Light years above Weldon Johnson's.
Light years above Weldon Johnson's.
Certainly behind Marty Liquori and Bob Schul.
I vote with Gib. I can't compare "who worked harder" or even guess at that, I also know I can only race whomever shows up at the starting line,so how can I fault those who raced because of who didn't? Crazy! I am a huge Bob Kennedy fan, raced him several times in high school, even beat him once when he was young. He has been the man for the USA when no one else could step up. In terms of where he belongs on a list...right where he's at...one of our best, along with the others. One thing him and Rodgers have in common, very personable and approachable. Was hoping he'd give the marathon another shot.
wtf wrote:
Certainly behind Marty Liquori and Bob Schul.
Not even close. Get a clue.
I'd feel better about ranking Shorter ahead of Kennedy if Shorter had to deal with 1/10 the quality and quantity of competition Kennedy did.
unit 5 wrote:
I'd feel better about ranking Shorter ahead of Kennedy if Shorter had to deal with 1/10 the quality and quantity of competition Kennedy did.
This argument is flawed. What happens if India, Iraq or some other country starts producing world beating distance runners? Will that make the performances of today's runners less significant?
On an international level, Kennedy did very little.
True. Shorter, Virgin, Liquori, even Prefontaine, were all medalists, winners or at least players on the international scene to a degree Kennedy really wasn't. And the "deeper" opposition argument is a red herring. The best in the world were the best in the world and that's what mattered. The likes of Viren, Dixon, Quax, Foster, Yifter, et al, were giants, for any era. Kennedy, no question, was a glorious and inspiring runner and one of the U.S.'s best ever -- but, based on international success, a shade below the very best.
I concur that the "deeper" opposition argument is a red herring.
After all, Kennedy never had to run against the best from Finland or New Zealand. Those countries produced great runners in the 1960s and 1970s but did not in the 1990s.
The point is that some countries will be up and some will be down in any era.
Mills, Schul, Shorter, Ryun, Virgin all top Kennedy. You have to be #1 (World Champion, Olympic Champion, or World Record Holder) to be in the top group.
definately better than me
Right beside Pat Porter. They were both great american runners with similar accomplishments.
I personally value his 6th place finish at Atlanta against that field one of the best showing by American in Olympic history. He had the ability to become one of the best ever but I don't his tactics were always the best against the field that he was running against.
In my opinion, he had the opportunity to become one of the best 10000m runners in the world at the time but he wanted too long. I think he would have medaled in 10 at Atlanta (bronze for sure).
Although I don't want to compare black against white (or yellow?); Africans vs. non-Africans but being the first non-African to break 13 minutes for 5000 is something to be praised. It takes not only physical ability but mental ability.
zxcvbn wrote:
On an international level, Kennedy did very little.
Count on LEtsrun posters to be dead wrong.
Kennedy was ranked #4 IN THE WORLD at 5,000m in 1994, ahead of names like Haile Gebrselassie (who set the WR that yearm running 12:56.96), Dieter Baumann the Oly champ, Salah Hissou, and Moses Kiptanui.
He was also ranked #6 in 1996 ahead of Tergat and Bitok, twice the 5K silver medalist.
He had a lot of races finishing 2-10th in extremely good fields and beat many accomplished names in the process such as Tergat, Komen, Hissou, and many others. PArticularly memorable was his 12:58.75 in Stockholm behind Komen who ran 12:51, at the time #2 ever.
Right up there with the likes of Pre, Shorter, Rodgers,
Lquori, Mills, Bjorklund. One fine runner. He had a great career and ran some very good times and races. Probably one of the all time American greats. Cheers from Canada.
Light years ahead of my 17min 5K PR
He was ranked #4 in the world only by an American magazine. He wasn't actually #4 elsewhere in the world.
Wrongo is righto.
I have enormous respect for Kennedy's career. He was a tough, courageous runner, who always give his all. If he was in a race, no one could be assured of getting a cheap win. His track US records are very strong (obviously!) performances that have held up quite a few years now. He was also very good in cross-country, with two national wins and some fine runs at the World Cross-Country meet. All in all, he's certainly in the top 10 best US middle/distance guys of all time, but just as certainly a notch below the likes of Ryun, Shorter, Prefontaine, and Virgin. Ranking Mills and Schul is tough, since we (somewhat mistakenly) think of them as "one-meet wonders"--they most assuredly were not, but the rest of their international careers are known only to the most nerdly of track historians, while Kennedy's overall career is much fresher in our collective memories.
All in all: Kennedy was a superb and tough competitor. It was a real pleasure to see him run...every time.
I didn't have time to read this thread, but he did not medal so he cannot be considered near the best ever at an category(above the mile, or track)
Bob who? Go Pre!
One factor in the argument about tougher competition for Bob amongst Africans that deflates it substantially is that Bob actually trained WITH the Africans during his peak years, and that had a positive effect on his times, relative to his predecessors. Huge credit is due him for getting to that level and maintaining it, but he should be measured in the context of his competitive record, NOT by comparing his times to predecessors.