Benoit ran against one Kenyan in the olympics and no Ethiopians. It was not the same level of competition that it is today. Simpson’s three world medals, world and Olympic finals and Olympic medal are far mor impressive.
Benoit ran against one Kenyan in the olympics and no Ethiopians. It was not the same level of competition that it is today. Simpson’s three world medals, world and Olympic finals and Olympic medal are far mor impressive.
joedirt wrote:
Benoit ran against one Kenyan in the olympics and no Ethiopians. It was not the same level of competition that it is today. Simpson’s three world medals, world and Olympic finals and Olympic medal are far mor impressive.
No, they aren't. Simpson might be the best 1500m tactician in the last 20 years. And it's hard to find another runner who was able to leverage this tactical ability in such a fashion for a long carreer. But as Rojo pointed out, several of the fields where she did extraordinarily well were not actually that great and she excelled only in tactical races. One could claim that Hannah England was a better runner than Laura Muir because the latter failed getting a worlds medal while the former did. This would seem ridiculous.
Whereas the Marathon field 1984 was highly competitive (the first four were/became all "legends" of distances running in the 1980s and the times Benoit eventually ran would have been considered very competitive until about 5 years ago (i.e. for almost 30 years!) when sub 2:20 became almost normal for women.
It's not really possible to compare them because there is no repetition of this time possible and one cannot be a pioneer in world class women's marathon 30 years later. But to achieve something as iconic as Benoit's marathon performances Simpson would have to get an unprecedented olympic double in 1500 and steeple or so.
Simpson gets the benefit of recency bias. Plus, many of the voters are too young to remember Joan Benoit in her prime. It's the same with that thread on best TV shows of all time. Many voters didn't list anything over 10 years old. Only a few mentioned shows over 20 years old.
And then there are old posters like me who don't vote in polls because we realize the results are skewed by the location of the poll or the wording of the question. A poll on MSNBC and Fox News is going to get widely different results.
Jo72 wrote:
joedirt wrote:
Benoit ran against one Kenyan in the olympics and no Ethiopians. It was not the same level of competition that it is today. Simpson’s three world medals, world and Olympic finals and Olympic medal are far mor impressive.
No, they aren't. Simpson might be the best 1500m tactician in the last 20 years. And it's hard to find another runner who was able to leverage this tactical ability in such a fashion for a long carreer. But as Rojo pointed out, several of the fields where she did extraordinarily well were not actually that great and she excelled only in tactical races. One could claim that Hannah England was a better runner than Laura Muir because the latter failed getting a worlds medal while the former did. This would seem ridiculous.
Whereas the Marathon field 1984 was highly competitive (the first four were/became all "legends" of distances running in the 1980s and the times Benoit eventually ran would have been considered very competitive until about 5 years ago (i.e. for almost 30 years!) when sub 2:20 became almost normal for women.
It's not really possible to compare them because there is no repetition of this time possible and one cannot be a pioneer in world class women's marathon 30 years later. But to achieve something as iconic as Benoit's marathon performances Simpson would have to get an unprecedented olympic double in 1500 and steeple or so.
The marathon is and always has been far less competitive than track and field races, especially during its infancy on the women's side. While you are at it, take a quick peak at the world top marathon list, the first page of names are pretty much all Kenyan or Ethiopian. During Benoit's era, there just weren't many running, especially on the women's side due to the status of women in those countries. Additionally, each generation is better than the previous one because there are more competitors and better training. It's like the old white hall of famers in basketball before there were many African Americans competing. Great for their era, but not the same level of competition.
joedirty wrote:
Jo72 wrote:
No, they aren't. Simpson might be the best 1500m tactician in the last 20 years. And it's hard to find another runner who was able to leverage this tactical ability in such a fashion for a long carreer. But as Rojo pointed out, several of the fields where she did extraordinarily well were not actually that great and she excelled only in tactical races. One could claim that Hannah England was a better runner than Laura Muir because the latter failed getting a worlds medal while the former did. This would seem ridiculous.
Whereas the Marathon field 1984 was highly competitive (the first four were/became all "legends" of distances running in the 1980s and the times Benoit eventually ran would have been considered very competitive until about 5 years ago (i.e. for almost 30 years!) when sub 2:20 became almost normal for women.
It's not really possible to compare them because there is no repetition of this time possible and one cannot be a pioneer in world class women's marathon 30 years later. But to achieve something as iconic as Benoit's marathon performances Simpson would have to get an unprecedented olympic double in 1500 and steeple or so.
The marathon is and always has been far less competitive than track and field races, especially during its infancy on the women's side. While you are at it, take a quick peak at the world top marathon list, the first page of names are pretty much all Kenyan or Ethiopian. During Benoit's era, there just weren't many running, especially on the women's side due to the status of women in those countries. Additionally, each generation is better than the previous one because there are more competitors and better training. It's like the old white hall of famers in basketball before there were many African Americans competing. Great for their era, but not the same level of competition.
How many American women have run faster than Benoit? Must be hundreds since each generation is better than the previous one.
joedirty wrote:
The marathon is and always has been far less competitive than track and field races, especially during its infancy on the women's side. While you are at it, take a quick peak at the world top marathon list, the first page of names are pretty much all Kenyan or Ethiopian. During Benoit's era, there just weren't many running, especially on the women's side due to the status of women in those countries. Additionally, each generation is better than the previous one because there are more competitors and better training. It's like the old white hall of famers in basketball before there were many African Americans competing. Great for their era, but not the same level of competition.
Were you even born in 1984? Probably not.
This is plain wrong. The marathon is today at least as competitive as track races are. Granted, it was different in the 1980s. But as in 1984 the longest track race was 3000m for women, marathon was the main long distance event. I am not fond of such comparisons because the first ever Olympic marathon was a unique event. But if you look at it more closely it was certainly a stronger field than the 2011 1500m WC final when Simpson won.
While you are looking at those lists, note that Mary Decker ran 1500/3000m faster on track in the mid-1980s than Simpson did 25-30 years later whereas very few women until the 2010s ran faster than Benoit's 2:21. Simpson could not beat Deckers 30 year old records in their main events (despite the competition being supposedly so much fiercer in Simpson's era?!?) but only three American women ever ran a faster marathon than Benoit in these 35 years! How does this fit with the claim about the weak/strong competition?
Simpson still owns how many NCAA track records? She is #1 all time US at 2 mile, #2 all time US in the 3000 and mile, She is #4 all time US in the 1500 and steeple chase (including a world championship, multiple medals and finals in those events), #13 all time US in the 5000 (despite having only run it a few times) and is #63 all time in the 800. Benoit is #4 in the marathon, #8 in the half marathon, #62 in the 3000, outside the top 100 in the 5000, and #63 in the 10,000.
coach wrote:
How many American women have run faster than Benoit? Must be hundreds since each generation is better than the previous one.
Benoit is #69 on the all time list (and about a dozen before her are non-African). But this is due to an explosion of fast times in the last 5 years (and probably the cheaterflys, too). When Simpson won the WC in 2011, Benoit was still #16, with a then 26 year old mark.
Ummmm....hello?! Joanie out-dueled the legendary runner Patti Lyons in the 1979 Boston marathon.
joedirty wrote:
Simpson still owns how many NCAA track records? She is #1 all time US at 2 mile, #2 all time US in the 3000 and mile, She is #4 all time US in the 1500 and steeple chase (including a world championship, multiple medals and finals in those events), #13 all time US in the 5000 (despite having only run it a few times) and is #63 all time in the 800. Benoit is #4 in the marathon, #8 in the half marathon, #62 in the 3000, outside the top 100 in the 5000, and #63 in the 10,000.
This shows your parochial way of thinking. Benoit's achievements in the Marathon were *global* and epochal. Simpson couldn't even match 25 year old times by Decker (which shows that the level of competition in the 1500m can't have been *that* fierce in 2011) Nobody gives a damn about NCAA lists.
Jo72 wrote:
Simpson couldn't even match 25 year old times by Decker (which shows that the level of competition in the 1500m can't have been *that* fierce in 2011).
Sure she did. Their PRs are practically identical and Jenny has broken 4 more times.
Getting close (not beating and not so close in the 3k) an almost 30 year old mark is hardly an historical achievement. You guys seem to fail to understand the historical stature of winning that 1984 olympics marathon and setting a 2:21 marathon time in 1985. This is a very different thing than WC medals in a time when the WC took place every other year. That's why I wrote that the comparison is "stacked" from the beginning. A similar achievement would have been for Simson to win steeple in the 2008 or 2012 olympics and set a historically strong mark. Beating one of the weakest WC 1500 finals fields is great for a day or a couple of years but not anything for history books.
Jo72 wrote:
Getting close (not beating and not so close in the 3k) an almost 30 year old mark is hardly an historical achievement. You guys seem to fail to understand the historical stature of winning that 1984 olympics marathon and setting a 2:21 marathon time in 1985. This is a very different thing than WC medals in a time when the WC took place every other year. That's why I wrote that the comparison is "stacked" from the beginning. A similar achievement would have been for Simson to win steeple in the 2008 or 2012 olympics and set a historically strong mark. Beating one of the weakest WC 1500 finals fields is great for a day or a couple of years but not anything for history books.
Jenny ftw because Rojo
I look at it this way: 40 years later, Joan is still very well known and extremely respected. Will the same be true of Jenny in 40 years? Great as she's been, I don't think so -- she doesn't define an era of women's running in the way Joanie did.
Jo72 wrote:
Getting close (not beating and not so close in the 3k) an almost 30 year old mark is hardly an historical achievement. You guys seem to fail to understand the historical stature of winning that 1984 olympics marathon and setting a 2:21 marathon time in 1985. This is a very different thing than WC medals in a time when the WC took place every other year. That's why I wrote that the comparison is "stacked" from the beginning. A similar achievement would have been for Simson to win steeple in the 2008 or 2012 olympics and set a historically strong mark. Beating one of the weakest WC 1500 finals fields is great for a day or a couple of years but not anything for history books.
Jamal, Obiri, Burka, Cakir, Lagat, Uceny, Rodriguz etc. is not a weak field. I'm just trying to keep the discussion honest and saying that Jenny can't even approach what Slaney did is dishonest. Everyone knows that the current World Championships format hasn't been around for the entirety of track and field.
1955 wrote:
I look at it this way: 40 years later, Joan is still very well known and extremely respected. Will the same be true of Jenny in 40 years? Great as she's been, I don't think so -- she doesn't define an era of women's running in the way Joanie did.
Yes, she will. 40 years from now Jenny will still have 4 global medals and will still probably be the most decorated female US distance runner in that regard (though Shelby has the potential to do something about that). And Joanie will still probably be the only US woman to win Olympic gold in the marathon. They wouldn't have both gotten as far as they did in this contest without that staying power. Same for Kastor and Flanagan.
1955 wrote:
I look at it this way: 40 years later, Joan is still very well known and extremely respected. Will the same be true of Jenny in 40 years? Great as she's been, I don't think so -- she doesn't define an era of women's running in the way Joanie did.
I think you will be wrong about this. Women around Jenny’s age, and those who were running in middle school/high school when Jenny was winning medals, looked up to her a lot and were inspired by her. Jenny is now being beaten by Shelby, but she’s still a legend for that decade of dominance.
As a mid d running female, Jenny is one of my favorite runners out there. She hasn’t gone the instagram-sexy route which so so many women have done, and as good as the ‘Bowerman babes’ are there is something about the group vibe that is offputting and incredibly annoying.
From coaching high school girls I can tell you the current runners they love are Nicki Hiltz, and Jenny Simpson.
1955 wrote:
I look at it this way: 40 years later, Joan is still very well known and extremely respected. Will the same be true of Jenny in 40 years? Great as she's been, I don't think so -- she doesn't define an era of women's running in the way Joanie did.
It has nothing to do with the past....It has everything to do with the fact that she's kept herself iin the spolight.
Hunting for people to interview her. Announcing stunts. Working with Lance Armstrong.
I didn't read anything put the original post, but I just had to ask:
Does anyone else find it somewhat strange that the founder of this chaotic board is asking if it has collectively lost its mind?
There have been posts and threads that are clearly homophobic, sexist, and racist. There are posts that promote some dangerous anti-scientific thinking that can put others in potentially deadly situations. There are clearly mentally unstable people who are (for some reason) still allowed to post a continuous diahree of nonsense on a daily schedule (Greg, the430miler, theTrump2020 whatever, etc.).
Does said founder ever question whether those people have lost their mind? Nope.
But some arbitrary poll about who is a better runner brings the question out.
Apparently racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-science deniers, etc. aren't a concern. The real concern are poll numbers for some dumb bracket contest thing.
Makes sense.
joedirty wrote:
Jo72 wrote:
No, they aren't. Simpson might be the best 1500m tactician in the last 20 years. And it's hard to find another runner who was able to leverage this tactical ability in such a fashion for a long carreer. But as Rojo pointed out, several of the fields where she did extraordinarily well were not actually that great and she excelled only in tactical races. One could claim that Hannah England was a better runner than Laura Muir because the latter failed getting a worlds medal while the former did. This would seem ridiculous.
Whereas the Marathon field 1984 was highly competitive (the first four were/became all "legends" of distances running in the 1980s and the times Benoit eventually ran would have been considered very competitive until about 5 years ago (i.e. for almost 30 years!) when sub 2:20 became almost normal for women.
It's not really possible to compare them because there is no repetition of this time possible and one cannot be a pioneer in world class women's marathon 30 years later. But to achieve something as iconic as Benoit's marathon performances Simpson would have to get an unprecedented olympic double in 1500 and steeple or so.
The marathon is and always has been far less competitive than track and field races, especially during its infancy on the women's side. While you are at it, take a quick peak at the world top marathon list, the first page of names are pretty much all Kenyan or Ethiopian. During Benoit's era, there just weren't many running, especially on the women's side due to the status of women in those countries. Additionally, each generation is better than the previous one because there are more competitors and better training. It's like the old white hall of famers in basketball before there were many African Americans competing. Great for their era, but not the same level of competition.
If that's the case, Bekele and Mo wouldn't struggle in the marathon so badly with the latter even returning to track.
And Joan is not so far off in the all-time list compared to Simpson in their main event(69 vs 40) despite running in crappy shoes (no 4%, not even TPU) and a "worse" generation of running.