Pre vs Kennedy

i'm not sure that knowledge in running (specifically, as you cited, physiology) has changed that much between the two athlete's respective times. i would say age of athletes is a bigger factor.

age AND level of competition??? maybe?

PRE!

oh yeah, almost forgot. pre.

everyone is going to say pre simply because they like him more, for various reasons. hey, i like him more too. 13:21 is not 12:58 however. not that much has changed.

Pre and Kennedy are remarkably similar at 3000 and 5000 vs their competition in their best years.

Really difficult to separate the two.

more than a little HAS changed...artificial epo was not available in the 1970s.

when pre ran 31:21, the WR was 13:13. when he ran 13:22 in '72, the WR was 13:16. Pre was ~6 seconds from the world record. when kennedy ran 12:58, i believe the WR was 12:44,ie ~12 seconds from BK.

You are talking about two different worlds. When Pre was running he had to actually work to support himself. He could not earn a living off his running. True nobody knew of EPO but nobody knew about tempo runs, heart monitors or even baby joggers. The science of running in this country was just an embryo. Runners World was a small black and white publication and Track and Field News was how you actually got results. African runners were just emerging.

I look at Prefontaine and see a man who finished 4th in the Olympics (he finished 4th because he tried to win the race) and then I look at Kennedy who was never in the hunt for a medal. Albeit I believe he was the first non-African in 96. I vote for Pre.

I'm not disagreeing necessarily with all you Pre people, but just to play devil's advocate, I'll say this:

Just because Pre was closer to the World Record and placed better in the Olympics doesn't necessarily mean anything. Using logic only as a debating tool here, I'll say that perhaps the competition during Pre's time just sucked and that BK had much tougher competition.

I know all the arguments for Pre, and again, I can see the validity in those arguments. I will though pick Bob Kennedy as the man - slightly so, but i'll say he wins.

a lot of people seem to forget that Pre ran 27-40 something for 10k on his own at his first attempt at the distance.

That was probably his best run, darn good !

Go Pre !

Bob Kennedy holds the American Record for 5000 meters, 12:58.21.

Bob Kennedy ran 27:38.37 in his first 10,000, Pre ran 27:43.6.

Bob Kennedy broke the race open in the 1996 Olympic 5000 meter final, taking the lead with two laps to go.

Any argument that he was never in the hunt for a medal, or that he didn't try to medal, is ridiculous.

Pre was an amazing runner. Bob Kennedy was better, and I'd like to think that he could be better at 10,000 still.

samo out.

Um, there is an oval of equal distance. The two runners ran around it, and they ran the same distances so that their times can be compared.

Kennedy's times are faster. It's as simple as that. He is the better runner.

really, how can you compare times across eras? any judgement based upon cross-era comparisons are doomed to be confounded and likely to be erroneous. One point i'd like to make on pre's behalf is that it would be much harder for him to break 13 than it was for kennedy when you consider where the wr bar was set for each of them in their respective eras; you can't tell me that world records don't limit improvement just as much as they encourage it.

mcpuddlemaker wrote:

really, how can you compare times across eras? any judgement based upon cross-era comparisons are doomed to be confounded and likely to be erroneous. One point i'd like to make on pre's behalf is that it would be much harder for him to break 13 than it was for kennedy when you consider where the wr bar was set for each of them in their respective eras; you can't tell me that world records don't limit improvement just as much as they encourage it.

Times aside they had similar careers internationally. Not exactly the same but similar enough to be considered nearly equal.

The difference is that Pre got much more pub.

yeah, i agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. i just think you get into trouble when you start comparing EXACT TIMES. that's all.

I keep hearing that training is so much better today. Why is that? It should be obvious that with the decline in performances by US runners since the glory days that the higher tech training isn't working as well as it is supposed to. Drop that excuse for Pre not running as well as Kennedy. When people get so caught up in the science they just don't run as well. Just look at Bakken lately.

Kennedy wasn't the first non African in '96. Baumann was.

One factor to remember is that Pre suffered quite a bit in later years from sciatica.

Sciatica makes for very bad tightness and muscle spasms in the back, from mid-back down to the hamstrings. The pinched nerves involved cause a lot of mucle power to be lost until the tightness releases.

Changes in shoes, running surfaces (Pre's trail), and--a biggie--chiropractic care have pretty much eliminated sciatica from most top athlete injuries.

I don't know if I'm a Pre fan or not. I sure don't worship him, although I respect what he ran for times and competitive efforts. But on sheer talent I have to believe Pre, like Ryun on a better track than he ran on back then, would hold his own in today's Amercian scene if not the world.

Yeah but if you put them in a race with Webb and Ritz who would take it?

We are missing the real question........

Who would win a Beer Mile? And of course the answer is..................

PRE. No Contest!!