonymous for having a couple faster PRs. We are saying that those aren't synonyms. That is the obvious disconnect.

ric flair woo wrote:

Hey guys this thread ended back on page 4. You can stop D-riding Yomif now.

Runner A:

2x Olympic 5k Champion

2x Olympic 10k Champion

3x World Championship 5k Champion

2x World Championship 10k Champion

16x Diamond League Race Wins

Runner B:

2x Indoor 3k world champion

5x Diamond League Race Wins

It’s a minor, insignificant detail but Runner B is 0-7 vs. Runner A.

Voice of Reason wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying times are all that matter, but in the context of this thread the faster guy is better. If we were talking about career accomplishments it would be a different story.

kindasilly wrote:

A thread comparing PRs, then a bunch of whiners saying that speed isn't important in running.

Silly thread.

bewildered observer wrote:

Voice of Reason wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying times are all that matter, but in the context of this thread the faster guy is better. If we were talking about career accomplishments it would be a different story.

kindasilly wrote:

A thread comparing PRs, then a bunch of whiners saying that speed isn't important in running.

Silly thread.

How many runners have faster times than Elliot? How many of them didn't even place in running that time? Or faster than Coe - but still not winning the race or placing? They weren't "faster" than the great champions because they didn't race them when they ran those times. Those that did race them didn't beat them (Jazy vis a vis Elliot). Faster times don't make you the better runner - unless you were in the same race. Winning does. Mo has won the biggest races again and again and Kejelcha hasn't beaten him. If times alone decide the issue then there is no point in racing - everything is a time-trial. The order on the dais means nothing. Only on Letsrun.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If times alone decide the issue then there is no point in racing

Even in a race, time alone decides who wins.

And yes, there's no point in racing. It's not interesting at all to see who is best at drafting and positioning behind whatever sucker is willing to lead. If it were, commentators wouldn't always be explaining to viewers why they're going so slow.

How many runners have faster times than Elliot? How many of them didn't even place in running that time? Or faster than Coe - but still not winning the race or placing? They weren't "faster" than the great champions because they didn't race them when they ran those times. Those that did race them didn't beat them (Jazy vis a vis Elliot). Faster times don't make you the better runner - unless you were in the same race. Winning does. Mo has won the biggest races again and again and Kejelcha hasn't beaten him. If times alone decide the issue then there is no point in racing - everything is a time-trial. The order on the dais means nothing. Only on Letsrun.

You don't seem to understand that this thread has nothing to do with career accomplishments. The original poster simply asked which of these guys is better based on their PBs. Kejelcha is faster in more events. End of story. You seem to think that judging runners based on time alone isn't particularly useful. I agree, but the only thing I can think of that would be more pointless would be to ask which of these two is better based on what each has achieved in his career. Kejelcha is nowhere near Farah in this category and no one is going to dispute that. What might have been more interesting is if the question had been "By the end of his career, will Kejelcha be better than Farah was?" That at least provides an opportunity for some discussion. As is, this thread should have died on page 1. Based on PBs alone, which is what the original poster was asking, Kejelcha is better. Surely we don't disagree on this.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If times alone decide the issue then there is no point in racing

Even in a race, time alone decides who wins.

And yes, there's no point in racing. It's not interesting at all to see who is best at drafting and positioning behind whatever sucker is willing to lead. If it were, commentators wouldn't always be explaining to viewers why they're going so slow.

"Even in a race, time alone decides who wins."

More vintage idiocy. Time only records the order of finish in the race; the runners are not competing with anyone in any other race. So time, as an independent construct, has no bearing on the outcome of the race. The only time that "time" in separate races affects outcomes is with fastest losers in qualifying rounds, or in achieving selection for national teams. But the discussion isn't about that; it is putting pr's ahead of any other accomplishments. The convenient rationale of losers. If racing doesn't matter, then why is everyone doing it? Oh, right - you're a loser.

You are truly bewildered, as your name suggests. Achievements decide who is the better runner, not pr's. Who you beat, when and how often decides who is "better", not pb's recorded in completely different circumstances and conditions. That applies across all competitive sports - running is no different. The question posed by the OP completely misses the point. A good time-trialler isn't "better" than his more successful competitor. Track history is full of fast losers.

You are truly bewildered, as your name suggests. Achievements decide who is the better runner, not pr's. Who you beat, when and how often decides who is "better", not pb's recorded in completely different circumstances and conditions. That applies across all competitive sports - running is no different. The question posed by the OP completely misses the point. A good time-trialler isn't "better" than his more successful competitor. Track history is full of fast losers.

The only thing I'm bewildered by is your continued inability to answer the question being asked. I understand that you think said question misses the point and I agree that time is not the only metric that should be considered when it comes to determining who is "better" between two runners. Regardless, why not just look at their PBs and say which of them you think is better? It doesn't paint the whole picture by any means but it's what is being asked. There's no need to be intentionally obtuse.

Armstronglivs wrote:

More vintage idiocy.

getting mad and throwing insults around doesn't help! Once again, you should try to find something you like to read. How long do you have to hear this good advice before it gets through to you? Why are you so committed to self-torture?

You are misrepresenting the thread. The OP asked who was the better runner. He then listed some of their PRs. Then many posters pointed out that his incomplete list of PRs isn’t sufficient to truly evaluate who is the better runner. This is not the same as asking which runner has the better PRs, and you can’t seem to understand that.

You really don't seem to get it. PB's don't decide who is the better runner. As I have pointed out previously - which you and others have ignored because it doesn't suit your argument - countless mediocrities have better PB's than many of the great runners of the past. It in no way makes them better runners - as hard as that is for you to grasp. PB's are quite simply inadequate for establishing who is the better runner, without taking their career achievements into account - and it is the latter which settles the argument, not the former. So, in response to your question - PB's don't establish who is better between Mo and Kejelcha. Wrong measure.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

More vintage idiocy.

getting mad and throwing insults around doesn't help! Once again, you should try to find something you like to read. How long do you have to hear this good advice before it gets through to you? Why are you so committed to self-torture?

The only torture occurring here is your abuse of reason, logic and fact.

Whew. Someone gets the point.

I feel like many of the people on this thread have obviously never been in contention to win races and therefore only have used times as a comparison.

With that, they’ve become deluded into the entire point of the track season.

Track seasons are arranged as a series of exhibitions (just like basketball & football) that lead up to a championship. The championship meet’s ONLY purpose is to gather All of the best runners in one race, and see who wins.

I’m direct competition, other opponents now directly impact your time & place. For example, in the Super Bowl, the Rams scored 10 points after they’d scored much higher in exhibitions and had a better record.

Should we ignore the SB head to head result and say the Rams are better because their in-season performances are more glorious.

Winning is all that matters, it really is. Track is a still a HEAD TO HEAD COMPETITION. If times mattered as basis for wins, each runner could simply record their own time trials, upload them online, and we could award the victor based on who has run the fastest.

But we don’t have to do that — we have races to decide who is the best. And until Kejelcha wins at least some of the races Mo has, it’s joke.

Neither Kejelcha’s age nor Mo’s age matters because the question wasn’t posed as an age relative question. Better in this sense is absolute.

Does Kejelcha have the ability to better than Mo? Yes.

Is Kejelcha better than Mo was at age 21?

Yes.

Is Kejelcha now better than Mo was from 2011

- 2017?

No.

You win.