Almost no mention of Ritz, Rupp, Khannouchi, Abdi! I thought this was a running board????!!!
Almost no mention of Ritz, Rupp, Khannouchi, Abdi! I thought this was a running board????!!!
Khalid was mentioned, Rupp was mentioned and soon I think he’ll be undisputed top dog
Ritz had some good races but he’s a 5k-10k guy
1. Shorter lost a gold to a druggie and Fouled over Nike in 72 , both pretty impressive. Humble and kind man. Rodgers is as well but no gold medal hurts his thon resume.
1a Joanie, love her she is the sweetest lady ever, except on the course she is an animal. She had knee surgery quite near the olympics in LA, doubt Rupp would have even run if that happened to him.
For people who keep emphasizing Hall’s (and to a lesser extent, Deena’s) current AR’s as evidence that they’re the best (of their respective genders) as if that ends the discussion, you may as well post a link to the all-time American performance list and say that’s what you think. But that would also reveal you as someone not engaging with the specific (and more interesting) question the OP posed, which is specifically about era-adjusted greatness.
I’m still in the Joanie for #1 overall camp, and also still in the Shorter as a clear #2 over Rodgers (and everyone else) camp—the Olympics and Fukuoka were the two most important men’s marathons of their era, and thus Shorter’s wins (and should’ve-been-win silver) there are more significant than Rodgers’s dominance in Boston and New York.
Also, it’s interesting to me that the discussion has been more focused on men than women. There are some men’s names that have been brought up that obviously aren’t in contention for even an era-adjusted podium spot—it would be just as reasonable to consider Shalane or Miki Gorman’s (or Desi’s or Patti Catalano’s) place in this discussion as it is Ritz’s or Beardsley’s (or, in my opinion, Ryan Hall’s—who seems to be getting a disproportionate amount of attention fora few fast-but-not-record-setting times without a major international win) and just as valid to mention Linda Somers Smith’s AG accomplishments as Abdi’s.
One last nitpick: I think it’s important define whether we’re era-adjusting relative to other American runners or (as I assumed) the world. Era-adjusting for times compared to only other American runners makes Hall seem relatively more impressive, and possibly merits his inclusion in this discussion, but I don’t know why that’s the point we would be using for comparison when marathoning is a global/international sport (not that national-level accolades don’t matter at all, but they definitely feel less important).
mask off wrote:
Shorter, should of had two Golds but Waldemar who? (who was probably on the East German Juice), got the gold.
Yeah, the magic shoes and tracks lights are a joke. They need to put an * by each record with either.
Or...if Rodgers hadn't been injured he would have gotten Gold in Montreal and Gold again in Moscow minus the boycott.
Less than 3 months after Montreal, Bill beat Frank by over 3 minutes in NYC.
Bill beat Frank by over 8 minutes in the 78 Boston Marathon.
Frank was awesome, but once Bill was on the scene, he was the better marathoner except when he was dealing with an injury leading into Montreal. NYC less than 3 months later made up for it.
Sorry, I do agree that Frank should have won in 72 with Waldemar being on drugs, but he was not beating a healthy Bill in Montreal and Bill would have probably beaten Waldemar as well.
I don't see how you can possibly pick Hall over Meb. Two guys running in the same era, but one has 2 major wins + a Silver and the other no wins and no medals. "Always pushing the Africans" on your way to 4th is less compelling when there's another guy winning races. By the way, guess who got 4th when Meb won NY?
On the men's side, I'd go Shorter - Meb - Rodgers/Rupp. If Rupp manages to medal again at Tokyo, you could make a good case for him as #1. I'm excluding KK because I think he doped, maybe not completely fair to him.
Ho Hum wrote:
I don't see how you can possibly pick Hall over Meb. Two guys running in the same era, but one has 2 major wins + a Silver and the other no wins and no medals. "Always pushing the Africans" on your way to 4th is less compelling when there's another guy winning races. By the way, guess who got 4th when Meb won NY?
On the men's side, I'd go Shorter - Meb - Rodgers/Rupp. If Rupp manages to medal again at Tokyo, you could make a good case for him as #1. I'm excluding KK because I think he doped, maybe not completely fair to him.
You’re not wrong. Arguing for Hall over Meb is pure lunacy. The Shorter/Rodgers debate I can at least respect somewhat.
I think Hall over Meb is pretty reasonable and had a post to that effect. Where was Meb in Boston in Hall's good runs there. Yes, runs plural. Forget 2011 if you must, in 2010 Men was a complete afterthought well behind Hall. Where was Meb in the Trials in Central Park? Behind Nate Jenkins, that's where.
But this is not the most important discussion since neither of them is the answer to the OP's question. As my other post on Hall vs Web said, Deena is ahead of either of them.
Ho Hum wrote: I'm excluding KK because I think he doped, maybe not completely fair to him.
The majority here feel the same, as with Radcliffe.
am I a loner? wrote:
I think Hall over Meb is pretty reasonable and had a post to that effect. Where was Meb in Boston in Hall's good runs there. Yes, runs plural. Forget 2011 if you must, in 2010 Men was a complete afterthought well behind Hall. Where was Meb in the Trials in Central Park? Behind Nate Jenkins, that's where.
But this is not the most important discussion since neither of them is the answer to the OP's question. As my other post on Hall vs Web said, Deena is ahead of either of them.
“Where was Meb in races that Hall was a better non-factor” is not a reasonable argument.
should be studying 102 wrote:
Since then training, nutrition and equipment are obviously much improved. .
I get the training thing, but nutrition? Because there's been major advances in bagels, rice, pasta, and bananas over the last 50 years....
JBS ... and that's before the amazing stuff she's accomplished as a master's runner.
Galen Rupp
The original question is "Who is REALLY the greatest American Marathoner." Of course Billy, Joan, Frank, Alberto, Greg, Pete and many others of our era are my friends but I will acknowledge Clarence DeMar as the greatest because unlike my friends above DeMar did not know what was possible and training against many conditions from 1910 to his death in 1957 that none of us had to overcome. I'll list a few:
1. He had to work full time.
2. He did not know a runner could train at the level of my era.
3. He had little support to train and race.
4. People told him running was bad for health and he ran regardless.
5. He did not have the training partners that the runners above had.
DeMar was boldly running where no runner had run before. He made it believable to do what the friends above did. That's why I call him the greatest American Marathoner.
Tom
Rodgers won 4 Bostons, 4 NYC, Fukuoka and 11 other marathons. Set course records in Boston and NYC. No other american has a record that compares. Bill was winning these marathons while he was running 20-30 other races each year and that is remarkable.
Joanie has Olympic gold, 2 Bostons and a Chicago win. Best US woman accomplishments.
Another thing foreign to DeMar: racing against good runners.
Shorter. But give it another 5 years or so and it will likely be Galen.
the beagle wrote:
Another thing foreign to DeMar: racing against good runners.
This is a good example of why it's so hard to compare performances from different eras. What sorts of results do you think Rupp, Joanie, Shorter, Hall, or any modern to semi-modern runners would get if they had to work full time, go to night school, and have doctors constantly telling them to give up the sport because they have a bad heart and running will make kit worse? Do you think they'd win Boston seven times and get Olympic Bronze? There are plenty of good runners in any era but their circumstances play a huge role in how much of that goodness can show in their performances.
HRE wrote:
the beagle wrote:
Another thing foreign to DeMar: racing against good runners.
This is a good example of why it's so hard to compare performances from different eras. What sorts of results do you think Rupp, Joanie, Shorter, Hall, or any modern to semi-modern runners would get if they had to work full time, go to night school, and have doctors constantly telling them to give up the sport because they have a bad heart and running will make kit worse? Do you think they'd win Boston seven times and get Olympic Bronze? There are plenty of good runners in any era but their circumstances play a huge role in how much of that goodness can show in their performances.
Obviously they would not be as fast if you plopped them in the 19teens. My point was that you can't only explain one side of the argument. The poster said, of DeMar:
"1. He had to work full time.
2. He did not know a runner could train at the level of my era.
3. He had little support to train and race.
4. People told him running was bad for health and he ran regardless.
5. He did not have the training partners that the runners above had."
Without mentioning that every other runner of the era was doing that. He didn't have to race against professionals from around the world, such as East Africa, that are getting paid handsomely to be the best runner they can be. You need to acknowledge both the pros and cons of the amateur era.
You can't give credit Rodgers credit for a gold medal in a race where he was hindered by an injury.
Shorter was about 20 seconds faster than Rodgers on the track. Given how strong of a runner Shorter was, it's unlikely Rodgers could have erased that edge over the marathon distance. Shorter never left the track to focus on the marathon like Rodgers did and had fewer opportunities it maximize his PR.
In any case, Shorters Gold and Silver put him at the top of the list.