Pre vs Kennedy

a key point missing from your argument. bob kennedy didn't run a single hundredth faster than pre, as burrell did to lewis. he ran TWENTY-THREE seconds faster! even with your "projection" kennedy is 12 seconds faster.

Two runners run the same distance.

One runner runs significantly faster than the other runner.

That faster runner is the better runner. Period.

Mr. Kennedy wins.

You\'ve all missed the point---it was never about times with Pre. I ran with him, watched most of his races---it was all about heart, toughness, dogged determination, the ability to go into a place of pain you and I will never know. There is no question with the advancements since 75, that Pre would rule. No question.

RunninFreak wrote:

Sure Kennedy has a faster time then Pre but with advancements in track and field, along with physiology being diferent now, does Pre even stand a chance against Kennedy does Pre\'s 13:21 stand up to a sub 13 minute performance 25+ years later???

May be a dumb question but I was curious what other people thought.

guest wrote:

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.

I'm with this poster. If Kennedy and Pre were both on the scene today they would probably finish very close to each other. I'm not sure who would win.

I'm a Pre fan with the realization that internationally he was just another guy fighting for the top 5 or 6. Kennedy at his best was the same.

Time is not real important unless you are an hourly employee punching a time clock.What is more important than time is class,that is class of race and class of indivisual.If one runner is in a race with perfect conditions and gets sucked along to a fast time,letting the big boys do all the work,did he actually run a better race than a guy who ran a little slower in a race where he was one of the big boys doing a lot of the work.

Maybe we should dig Pre up and settle this argument.

Time is relative to a degree-humans evolve, tracks become better, equipment is better, training advice or methods can sometimes become more sophisticated, sports medicine and treatment is certainly better. I live on the same hill that Pre died on 2 blocks from his rock-I drive past it every single day-anyone that thinks if you put those 2 individuals into a race that Kennedy would have outkicked PRE knows absolutely insane.

Why don't we compare Pre with Bob 10 years after he started running? Pre had been training 10 years when he ran his best time, how fast was Bob at that point?

Clinton vs Kennedy

All this crap about measuring performances against the WR at the time, thats crap, truly great distance runners changed the boundaries, brought the distace races onto a new level, Ron Clarke, Herb Elliot, Bedford. Its sad to say but Pre was an also ran, Munich was his best race internationally, he has just been over hyped and glorified. Kennedy has performed time and time again in Europe and against a whole new generation of great distance runners, the africans.

Waz,

kennedy is fast over 5k but can't win because the africans have super kick*

Pre is fast over 5k & could win because the africans were not racing then. They were hard out working the fields and minding the herd, until some fool* told them how to save their village financially by running.

Now Bob has got african welfare to try and beat.

A lot harder.

*damn it

If Pre was that great and such a great racer why did he never ever hak it in international races, he got stuffed all over Europe by Foster, Quax, Hermanns, Walker, Dixon, Hilderbrand, Puttemans. He never wona big race in Europe where it counted, he always got beat. Its one thing doing it in your own backyard (a bit like the chinese ho ho!) but its quite another doing it against the best in the world, after all his compettion at the time in the US was pretty crappy.

What are you talking about? Pre always wanted to run the 3 mile in 12:36, a feat he never accomplished. Guts and determination? He wanted to run as fast as he could. He said that to not do so was to spit at the God-given talent. He was all about times. He was all about being fast.

Now you're splitting hairs, but I don't give too much credit to "being pulled along by the big boys". You still have to be able to hang with them when they go. Those "big boys" aren't giving you anything. Takes heart and fitness and talent to be able to go with them. Perhaps the guy who ran slower and was one of the "big boys" in that race didn't have the balls to push the pace and go faster.

I don't think training knowledge has changed that much. You have to remember that Pre was coached by Bowerman, arguably the greatest distance coach America has ever had, who learned from the great experimenter Lydiard. His other coach, Dellinger, wasn't shabby either.

I've said it before in another post and I'll say it again now Pre, has this reverence in America, he is talked up, and has been turned into some mythical legend of track, the fact is theer were a whole bunch of fellas around at the time who were as good if not better. Take a look at the fire on the track' video. They interview Ian Stewart (the guy who just dipped Pre for the bronze), he said that he saw Pre in the village a few days before the race and he was mouthing off about how he was going to run 4.05 for the last mile and nobody would live with him. Stewarts reaction was 'so what' theres another 7 or 8 guys who can do that aswell. This sums it up, because Pre avoided racing the best he never really knew just how good they were. People go on about 76 but if anything the field in the 5k in 76 was way way stronger than it was in 72, Viren, Quax, Hildebrand, Puttemans, Foster etc.. I don't think he would have made the first 6. Elsewhere in the world he is recognised as having been a good runner but he is also seen as being beatable, just one of a crop of good runners. I feel sorry for the real Legends who actuially did the business but never got the credit because of the aura surrounding Pre, you have Shorter, a true legend, appreciate him.

What I meant by my original post about physiology is, over time athletes have just gotten better. Think about the 4 minute mile. No one ever thought that it could happen, runners tried like hell to break it. Then one guy did, now look at the record, its 15 seconds under 4 minutes now. The same can be said aboout 13 minutes for the 5k, people thought that was going to be done but when? As humans we mature and our bodies get progressivley stronger over time... So what I meatn about physiology is the human body is stronger and more efficient now. Does this mean that Pre has an edge because a nowaday Pre would be under 13 minutes for 5k just like Kennedy. I love both runners the same, Pre has more stuff about him so that is more prevailent in my office, but Kennedy is just as popular with runners today as Pre was with runners then, (NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC, screw them :o)

Thanks for the response though, good to see so many opinions

This is turning into fairytales, basically kennedy ran faster at every distance, he is the better runner. athleets today have more benefits, its antural progression in nutrition, training, physiology, psychology.

Except of course that as a whole we are not getting stronger, we are getting weaker. 20 years ago (1982) Dave Moorcroft ran a WR 13:00:41 for 5k, since then the WR has improved by (approx) 20 seconds while the fastest British athlete this year is (approx) 20 seconds slower. While some (African) athletes have got faster the majority of (Non African) athletes have slowed down. In the UK times from top to bottom are getting slower every year.

As for Pre Vs Kennedy - who knows? They are/were both pretty good, among the top dozen or so athletes in the world at their discipline - which is nothing to be ashamed of - but that's about it really. Obviously with Pre we can never know what he would have done.

And what about Ivo Van Damme? How good would he have been?