We were discussing in the house today what do we call Kennedy ie how do we rank him.
And someone said, "Best American long distance (above the mile) (track) runner ever". The argument was that although Kennedy never got a medal, the guys who did competed when the sport was far from a global sport so their accomplishments are not as impressive.
So the question is where do you rank Kennedy? What do you say when discussing his career?
Just wanted to get the discussion started.
wejo wrote:
The argument was that although Kennedy never got a medal, the guys who did competed when the sport was far from a global sport so their accomplishments are not as impressive.
No offense, but that's a rather short-sighted perspective. Just because our elite distance runners from the previous generation(s) didn't compete against an entire armada of Kenyans & Ethiopians doesn't mean that their medals should be considered "tarnished."
American records in 5,000 meters (12:58.21 in 1996)
3,000 meters 7:30.84 1998.
Mile best of 3:56.21 1994.
Olympian in 1996 6th in 5,000
Again in 1992 (12th).
Team bronze medal at World Cross Country (2001).
Four U.S. 5,000 titles (1995, 1996, 1997, 2001).
NCAA outdoor titles
cross country in 1988 and 1992
1,500 in 1990
Indoor
mile in 1991.
He never said that they were tarnished, only that they raced in a less competitive environment, which is true.
best. runner. EVAR.
Run5k wrote:
wejo wrote:The argument was that although Kennedy never got a medal, the guys who did competed when the sport was far from a global sport so their accomplishments are not as impressive.
No offense, but that's a rather short-sighted perspective. Just because our elite distance runners from the previous generation(s) didn't compete against an entire armada of Kenyans & Ethiopians doesn't mean that their medals should be considered "tarnished."
The person who suggested it knows a ton of runnnig history and is near 50 years old. I don't think its short sighted at all. I see where they are coming from.
The argument was that although Kennedy never got a medal, the guys who did competed when the sport was far from a global sport so their accomplishments are not as impressive.
I understand the appeal of this argument, but I don't buy it. I think you have to evaluate a runner by the standards of the era in which he competed. It's true that the sport is more global now than it was just 30 years ago, and it's also true that distance runners train much harder now than they did 60 years ago. But if you take those considerations to their logical conclusion, you are pretty much stuck with comparing times irrespective of eras. And once you've done that, then you are essentially saying that Wejo's career ranks ahead of Pavvo Nurmi's and Emil Zatopek's because Wejo ran faster than either of those great runners. I think pretty much everyone--probably even Wejo himself--would disagree with that conclusion.
So where does Kennedy rank among the all-time USA greats? If your category is "distance running" (and not just track and field) I'd put Kennedy among the top 5. I'd rank him ahead of Prefontaine, ahead of Lingren, and ahead of Mills. I'd probably put him behind Shorter, Ryan, Rodgers, maybe Virgin, and maybe Scott. Kennedy's definitely way up there.
Kennedy is the "best" American 5K guy ever. Can't say best long-distance runner because there are others who were better over distances longer than 5K.
he is also the softest elite distance runner of all time and could have run 10-20 seconds faster if had cut 5-10 pounds of fat.
Kennedy kept the U.S. "in the game" during the dark ages of American distance running. i.e. after the crazy fast '70s and early '80s until the "modern" internet era where we crawled out of our low mileage hole.
According to the list, he is the best we've ever had at 5,000 meters. This makes him #1, or the best.
I love Bob Kennedy and always will.........
Regarding 'is Kennedy the best track runner (>1500) ever in the US?' Given that a primary argument is that he is the best runner of the modern generation and runners from the past can't compare, I would suggest that Henry Marsh is a better modern runner (or at least highly comparable).
Much of the perception of Kennedy's greatness is based on two facts; 1) Kennedy and Williams dominating the American 5k and 10k competition in one of the weakest eras ever for Americans, and 2) the 12:58. 13:00 is such a mythical barrier and Kennedy was the first. It is just arbitrary where their PRs happened to land; if Moorcroft had run 12:59, Kennedy's run loses some significance.
Kennedy was only world-ranked twice ever. Marsh was world-ranked 12 consecutive years and three of those were #1. Both have a long-standing American record and never medaled. Kennedy was a virtual non-factor when competing against the world's elite, Marsh was not.
There is the argument that the steeple is a weaker event, but if that is so why aren't people (Broe, Dobson, etc.) focusing on steeple to pick up an 'easy' American record and championship medal?
Ranked for Americans? not sure,
but I know this, Kennedy raised the bar for Americans and showed them that Americans can and should be raising with the Africans. In my opinion if there is no Bob Kennedy, we've got no current U.S. distance stars. He single handily along with Williams raised bar of expecations for people to aim at.
That may be true but I'm not sure it is feasible to raise your kids with the africans.... I like the "singlehandedly along with Williams" part too.
Though in the "easier" steeple, same argument for Mark Croghan who had a 6 year stretch of American #1 and World top 10. In fact, Croghan came closer to a major championship medal than Bob (4th in 1994).
Kennedy is one of America's greatest distance runners, for certain. This is based on two criteria: 1. His longevity at a high level; and 2. His p.b.'s being so fast.
His position in the "modern" era exposed him to a level of competition that some of the past greats did not have to deal with. For that, he is being given a "pass" on the fact he never won a medal.
Contrast that with Ryun. He was deemed a failure and a disappointment by many because he placed second at the Olympics in '68.
In the eras of so called less competition, only the winners/medalists get any consideration. There is a pressure to that different that to running in the middle of a pack (no matter how fast) and finishing out in a fast time.
does anyone have video from the olympic 5k finals in '96?
He was great- never made excuses, worked hard, great role model. Why do we have to rank? Especially given the different events. Scott - great! Marsh - great! Ryun - great! Rodgers - great! Shorter - great! They probably don't care whether they are assigned #1, #2, #3...
Different events, different eras. They were all great. End of story. Let's all go out for a run and daydream.
Kennedy isn't the best long distance runner in American history. I would rank him well behind guys like Virgin and Shorter. Virgin was two time world(albeit one might not have happened if not for the front runners taking a wrong turn) cross champ, 2nd at Boston,and a 27:30 guy back in the late seventies and early eighties. Shorter was a two time Olympic gold medalist, an accomplished cross runner, and american record holder in the 10k. In fact given his two mile american record I would say that Webb will most likely run faster than Kennedy in the 5k. So I would probably rank him ahead of Bob in a couple of years. His mile time from high school is faster than Bob's p.r..
Can someone post his top 5000 performances and top 3000 performances? That list is rather remarkable. The fact that he was so consistently fast is probably the most amazing aspect of his career.