HRE wrote:
I'd say it's either Henry Rono or Ron Hill.
I was going to say Ron Hill. Saw him run 2:09:30 in 1970 (Edinburgh) after a 29:30 1st 10k.
HRE wrote:
I'd say it's either Henry Rono or Ron Hill.
I was going to say Ron Hill. Saw him run 2:09:30 in 1970 (Edinburgh) after a 29:30 1st 10k.
Boyd wrote:
Dave Moorcroft - bad luck
Eamonn Coghlan - bad luck/tactics
I agree with Moorcroft (along with Henry Rono and Ron Hill), but was it all bad luck?
He only won bronze at the European Championships in his greatest year, so there's no guarentee he would have medalled even if the Olympics had been held in 82. I know he had stomach problems in 1980 and then injuries in 84. In 76 I think he was lucky to make the final at Ovett"s expense (who tripped).
I would also say Craig Mottram and some others who likely failed to medal during the EPO era simply because every guy ahead of them was doped to the gills.
Coevett wrote:
Boyd wrote:
Dave Moorcroft - bad luck
Eamonn Coghlan - bad luck/tactics
I agree with Moorcroft (along with Henry Rono and Ron Hill), but was it all bad luck?
He only won bronze at the European Championships in his greatest year, so there's no guarentee he would have medalled even if the Olympics had been held in 82. I know he had stomach problems in 1980 and then injuries in 84. In 76 I think he was lucky to make the final at Ovett"s expense (who tripped).
I would also say Craig Mottram and some others who likely failed to medal during the EPO era simply because every guy ahead of them was doped to the gills.
I would say Daniel Komen.
Coevett wrote:
I would also say Craig Mottram and some others who likely failed to medal during the EPO era simply because every guy ahead of them was doped to the gills.
If we go down that path the list names will be endless. If you were a clean finalist in the 1500-10k, what would have been your odds of being a medalists if all the dopers were removed? There might be a couple of 13:05 guys who would be medalists in a clean world.... Or maybe not. There is no way of knowing.
Maybe the 2012 woman's 1500m was the dirtest distance race ever. 6 of the the top 9 have been banned. Or maybe it was average... And that isn't even talking about grey area stuff like thyroid meds and the like...
Thorvaldson is the New FastTuohy wrote:
None of those guys were as fast as Cheptegei. The question was not regarding the best in their era. Cheptegei is faster than all of them. This isn't an opinion. It is fact.
Cheptegei is not as fast as Nehemiah.
“PRE “ ALL THE WAY!
Gerry Lindgren ! WSU Great! Got injured in 64’ when Billy Mills Won Gold! He was a favorite to challenge Ron Clarke.
wtfunny wrote:
Daniel Komen and it's not close. 25 years and he's still the 3000m record holder; and they don't even hold that distance in the OG. And he was clearly the best 5000m runners the world in 96.
+1. As soon as someone posted Daniel Komen, the thread should be over.
Craig Virgin. 2x world cross champ but no olympic medal.
Not in the know wrote:
wtfunny wrote:
Daniel Komen and it's not close. 25 years and he's still the 3000m record holder; and they don't even hold that distance in the OG. And he was clearly the best 5000m runners the world in 96.
+1. As soon as someone posted Daniel Komen, the thread should be over.
Would probably have lasted a year if El G had made more of a go of breaking it.
He had two good years at the very height of the EPO era and as soon as he made some money he retired, uninterested in Olympic glory.
Roger Bannister.
Alan55 wrote:
HRE wrote:
I'd say it's either Henry Rono or Ron Hill.
I was going to say Ron Hill. Saw him run 2:09:30 in 1970 (Edinburgh) after a 29:30 1st 10k.
I'd go with Derek Clayton over Hill. Clayton ran 2:09:36 when the previous world record was 2:12:00 and a disputed 2:08 after that. He broke through the 2:10 barrier completely solo.
adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:
My Two Cents Take wrote:
Paula Radcliffe would be my top pick on the female side of the sport, but what about the men? Discuss.
Henry Rono and Daniel Komen.... Both guys with 2 or 3 year peaks were they were argueably the best in the world (or at least a clear 2nd) but that peak didn't line up with the olympics
+1
try this? wrote:
Alan55 wrote:
I was going to say Ron Hill. Saw him run 2:09:30 in 1970 (Edinburgh) after a 29:30 1st 10k.
I'd go with Derek Clayton over Hill. Clayton ran 2:09:36 when the previous world record was 2:12:00 and a disputed 2:08 after that. He broke through the 2:10 barrier completely solo.
It's hard to argue with someone who dropped the record so dramatically but I'd rate Hill as slightly better. Clayton never beat Hill. Clayton had only one really high profile win whereas Hill had three. Clayton ran in two Olympics. Hill ran in three. But you could make a case for him.
I can't think of any circumstances where Virgin could medal, he was just too slow over the last lap.
Okay, so far the most mentioned names are: Henry Rono, Gerry Lindgren, Eamonn Coghlan, Dave Moorcroft, Ron Hill, and Daniel Komen. Is there a solid criteria to separate these great men from each other in order to nominate a champion?
I went through and picked out the 24 guys missing Olympic medals (so far):
1. Daniel Komen
2. Henry Rono
3. Saif Saaeed Shaheen
4. Joshua Cheptegei
5. Geoffrey Kamworor
6. Roger Bannister
7. Khalid Khannouchi
8. Bill Rodgers
9. Timothy Cheruiyot
10. Rob De Castella
11. Abdi Bile
12. Derek Clayton
13. Jim Peters
14. Toshihiko Seko
15. Billy Konchellah
16. Eamonn Coghlan
17. Steve Jones
18. Sandor Iharos
19. Lelisa Desisa
20. Alberto Salazar
21. Geoffrey Mutai
22. Muktar Edris
23. Steve Scott
24. Ismael Kirui
My 2 cents Take wrote:
Okay, so far the most mentioned names are: Henry Rono, Gerry Lindgren, Eamonn Coghlan, Dave Moorcroft, Ron Hill, and Daniel Komen. Is there a solid criteria to separate these great men from each other in order to nominate a champion?
There probably is no solid criteria. If I really wanted to get into this I'd look at things like average annual world ranking, number of world records, length of career, best placings at the Olympics, head to head where applicable, etc.. But even that is a bit subjective.
HRE wrote:
My 2 cents Take wrote:
Okay, so far the most mentioned names are: Henry Rono, Gerry Lindgren, Eamonn Coghlan, Dave Moorcroft, Ron Hill, and Daniel Komen. Is there a solid criteria to separate these great men from each other in order to nominate a champion?
There probably is no solid criteria. If I really wanted to get into this I'd look at things like average annual world ranking, number of world records, length of career, best placings at the Olympics, head to head where applicable, etc.. But even that is a bit subjective.
For the modern guys # of world championships. If you can win a WC, you can win a Olympic medal. Have a couple of WC medals and not Olympic and it is bad timing.
zbt wrote:
Gunder Hagg of Sweden. During the mid-1940s he set 3 WRs in the mile, 3 WRs for the 1500m, a WR for 3,000m and a WR for 5,000m. Never got to run in the Olympics due to WWII. Ran 4:01 for the mile in 1944. If he had been able to run in in good international competition he would have been a gold medalist (perhaps multiple times) and likely would have gone sub 4 in the mile ten years before Banister.
Most athletes weren't able to run let alone compete in the Olympics in the mid forties. Rudolf Harbig might have broken 4 minutes to go along with his 400m, 800m, and 1000m WRs if he hadn't been busy being shot to pieces on the Eastern Front.
Agree about world championships. But if you're going to include older guys you'd need something else. I think Hill's medals at the Euros and Commonwealth Games are almost equivalents. Those were much bigger events than they are now. But US athletes had nothing like that. I think world rankings would be my criteria.