Thank you, kudzrunner, for having taken the time to read through not only the list but the reasoning behind it and for having a broad enough vision to understand - and express it better than I did - that historical importance was, in fact, an overriding criterion for some of the choices.
And I know I omitted some other fine runners -- Tony Sandoval, Jeff Wells, Craig Virgin, Ron Tabb, Dick Beardsley and more -- but a Top Ten has to end at Ten.
Yes, world records and fast times are important. But courses are so different and parameters so changed (rabbits, etc.) that results mean way more to me than times.
That is why I put Hall in 10th - not because of my well-documented feeling that a runner of his ability should not express satisfaction with merely being the best U.S. marathoner.
I still think Khannouchi was wrong both in running the London Marathon rather than the Olympic trials in 2000 while his attorney was working frantically to get him citizenship in time for the Games and in dropping out of the 2004 trials nine weeks before the race, citing an injury, when he had told me (on tape) in mid-2003, "I will say right now it is the race of my career. . .I will try to run even with a broken leg." After all, he ran the 2000 London Marathon (for $175,000) despite injuring himself six weeks before that race.
For all that disdain toward the adopted country he frequently vowed to pay back on the roads, he remains one of the greatest U.S. marathoners ever. But in Khannouchi's case, I considered only his races as a U.S. citizen, as I would with Bernard Lagat should I be trying to determine his rank as a U.S. track distance runner (which would be very high).
PH