HRH wrote:
spade detector wrote:
I’ve no doubt this is a common occurrence for you.
Perhaps you can explain how a Somali is ‘Britain’s greatest runner‘?
Gladly. It’s because he is a citizen of Britain and won 10 global championships as a British athlete.
george oscar bluth wrote:
Coevett wrote:
Why? Abascal won more medals. A 3:31.13 1500 in 1986 compares well with a 12:49 5000m 26 years later. Hell, Abascal even ran a 13:12 5000m in 1987 when moving up at the end of his career. When you consider that Longosiwa is a documented age cheat, and thus you'd have to be naieve as hell to believe he wasn't at least microdosing EPO, I'm not sure you can say he is a 'heck of a lot better than Abascal', unless you think Abascal just had the 'wrong physiology'.
Another point about the different eras is that African doping apologists always claim that Kenyans were strong before the 90s, and in particular in the late 60's and early 70s, and didn't arrive overnight (co-incidentally just when EPO came on the scene). Fair enough, there is some validity to that. But then at the same time they dismiss everything that occurred in distance running before 1990 as sub-standard and inferior because Africans weren't dominating then.
Hmmm...
12:49 is MUCH better than 3:31, even a quarter of a century later. Abascal had only run 3:39 or something around that in '84 before the Games. It's also much better than the 3:33 Jurgen Straub ran. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. Calling out Longosiwa as a weak medalist was a bad idea for someone arguing for Coe's superiority. Stick the the world record focus.
No it's not. Abascal's time was 1.6 or so seconds off Aouita's world record at the time. This chap's best time (that he was dragged to in a race he finished 5th) was 12 seconds off the 5000m WR. Are you saying Aouita was substandard too? Surely he had the right...ermm, physiology?
What does it matter what Abascal's time was going in to LA? What was Mo Farah's best time when he won his first gold medal? Abascal, like most of the 70/80's middle-distance runners had a lot of problems with injuries. He was likely in as good or even better shape in 84 when he came 3rd in the Olympic final, beating the likes of Steve Scott, as he was in 86 when he failed to reach the final of the European 1500. Abascal won medals over a number of years, including Olympic, European, and indoors World and European. Also, I know this is meaningless to Afrophiles, but Longosiwa was a convicted cheat. Fair enough, you can argue that if Mo's performances were clean, then his performances against rivals who probably were (or certainly were) cheating is very impressive. But when you consider he often trained with those same dubious Africans, including Aden's group (which he later denied after deleting an Instagram pic), and 'forgot to hear the doorbell' etc, then he was just the best rocket fuelled African born runner when more talented rocket fuelled African born guys had gotten out of the game. But without doubt, it's problematic to me that you are so adamant that a convicted cheat is 'way much better' (because of dubious times) than a guy who won more medals running in a clean and highly competitive era 30 years earlier against Brits, Europeans, Africans,South Americans, North Americans, Australians and New Zealanders...
Coevett wrote:
george oscar bluth wrote:
12:49 is MUCH better than 3:31, even a quarter of a century later. Abascal had only run 3:39 or something around that in '84 before the Games. It's also much better than the 3:33 Jurgen Straub ran. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. Calling out Longosiwa as a weak medalist was a bad idea for someone arguing for Coe's superiority. Stick the the world record focus.
No it's not. Abascal's time was 1.6 or so seconds off Aouita's world record at the time. This chap's best time (that he was dragged to in a race he finished 5th) was 12 seconds off the 5000m WR. Are you saying Aouita was substandard too? Surely he had the right...ermm, physiology?
What does it matter what Abascal's time was going in to LA? What was Mo Farah's best time when he won his first gold medal? Abascal, like most of the 70/80's middle-distance runners had a lot of problems with injuries. He was likely in as good or even better shape in 84 when he came 3rd in the Olympic final, beating the likes of Steve Scott, as he was in 86 when he failed to reach the final of the European 1500. Abascal won medals over a number of years, including Olympic, European, and indoors World and European. Also, I know this is meaningless to Afrophiles, but Longosiwa was a convicted cheat. Fair enough, you can argue that if Mo's performances were clean, then his performances against rivals who probably were (or certainly were) cheating is very impressive. But when you consider he often trained with those same dubious Africans, including Aden's group (which he later denied after deleting an Instagram pic), and 'forgot to hear the doorbell' etc, then he was just the best rocket fuelled African born runner when more talented rocket fuelled African born guys had gotten out of the game. But without doubt, it's problematic to me that you are so adamant that a convicted cheat is 'way much better' (because of dubious times) than a guy who won more medals running in a clean and highly competitive era 30 years earlier against Brits, Europeans, Africans,South Americans, North Americans, Australians and New Zealanders...
Whoa, take a deep breath buddy. I merely pointed out you are incorrect to try to argue that the medalists Farah beat being weak as a point for Coe in the Farah vs. Coe debate. The above post sounds like a foaming-at-the-mouth rant which is extreme. Are you okay?
Also aren't you contradicting yourself? You're saying that Farah beat cheats and Coe beat clean guys, so wouldn't that make Farah's competition better? And if you are saying Abascal is better than Longosiwa because of his medals, doesn't that make Farah better than Coe because of his medals?
12:49 is better than 3:33 and 3:31. I hate to be the one to break that to you. Much love!
Sand Dunes wrote:
HRH wrote:
Perhaps you can explain how a Somali is ‘Britain’s greatest runner‘?
Can you explain to me how you can consider Europeans to be Americans?
Somalia is the capital of Canada? Or a country in the carribean?
Avocado's Number wrote:
trollism wrote:
That's an all time British distance runners list in order of Olympic medal they have won. Not sure it works like that.
Yeah, an oft-repeated (and legitimate) criticism of these kinds of lists is that they don't set forth the criteria for determining who is "greater" than who. In this case, it's obvious how the rankings were determined, and a simple computer program could generate the list, but I don't know any good reason to choose this method of ranking other than to eliminate debate and achieve consensus.
It's very bizarre to see Charlie Spedding rather than Steve Jones on a list like this. Does anyone in Great Britain actually consider Spedding to be the greater marathoner?
(As an aside, it's amusing to see Coevett, of all people, mention Moorcroft, since Coevett would totally dismiss that massive 5000-meter world record as the clear result of doping if run by an African runner with similar credentials.)
Charlie Spedding ahead of Ian Thompson?
It's very bizarre to see Charlie Spedding rather than Steve Jones on a list like this. Does anyone in Great Britain actually consider Spedding to be the greater marathoner?
(As an aside, it's amusing to see Coevett, of all people, mention Moorcroft, since Coevett would totally dismiss that massive 5000-meter world record as the clear result of doping if run by an African runner with similar credentials.)[/quote]
Charlie Spedding ahead of Ian Thompson?[/quote]
No-one outside Gateshead would rate CS more than decent international std. It was thrilling to see him in LA, of course, but he did little else really. Ian Thompson's exploits were mesmerizing because it suggested that so-so club runners might just hit the big time if they tried the marathon. True inspiration. In 1973-4 he was up there with Bedford.
Deanouk wrote:
Lololol wrote:
I love this line of thinking, as if Farah was only capable of 12:53 and 26:48. Your’s and Deano’s bias is so blatant it’s embarrassing.
Nothing to do with bias. I haven’t written anywhere on this thread what Coe was capable of; and of course Farah was capable of faster than his 5 and 10k phs. BUT, it is a fact that Coe went out and broke 8 world records on the track, and Farah broke zero. I’m comparing what they actually did, in this discussion, what their potentials were is another topic.
The only 2 criteria that have been a constant since the modern era, and which all athletes’ greatness is therefore measured, are world records and Olympic medals.
Farah has 4 Olympic gold medals, with Coe on 2 gold and 2 silver. They are 1 and 2 for British track stars in terms of Olympic success. For 2 of those medals Farah ran just a straight final; whereas Coe had to run 3 or 4 races for each of his.
In terms of world records, Coe has broken more than any British athlete in the modern era, with 8 individual and 1 relay. There are then dozens of other UK athletes that have set outdoor world records. Farah has zero world records.
In terms of British athletes, I would put Coe, Thompson, Ovett and Edwards all above Farah; they had Olympic golds and world records. Thus putting Coe above Farah is not a bias, it is based on measurable, concrete analysis.
Hahaha. Measurable, concrete analysis. Good one deanouk. You really believe you are not biased?
george oscar bluth wrote:
Coevett wrote:
Why? Abascal won more medals. A 3:31.13 1500 in 1986 compares well with a 12:49 5000m 26 years later. Hell, Abascal even ran a 13:12 5000m in 1987 when moving up at the end of his career. When you consider that Longosiwa is a documented age cheat, and thus you'd have to be naieve as hell to believe he wasn't at least microdosing EPO, I'm not sure you can say he is a 'heck of a lot better than Abascal', unless you think Abascal just had the 'wrong physiology'.
Another point about the different eras is that African doping apologists always claim that Kenyans were strong before the 90s, and in particular in the late 60's and early 70s, and didn't arrive overnight (co-incidentally just when EPO came on the scene). Fair enough, there is some validity to that. But then at the same time they dismiss everything that occurred in distance running before 1990 as sub-standard and inferior because Africans weren't dominating then.
Hmmm...
12:49 is MUCH better than 3:31, even a quarter of a century later. Abascal had only run 3:39 or something around that in '84 before the Games. It's also much better than the 3:33 Jurgen Straub ran. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. Calling out Longosiwa as a weak medalist was a bad idea for someone arguing for Coe's superiority. Stick the the world record focus.
No. Wrong on both accounts.
When Abascal set his pb of 3:31.13 in 1986, the 1500m WR was 3:29.46. The difference in % extrapolated for the percentage difference between the then 5000m WR of 12:37 when Longosiwa ran 12:49, equates to around 12:43. In historical context, a 3:31.13 1500m in 1986, is superior to a 12:49 in 2012, when the WR was 12 secs faster.
Abascal did not go to LA in 84 with a pb of 3:39, as you claim, but rather he’d run 3:33.1 in 1983 and 1982. He’d also won bronze and silver medals indoors at the European Champs, as well as the outdoor bronze in 1982.
Deanouk wrote:
george oscar bluth wrote:
12:49 is MUCH better than 3:31, even a quarter of a century later. Abascal had only run 3:39 or something around that in '84 before the Games. It's also much better than the 3:33 Jurgen Straub ran. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. Calling out Longosiwa as a weak medalist was a bad idea for someone arguing for Coe's superiority. Stick the the world record focus.
No. Wrong on both accounts.
When Abascal set his pb of 3:31.13 in 1986, the 1500m WR was 3:29.46. The difference in % extrapolated for the percentage difference between the then 5000m WR of 12:37 when Longosiwa ran 12:49, equates to around 12:43. In historical context, a 3:31.13 1500m in 1986, is superior to a 12:49 in 2012, when the WR was 12 secs faster.
Abascal did not go to LA in 84 with a pb of 3:39, as you claim, but rather he’d run 3:33.1 in 1983 and 1982. He’d also won bronze and silver medals indoors at the European Champs, as well as the outdoor bronze in 1982.
I know your reading comprehension is better than this, Deano.
1) I didn’t say Abascal’s pb was 3:39 going into LA, “in ‘84” clearly indicates SB. Even Coevett picked up on that.
2) Longosiwa was the 12th fastest runner of all-time in the 5000m going into the 2012 Olympics (still is). I don’t know what Abascal was in the 1500m going into the 84 games without looking it up, but I can tell you it was darn sure above 12th.
milermb wrote:
Why have you, apparently, ignored Commonwealth Games medals in your assessments?
Notable omission from your list - Sydney Wooderson - what would his record look like if it wasn't for the 1939-45 war?
Also, without wishing to denigrate Farah's record, it is unfair to compare him to athletes, like Ron Hill, who had to combine world class running with working 40+ hours a week in demanding jobs. This seriously hampered their ability to peak for major championships.
Wooderson was my first thought for someone missing. But for the WWII might even have been the first sub 4:00 miler. World record at 800m (or 880 yards), European Champion at 5000m, and also won National x-country championships at 9 miles.
IIRC Thompson was European and Commonwealth champion, unbeaten in the marathon and 1 minute off the wr back in 74. i remember the shock when he came 7th in the olympic trials - the UK team was Barry Watson, Jeff Norman and Keith Angus. These were talented club runners who earned their places but it was hard not to think that we'd messed up and left our gold medal chance at home.
i lived in the sheffield area and saw Keith Angus run a lot. Don't ever remember him winning even a south yorkshire league cross country race ....but there were no easy races back then. Jeff Norman did the Barnsley Marathon a few times when i used to help at aid stations. i am sure he won once or twice but it was a hilly course and times were slow. it was the Lesley Watson show anyway....the men's race wasn't important.
Charlie Spedding was 6th in 88 in addition to his bronze from 84. He did win London - but a brit winning London wasn't that unusual back then. Still don't see him as an all time great - much as i would like to support a fellow pharmacist.
As a slight aside... Spedding's autobiography 'From last to first' is a great read.
george oscar bluth wrote:
Coevett wrote:
No it's not. Abascal's time was 1.6 or so seconds off Aouita's world record at the time. This chap's best time (that he was dragged to in a race he finished 5th) was 12 seconds off the 5000m WR. Are you saying Aouita was substandard too? Surely he had the right...ermm, physiology?
What does it matter what Abascal's time was going in to LA? What was Mo Farah's best time when he won his first gold medal? Abascal, like most of the 70/80's middle-distance runners had a lot of problems with injuries. He was likely in as good or even better shape in 84 when he came 3rd in the Olympic final, beating the likes of Steve Scott, as he was in 86 when he failed to reach the final of the European 1500. Abascal won medals over a number of years, including Olympic, European, and indoors World and European. Also, I know this is meaningless to Afrophiles, but Longosiwa was a convicted cheat. Fair enough, you can argue that if Mo's performances were clean, then his performances against rivals who probably were (or certainly were) cheating is very impressive. But when you consider he often trained with those same dubious Africans, including Aden's group (which he later denied after deleting an Instagram pic), and 'forgot to hear the doorbell' etc, then he was just the best rocket fuelled African born runner when more talented rocket fuelled African born guys had gotten out of the game. But without doubt, it's problematic to me that you are so adamant that a convicted cheat is 'way much better' (because of dubious times) than a guy who won more medals running in a clean and highly competitive era 30 years earlier against Brits, Europeans, Africans,South Americans, North Americans, Australians and New Zealanders...
Whoa, take a deep breath buddy. I merely pointed out you are incorrect to try to argue that the medalists Farah beat being weak as a point for Coe in the Farah vs. Coe debate. The above post sounds like a foaming-at-the-mouth rant which is extreme. Are you okay?
Also aren't you contradicting yourself? You're saying that Farah beat cheats and Coe beat clean guys, so wouldn't that make Farah's competition better? And if you are saying Abascal is better than Longosiwa because of his medals, doesn't that make Farah better than Coe because of his medals?
12:49 is better than 3:33 and 3:31. I hate to be the one to break that to you. Much love!
Maybe you need to learn to read objectively. Seems to me your passionate defence of a convicted African cheat , over any suggestion Europeans can compare with him, might indicate you need some kind of medical or psychological help.
As for contradicting myself, I granted that Mo's performances would be hugely impressive if he was clean as a whistle and his African rivals not, I just think it unlikely, although Mo would have been tested more, on the whole.
spade detector wrote:
HRH wrote:
Perhaps you can explain how a Somali is ‘Britain’s greatest runner‘?
Gladly. It’s because he is a citizen of Britain and won 10 global championships as a British athlete.
Farah was born in Somalia with a DNA exactly the same as the other 14 million or so Africans living in that country.
Not a single gene of it of British origin.
British passports are now handed out like confetti to the dregs of the third world flooding across Europe - doesn’t make them of British (or English) ancestry.
Myself, one of my relatives, interested in the subject, has traced our family ancestry back to when the inhabitants of what is now the USA were hunting buffalo and living in wigwams, back to Edward III so far, centuries before the white man discovered the ‘New World.’
HRH wrote:
spade detector wrote:
Gladly. It’s because he is a citizen of Britain and won 10 global championships as a British athlete.
Farah was born in Somalia with a DNA exactly the same as the other 14 million or so Africans living in that country.
Not a single gene of it of British origin.
British passports are now handed out like confetti to the dregs of the third world flooding across Europe - doesn’t make them of British (or English) ancestry.
Myself, one of my relatives, interested in the subject, has traced our family ancestry back to when the inhabitants of what is now the USA were hunting buffalo and living in wigwams, back to Edward III so far, centuries before the white man discovered the ‘New World.’
So applying this objectivity, how English do you think our own Queen is?
Seedrill wrote:
It's very bizarre to see Charlie Spedding rather than Steve Jones on a list like this. Does anyone in Great Britain actually consider Spedding to be the greater marathoner?
(As an aside, it's amusing to see Coevett, of all people, mention Moorcroft, since Coevett would totally dismiss that massive 5000-meter world record as the clear result of doping if run by an African runner with similar credentials.)
Charlie Spedding ahead of Ian Thompson?[/quote]
No-one outside Gateshead would rate CS more than decent international std. It was thrilling to see him in LA, of course, but he did little else really. Ian Thompson's exploits were mesmerizing because it suggested that so-so club runners might just hit the big time if they tried the marathon. True inspiration. In 1973-4 he was up there with Bedford.[/quote]
I'd probably rate Spedding as a better marathon 'racer' than Jones. He certainly got the most out of his talent and raced smart in almost every big race he ran. London champ, 3rd in LA and 6th in Seoul off some truly abysmal training. Whereas Jones just got to the start line, put his balls on the table and dared anyone to match him. Basically.
Sir Bastion Newbold wrote:
As a slight aside... Spedding's autobiography 'From last to first' is a great read.
+1
Pip,pip!
you guys realize that Seb Coe has very little "British genes", if that's even a thing, right?
His mother is Indian, as were his grandparents.
I'd say if he did Ancestry.com, he would have between 4-8% African.
LKJK wrote:
you guys realize that Seb Coe has very little "British genes", if that's even a thing, right?
His mother is Indian, as were his grandparents.
I'd say if he did Ancestry.com, he would have between 4-8% African.
No, his mother is half Indian; her father was Indian.
That makes Coe 1/4 Indian, 3/4 British.
Holy F****ing Sh**. Employee 1.1 just broke 15:00 for 5000 for the 1st time at age 36.
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Parker Valby post 5k interview... Worst of all time? Are Parker Valby interviews always cringe?
Al Jazeera publishes piece on how alleged Olympic marathoner Ashley Uhl-Leavitt has a GoFundMe. Who?
What is the worst insult anyone gave you about your running ability and how did you respond?
Japan's Kazuto Iizawa runs #2 1500 time in Japanese history - Guess the time (video)