Greatest Female Marathon of All-Time: P. Radcliffe, C. Ndereba, N. Takahashi....?

give me a break, if you read my post that wasn't my issue. my issue was saying that over time you have to rank marathons differently.

now do i personally feel that the womens Olympics race was better than Chicago '04 and London '05 (which has nothing to do with my main point)? Yes I do, but you could have inferred that from my last two posts if you wanted.

championship records wrote:

give me a break, if you read my post that wasn't my issue. my issue was saying that over time you have to rank marathons differently.

OK, i see, and agree with that.

seriously, there should be a competitiveness scale with a competitive rating given to each major city marathon over the years. so, each marathoner's wins would be weighted in some kind of formula and overall scores would determine the 'greatest runner of all time.' it would be totally objective.

championship records wrote:

To both posters above, chill out. .....

So here is my final point which I'll reiterate - given how London and Chicago are so important these days you have to wait their competitiveness higher than you would say ten years ago. So when you are comparing people across decades please take into account the importance of the races and competitiveness is all. Winning London the past 5 years means a whole lot more than winning it 20 years ago and you have to take that to account. Likewise, the importance of the Olympics should be raised in relation to the big city races for women 20 years ago, whereas the Olympics would probably weighted en par with London and Chicago nowadays, and the WC would be behind. Make sense now?

Yes, so you've changed your opinion which is fine (when the facts change, change your mind). I too can concede that Ldn and Chgo are better (and more significant) wins than they were 20y ago. BUT this is not at the expense of the Olympics which remains the holy grail of athletics. It has been at the expense of other city races, Boston & Rotterdam perhaps.

I am chilled.

I am not changing my opinion so I am not sure what the big deal is. In my original post I said the big city marathons were en par with Athens. If you want to split hairs and say that Chicago '04 and London '05 were not better than Athens and thus not en par, fine be my guest, but doesn't change my main point. From my one statement you know I am NOT saying that these big city marathons are not better than the Olympics (for women) but there are some instantiations that are en par. I do still think that WC's will fall behind London and Chicago from most years, who knows maybe this year will be different with Radcliffe running, but in the past it hasn't been as competitive as other major city marathons.

Now if you want to continue and nitpick a small point I made in passing and twist it around, be my guest. Usually you make pretty good posts but I am left wondering that you are woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

wannabekila wrote:

Yes, so you've changed your opinion which is fine (when the facts change, change your mind). I too can concede that Ldn and Chgo are better (and more significant) wins than they were 20y ago. BUT this is not at the expense of the Olympics which remains the holy grail of athletics. It has been at the expense of other city races, Boston & Rotterdam perhaps.

I am chilled.

well he did have a point. and a single win at the olympics doesnt automatically make you greater than someone who never won an olympics. if it did, then fatuma roba would catapult herself over grete waitz and ingrid kristiansen on the 'all time greatest' list.

of course it IS possible that the prestige of the olympic marathon could decline too, if big city marathons continue to throw big money at runners--they have no commercial interest in making sure that the best runners in the world run the olympics at the expense of having them show up at their own races. the olympics mean nothing in baseball and basketball b/c there's a paycheck elsewhere. the olympics is the home for amateur/non professional athletes. winning $100K and being paid $100K to show up at a marathon doesnt make you an amateur anymore.

princess of wales wrote:

they have no commercial interest in making sure that the best runners in the world run the olympics at the expense of having them show up at their own races.

correction: meant to say, "...at the expense of having them NOT show up at their races."

I already posted my pick for the Greatest Female Marathoner; however, here is why I didn't pick some of the other truly great female marathoners:

Grete Waitz dispite her amazing domination of one domestic marathon and her record, her wins came at a time when female marathoning wasn't deep. Grete does get my vote for being the most influental and one of the Top 3 greatest of all-time.

Paula Radcliffe record of ultra fast and mindboggling times are beyond exceptional, but her lack of ANY medal is certain grounds to exclude her as the greatest.

Naoko T. win in the Olympics is a starting point but her marathoning career doesn't have the depth and amazing times of some of the othe contenders for greatest.

If Paula Radcliffe ever wins a Olympic or Worlds Gold she can surplant Catherine and the greates female marathoner ever. Catherine's multi 2:20's, former World Record holder, Silver Medalist in the Olympics, Gold at the Worlds, and several wins on different continents in multiple bigtime marathons combined have yet to be matched.

I hope Paula and Catherine a several more years in which they can solidly stamp themselves as the two best of all-time. The title of Greatest of All-Time is Paula's to take and Catherine's to lose.

VIPAM

Vipam wrote:

Grete Waitz dispite her amazing domination of one domestic marathon and her record, her wins came at a time when female marathoning wasn't deep. Grete does get my vote for being the most influental and one of the Top 3 greatest of all-time. the Olympics, Gold at the Worlds, and several wins on different continents in multiple bigtime marathons combined have yet to be matched.

generally agree, but that's unfair to suggest she only won all those medals b/c there was little competition. look at her times from the NYCM. her best time was still faster than thw winning times at 9 other NYCMs between 1980-2005.

and look at her london times:

her best time in 1986 was still faster than ELEVEN winning times between 1986-2005. of course im not sure how often the courses changed over the years, if at all.

grete didnt win as often as she did entriely b/c of lack of competition.

Sheesh why is an absence of the coveted Olympic medal evidence of being a great runner, give me a break. In running everything has to be perfect on the day and especially when you consider all the things that can go wrong ( or right) in a marathon. Medals should not be the criteria in my opinion, but who has covered the ground the fastest. For goodness sake Paula could have qualified by quite abit for the US MENS Olympic Trials A standard..... Hats off to those who have medelled at the various Games but hats off all the more to the fleet footed world record holders!

Quote in part.....

Paula Radcliffe record of ultra fast and mindboggling times are beyond exceptional, but her lack of ANY medal is certain grounds to exclude her as the greatest.

That's just the way it works. Paula is without a doubt the fastest. But to be "greatest" you have to get it all done (fast times and championships) and Catherine has.

If we come back to this topic after the Helsinki WCh, I'm pretty sure that many lists will need to be altered....

:-)

I will be the first to say if Paula wins a Gold Medal at this year Worlds, 2007 Worlds, or the upcoming 2008 Olympics (don't think she'll have a chance after) she will definitely be the greatest female marathoner in my opinion. A few posters stated that the Olympics and Worlds shouldn't account for that much; however, the fact that you have to put it together in one day makes medaling at either that more significant. The Olympics and Worlds are what MOST athletes aspire to place/medal in and therefore those two marathons hold more weight than any other marathons. Paula holds her marathon legacy in her own hands as she seems unbeatable in the marathon until she gets to the Championship races, she gets gold and she is the best ever!

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

One can argue on a website until the cows come home about who’s the greatest female marathon runner - but to those elite runners actually completing these day, those opinions don’t add up to a can of beans.

The opinions that really count in their eyes and who are responsible for their financial security are those marathon race organisers with the deepest pockets.

Right now, Paula can, by far, command the greatest appearance payment in every major race of any - and this must surely be unique in marathon history - male or female marathon runner in the world.

One clue as to why might be is that every time I tuned in to both the London and Boston recently, throughout most of the (men’s) race all one could see was the somewhat depressing spectacle of about half a dozen African runners, all seemingly wearing identical singlets and shorts, all shaven headed (do they grow hair on their heads anymore?) so virtually undistinguishable from each other, especially to the general public - and you knew for certain that the winner most come from the one in that group that just happened to be having ‘a good one’ on that particular day.

Along comes Paula, and you know for certain, here’s one non- African, a truly English rose in fact, who can lick the shorts off anybody the rest of the world throws at her.

She’s a bloody National Treasure - and her English critics at least, should be ashamed of themselves

Vipam, take your head out of Nedereba's arse!!!

The WC's at marathon level are meaningless. How many of the top boys/girls are going to both turning up??

Kannouchi, Tergat, Gebre, Korir, Rutto, Pinto, El Mouaiziz

Have they ever done anything in a WC's marathon???

How about Kastor, Takahasi, Radcliffe, Chepkemi??

Any of them ever bothered turning out and running their socks off for WC medals?

No.

You cannot rank anyone in this discussion based upon a win in a relatively easier championship.

The Olympics are different. Every runner wants to win the Olympics.

Nedereba was not first, therefore Takahashi and Ngouchi have one up on Nedereba. Now Nedereba has run sub 2.20 a few times, but Takahashi was the first, therefore gets extra cudos IMO.

So how can anyone say that Nedereba is the greatest when 1) She hasn't won the Olympics

2) She isn't anywhere near the fastest.

Nedereba is good, really very good BUT you cannot say that she is the greatest. I would put Takahashi in front of Nedereba in my rankings and I would put Radcliffe ahead based on the fact that they have seperate pace makers for her when she turns up to race!

UK Boy,

"Ndereba isn't anywhere near the fastest."

Are you kidding me? Only the 2nd fastest woman all-time and 2:18 performer?

Sorry, I should have put that relatively Nedereba isn't anywhere near as fast as Paula.

Paul Korir is one second slower than Tergat, Kannouchi is 30 odd seconds, Steve Jones circa 1985 is two and a half minutes slower than Tergat. People like Deek and Salazar are within four minutes of the current world record.

Nedereba is three minues plus behind Paula.

Therefore in my opinion, Nedereba is nowehere near the fastest time in the marathon regardless of being the second fastest ever.

It is the equivalent of saying that Dathan Ritz is fairly close to Ken Bekele. He'd get lapped (just about) if they raced.

Paula radcliffe is the best by a long way. And to those of you who say she can only perform on flat courses - New York isn't flat!

Catherine Ndereba is a great marathon runner but Paula is in a league of her own.

Paula - Paula - Paula. wrote:

The opinions that really count in their eyes and who are responsible for their financial security are those marathon race organisers with the deepest pockets.

Right now, Paula can, by far, command the greatest appearance payment in every major race of any - and this must surely be unique in marathon history - male or female marathon runner in the world.

Paula is a great runner but you cant use her financial clout as proof. Its quite weak. However, i can argue your point regardless...

shes a big draw becasue ...

1/ shes a great runner

2/ major marathons are in western countries

3/ major sponsors sell into western countries

4/ She's white which is an exception in modern distance running

5/ she's from a western country

6/ she's pretty

7/ shes speaks english and give good pre/post-race interviews.

I dont want to belittle her athletic achievements but dont discount at least part of her pulling power. Factors like these should be enough to render your 'pulling power' argument obselete.

How did Ndereba run the Olympics in '02?