Daily Debate: If Mo Farah wins Tokyo 10,000 gold, will he be the GOAT of track distance runners?

What is different about a world championship field and a olympic field? I still don't get why people think the olympics is better

mutt wrote:

What is different about a world championship field and a olympic field? I still don't get why people think the olympics is better

There are 2x as many WC. Makes it a lot easier to win one. To a large extent though it is just historical.

Oh, man.

There are not a lot of guys roughly around his accomplishment level in the world record department. Puttemans 8:13.2 from 1973 on a tight indoors

track was the fastest 2 Miles at all until 1993.

Rojo, did I miss the next two 'daily' debates?

It's mostly personal opinion. Longevity is overrated in my mind, but others weight it heavier in assessing a career. For instance, I think Bolt is still the GOAT sprinter, even if he had retired much sooner (certainly after 2012, but perhaps after 2009 even!). Mo has done a lot, but yeah, agree with rojo that some WRs would be needed to elevate him to the top tier of the all time greats.

Is Kipketer "almost equal" to Nils Schuman or Vebjorn Rodahl? Of course not, he was far superior.

Mo Farah has never held even one world record, and his winning track career started during a declining and ultimately soft era. Not even close to GOAT.

Not even as good as Galen Rupp at 10,000.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Is Kipketer "almost equal" to Nils Schuman or Vebjorn Rodahl? Of course not, he was far superior.

Mo Farah has never held even one world record, and his winning track career started during a declining and ultimately soft era. Not even close to GOAT.

Not even as good as Galen Rupp at 10,000.

OK you cannot possibly believe that Mo Farah, clearly one of the top 5 10000m runners of all time, is “not even as good as Galen Rupp” when Galen is not even one of the top 20 10000m runners of all time.

o0o0o0 wrote:

There are not a lot of guys roughly around his accomplishment level in the world record department. Puttemans 8:13.2 from 1973 on a tight indoors

track was the fastest 2 Miles at all until 1993.

Sure there are not a lot of guys. 75-100 people isn't a big number. It is easy to say he is a top 50 guy. Make your top 50 list and we can start debating why certain people should be in front of him. The first 30-40 names are pretty easy with guys with multiple gold medals, gold medals and world records, and just a crap load of world records (the Ron Clarke and Henry Rono exception:)). After that you can start debating how to value stuff. I don't give odd distance indoor records that are significantly weaker than the outdoor ones a lot of value. You are free to disagree.

GOAT without a single world record?!? Is this some sort of joke or something?

o0o0o0 wrote:

Puttemans 8:13.2 from 1973 on a tight indoors

track was the fastest 2 Miles at all until 1993.

When I update my list, Emiel Puttemans will be on it and this stat is the primary reason. Thanks.

John Wesley Harding wrote:

o0o0o0 wrote:

Puttemans 8:13.2 from 1973 on a tight indoors

track was the fastest 2 Miles at all until 1993.

When I update my list, Emiel Puttemans will be on it and this stat is the primary reason. Thanks.

Wait, maybe not—everyone on that list is so good.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

o0o0o0 wrote:

There are not a lot of guys roughly around his accomplishment level in the world record department. Puttemans 8:13.2 from 1973 on a tight indoors

track was the fastest 2 Miles at all until 1993.

Sure there are not a lot of guys. 75-100 people isn't a big number. It is easy to say he is a top 50 guy. Make your top 50 list and we can start debating why certain people should be in front of him. The first 30-40 names are pretty easy with guys with multiple gold medals, gold medals and world records, and just a crap load of world records (the Ron Clarke and Henry Rono exception:)). After that you can start debating how to value stuff. I don't give odd distance indoor records that are significantly weaker than the outdoor ones a lot of value. You are free to disagree.

His 8:13.2 was the fastest two Miles, indoors or outdoors, until 1993. When he set this record (on a tight indoors track) the fastest 3000m apart from himself, was 7:39.6 - around the same level. So, this "odd distance indoor record" was not "significantly weaker than the outdoor ones". It was far ahead at the time.

World records over 3000m, 2 Miles and 5000m (plus Nr. 3 at 10000m) as well as a good steeple, makes him top 50 for me. But his career at the ery top lasted not very long, so I can see that some don't want to rank him very high.

o0o0o0 wrote:

His 8:13.2 was the fastest two Miles, indoors or outdoors, until 1993. When he set this record (on a tight indoors track) the fastest 3000m apart from himself, was 7:39.6 - around the same level. So, this "odd distance indoor record" was not "significantly weaker than the outdoor ones". It was far ahead at the time.

World records over 3000m, 2 Miles and 5000m (plus Nr. 3 at 10000m) as well as a good steeple, makes him top 50 for me. But his career at the ery top lasted not very long, so I can see that some don't want to rank him very high.

The WR in the 3000m was 7:35 in 1974. 8:13 is significantly weaker than that.

Again this isn't so much about him being a scrub. It is how many other good runners there have been over the past 100 years. There are clear (i.e. nobody is rating him above guys like Nurmi, Zatopek, Kutts, Viren, Geb, Yifter, Moses Kiptanui, Ron Clarke, Kemboi and so on) guys who are better. A lot which most people will agree on (i.e. someone like Joshua Cheptegei or Komen who don't have olympic medals but do have WR and WC medals). And a bunch that people will debate (i.e. was EL G better? Obviously if you count the 1500m. What about just off his 3k/5k work?). Make your list and tell us who the 10 guys in front of him are and the 10 behind and I think you will find that a lot disagree about both sides.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

o0o0o0 wrote:

His 8:13.2 was the fastest two Miles, indoors or outdoors, until 1993. When he set this record (on a tight indoors track) the fastest 3000m apart from himself, was 7:39.6 - around the same level. So, this "odd distance indoor record" was not "significantly weaker than the outdoor ones". It was far ahead at the time.

World records over 3000m, 2 Miles and 5000m (plus Nr. 3 at 10000m) as well as a good steeple, makes him top 50 for me. But his career at the ery top lasted not very long, so I can see that some don't want to rank him very high.

The WR in the 3000m was 7:35 in 1974. 8:13 is significantly weaker than that.

When Puttemans ran 8:13.2 indoors, the fastest 3000m apart from Puttemans himself, was 7:39.6. It was not a weak record, his time at 3000m was 7:39.2, a time nobody else has achieved at the time, indoors or outdoors.

For me, Puttemans' superlative achievements in the early to mid 1970s puts him in the alltime top 50, others might disagree.

o0o0o0 wrote:

For me, Puttemans' superlative achievements in the early to mid 1970s puts him in the alltime top 50, others might disagree.

Have you actually made the list or is just a gut feeling that he is a top 50 guy? I did this once for a guy who I was sure was a top 25 all time runner but when you actually start making the list it it wasn't close. It is amazing how many names you forgot over time. For example was the last time you thought about Brimin Kipruto? But with olympic gold and silver, 4 WC medals, and running .01s off the WR would anyone think Puttemans is better? Around 30-40 you start hitting all the judgement calls about hardware versus times and career length versus career peak. I am not ranking Puttemans above Rono even with Rono's lack of hardware (which was partially not his fault). You might. I would rate Puttemans above Mills for career length even though one has a gold. Some people value gold a lot more highly.

Again none of this is to say he wasn't a great runner. There have just been a lot of great runners over the years.

No, I have not done a actual top 50 ranking list.

But he was in the all-time top 10 in the 3000m until 1984, in the 2 Miles (in and out) until 2000, in the 5000m until 1982 and in the 10000m until 1978. Puttemans has faster PBs than Viren in any event from 1500m to 5000m (1 second slower in the 10000m) and also an world class steeple. Behind Henry Rono, he definitely was the best long distance runner against the clock of the 1970s. For me that's enough to guarantee him a place in the top 50.

o0o0o0 wrote:

No, I have not done a actual top 50 ranking list.

But he was in the all-time top 10 in the 3000m until 1984, in the 2 Miles (in and out) until 2000, in the 5000m until 1982 and in the 10000m until 1978. Puttemans has faster PBs than Viren in any event from 1500m to 5000m (1 second slower in the 10000m) and also an world class steeple. Behind Henry Rono, he definitely was the best long distance runner against the clock of the 1970s. For me that's enough to guarantee him a place in the top 50.

And if there are 70 people who can make the same arguments, how can they all be top 50?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Mo Farah has never held even one world record, and his winning track career started during a declining and ultimately soft era. Not even close to GOAT.

Not even as good as Galen Rupp at 10,000.

Yeah, that's another rubbish and idiotic statement from Bad Wigins. I'm neither a Rupp fanboi and nor a Mobot fan, but the facts don't lie:

Rupp has a marginally faster PR, but only broke 27:01.x twice. Mo broke 27:01.x five times and has six efforts faster then Rupp's third best at 27:08.

Mo's seven fastest times were all run while WINNING his races. Rupp's only winning time under 27:33 (his 10th best) was his PB, which was no doubt a solid win. Mo has two Olympic golds, two WC golds, two EC golds and three DL wins.Rupp has ONE DL win and his eight USA titles...