Run-Down Forums

[Leech Boy]

Dan,
So you want to throw times out completely? That is absurd. And I don't even know if it is worthwhile to try to debate with someone who thinks that way.

Times have gotten faster because the sport has become professional and attracted better athletes. It is true that times have gotten faster by faster tracks and better shoes -drugs may have played a factor too but in this issue we will not debate that. The technological improvements don't make up for the big gap in times from Kenendy to Pre as I posted before.

If times always get faster as you say, why is the American Mile record 18 years old? Why are the top 5 times for the mile at least 10 years old?

If you want to compare other achievements:
Kennedy made his mark on the American running scene by winning the Kinney National High School Cross Country Championships (now Foot Locker).
Kennedy was the first American male to win the NCAA XC Championships as a freshman.
Kennedy was the first non-African to break 13 minutes for a 5000.
He holds the American record in the 3,000-meter run, 2 mile, and 5,000. And these records were much tougher than the one's Pre had to beat.

Besides if you just want to compare people solely by achievements then you would have to say guys like Billy Mills, Frank Shorter and Bill Rodgers, Craig Virgen would have to be better than Pre because they won big world type of races.

Don't get me wrong. Pre was pretty good. But he is a long way from being the best American.

Lars,
Todd Williams has done quite a lot. Maybe it is reach to say he is/was better than Pre but Williams is no push over. He dominated the 10,000 from what 92 to 97. He also ran a pretty damn fast from 2 miles to the half marathon. His first marathon in Chicago he showed a lot of promise with his second fastest debut marathon for an American of 2:11.xx. He hasn't done much lately and may be done now but he was pretty good. His running resume ain't a joke.

[Dan]

So you want to throw times out completely? That is absurd. And I don't even know if it is worthwhile to try to debate with someone who thinks that way.
Oh? I could quite easily turn that statement around. How do you explain Bannister's statement (would you deny his significance to the sport because his time is no longer world class?) that the people of his era just didn't train as hard or smart as those that followed him? It is far more than just better athletes and larger talent pool, training techniques have changed significantly.

If times always get faster as you say, why is the American Mile record 18 years old? Why are the top 5 times for the mile at least 10 years old?
Because Americans have pretty much disappeared from sight on the international scene. Look at the overall picture, and there is nothing about progression of times to refute what I said. Keep an eye on the next 10 years of American running, I think we may see some ground made up.

Don't get me wrong, times are the ultimate comparison, along with possibly head to head competition, within eras, but not across them.

I agree that Kennedy is one of the better American distance runners, but in the end, there's really no way to say one was better than the other with no Olympic titles or world records to show.

Kennedy was the first non-African to break 13 minutes for a 5000.
Again, nothing more than a time comparison. I guarantee you Kennedy doesn't care for that title, as it's more of an insult than an accolade.

He holds the American record in the 3,000-meter run, 2 mile, and 5,000. And these records were much tougher than the one's Pre had to beat.
Also little more than a time comparison. What made them tougher to beat other than the fact that the times had been lowered in between? Has Kennedy been any more dominant in his time than Pre was in his short stay? Other than some brief front running in the Atlanta Olympics, has Kennedy ever had an impact on a significant international race?

Regarding Todd Williams, you yourself pointed to the weakness of American running during his period of dominance. He certainly wasn't a major player on the international scene, he just had weak competition domestically. It may have been equally due to his health problems, but as soon as the American competition picked up, he lost any hint of an edge. That doesn't sound like a name that belongs in the Best Ever discussion, to me.

Dan

[Leech Boy]

I see we will never agree.

1. Are you saying Bill Bowerman and Bill Dellinger didn't know how to train people? That they wouldn't be successful today? Hmmmm. That is a good one. Talk to Nick Rodgers about this one before he wastes his time being coached by Dellinger and runs more 13:18's.

2. A. There have been Americans who have tried to compete internationally in the 1500/mile Falcon and Holman come to mind first. By your logic, you don't really have to have more talent to run faster. You just have to compete in the present and use new training techniques. These guys should have been able to beat Scott's time even if they had less talent.

B. In the same era as Pre, Marty Liquori ran 13:15.06, which was 6 seconds faster than Pre ever ran. Pre ran his best time in 1974. Liquori ran his time in 1977. Pre also lost to Liqouri in a mile race when they went head to head. (Wottle also beat Pre in a mile race but I wouldn't hold that against Pre since Wottle that was Wottle's real event and it wasn't Pre's.)

3. In Pre's time Africans didn't run internationally in large numbers, which means a huge talent pool of runners weren't running in Pre's time. When Pre did run against Bayi from Tanzania, he ended 11th in the race. Pre wasn't the best in his era without the Africans. Hell, Pre even lost to one of Oregan teammates, Kvalheim, when he ran his best time in the 5000. Could you imagine Kennedy losing to any of his college teammates when Kennedy ran any of his sub 13 minute times?

I'll leave Williams out of this.

[Dan]

1) Are you saying coaches don't progress with the times? Closing off one's mind to new ideas is not a very good formula for success. The coach creates the system and environment, the athletes have to do the work. Nic Rodgers had a very experienced coach and a lot of fast guys to train with. He probably would have been good in Pre's era, just 30 seconds slower. Why do you think Marc Davis raised such a fuss when he moved to Eugene and said he didn't see the big deal about Pre? After all, he had run faster times than Pre across the board, albeit 20 years later.

2) That's not even remotely close to what I'm saying. I would go so far as to say 90% of improvement, be it at the world class or average high school level, is due to being pushed toward higher and higher goals. Look at the "impossible" barriers that have been broken -- 4:00 for the mile, 8:00 for the 2 mile and 3k steeple, 13:00 for the 5k, 27:00 for the 10k, and possibly even 10.0 for the 100m -- once they go down, they tumble. Athletes of the world don't suddenly become better athletes collectively, they reassess what it means to run fast and set their sights on a new goal. The same thing happens gradually across eras. If you were running at a time when a 13:30 5k was fast, would you really think running 12:50 is necessary to be considered great? Most likely, you wouldn't even think it is possible. Fast forward 25 years to when 12:50 might not even medal in a major race... Suddenly the outlook on what is considered fast changes, as does the way you approach your training and racing to achieve that pace.

Regarding Scott, read what I said again about the US going through a down period of 15 years or so. You're ignoring what the rest of the world has done and looking just at a bleak period in US distance running.

I'm not sure what the Liquori/Wottle point is, other than the fact that those two also belong in any discussion of American greats. If anything, that supports my point that Pre was something special because he largely dominated at a time when he had legitimate competition domestically.

3) The numbers may not have been overwhelming, but the top notch African competition had certainly materialized by then. The Europeans were probably at the peak of their dominance, too. Kennedy's college teammates were nowhere near the level of Pre's. Those were Olympian-filled teams at Oregon!

Dan

[Leech Boy]

1) A
Dude are you high or something? Why are you bringing up Marc Davis? Davis is/was a good American runner. Davis's mile time is slightly faster than Pre's and his 3000 was a couple seconds faster than Pre's. Davis did run that one two mile really well and does hold the road 5000 american record But Davis NEVER ran faster than Pre in the 5000 or 10,000.
Mile = 3:54.30
3000m = 7:38.04
Two miles - 8:12.77 - AR at the time
5000m = 13:27.05
10,000m = 28:38.5

B. You realize 30 seconds is about 190 meters for these guys. Where do you get that? I would say new tracks and shoes maybe you would subtract at the very most 3/4 a second a lap, which for a 5000 would be about 9-10 seconds for a 5000. Where do you get 30?

2. So you are saying Pre didn't train hard enough or have the right mental attitude to run faster? I am confused since I thought that was why people love him so much.

3. Liquori/Wottle point was that he wasn't dominate as you may think. As I said before, Wottle beat Pre many times in the mile.

In 1974 Pre ran a two race where he tied Paul Geis. Pre wasn't really much better than Geis. Geis ran 13:23.38 for the 5000. Another American, •••• Buerkle, beat Pre in 1974 in a two mile. Buerkle ran 13:23.20 for the 5000.

But I question how good the Americans really were at that time. I mean how does a 34 year old 4 time Olympian, George Young, come down from the marathon to even challenge someone who was supposed to be the best ever American in 1972. Sure Young lost but of the two, I would have to say Young is the more impressive. Can you imagine Dehaven being able to race Kennedy?

[Dan]

How can you say times are the major determining factor across eras and then dismiss my Marc Davis analogy as me being high??? That's exactly the point you've been making -- since he's faster then people that came before him, he should be better. Right?

You don't see where I came up with 30 seconds? In the early 70's, it took low 13:20's to win a big meet 5k, now it takes around 12:50. No technical lap/pace calculations, just a simple matter of subtraction.

Pre probably trained as hard and smart as anyone at that time, and he would probably be just as tough as anyone now. I never said that group didn't train hard. Bannister probably didn't realize at the time that his group didn't train hard. It's in hindsight that people realize how much they could have done differently and where they could have pushed harder. Most people train in their comfort zone, whether or not they realize it. That's why running with someone faster than you is som important. It forces you to struggle to get to another level.

Are you suggesting the mile was Pre's strongest event? He may have thought so early in college, but I doubt anyone else shared that opinion.

Again, the fact that other Americans were running world class times to beat him on occasion does not mean he wasn't a great runner. If someone came along and ran a 12:50 to Kennedy's new AR 12:55 (hypothetical; that's about equivalent to Pre being beaten by a 13:23), would Kennedy suddenly be forgotten? Kennedy has had roughly zero domestic competition for much of the 90's, Pre was not so lucky...

Does Dehaven have an Olympic medal to bring to the table? Young had the hardware, so I don't see any real comparison there. Does that reflect poorly on Pre that he merely beat an Olympic medalist? Was it not enough that he also set an American Record in doing so, a time that would have won the Olympics?

Remember, I'm not trying to take anything away from the other great runners that have been discussed. I just don't understand your need to dismiss Pre's greatness simply because others idolize him (possibly too much).

Dan

[Guest]

Iam a huge Pre fan, yeah he is a great story. But if he would have never died at a young age people wouldnt talk about him as much as they do, or maybe they would cause he could have got faster and won in Montreal. But comparing Pre to runner in 90's and 2000, is like comparing Babe Ruth to Mark McGwire. Pre is one sense the greatest runner cause look at how we still talk about him, tons of web sites on him, movies, books, and still buy poster with him on it. The guy just had balls and knew how to race like no other American, no cares about times, times are always going to get faster.

[Anonymously Posted by: 'bmills107']

[Dan]

Are you also a Billy Mills fan?

Dan

[Leech Boy]

I went back and read this thread and it is very good. Thanks for the comments Dan. It was a fun debate.

[Micah Ward]

I hope most of you are still looking at this discussion group because I want to stir the pot a little on this subject. One criteria for rating the greatest is to look at how much a particular runner dominated their competition. With that in mind, what do you think about a female runner who has not been beat by another female in her event in over ten years, and who routinly beats all but just a few men in any given event and has won major events outright against male competition? My choice for the greatest goes to Ann Trason!!

[Dan]

Hi Micah,

I tend to agree with that criteria, although it's often difficult to tell if it is a sign of dominance or just poor competition. To take the example of another sport, were the Houston Rockets a truly great team when they won back to back NBA titles, or did they just benefit from Jordan's two year absence between three-peats?

I agree that Ann Trason is the dominant athlete of her particular sport (event), but I don't think there is a large enough particpatory pool of ultrarunners, especially women, to be placed at the top of the "best ever" list. Of course, it's completely subjective, so everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Dan

[Micah Ward]

Concerning the talent pool that Trason competes against I think two things are significant. First, not only does Trason beat all other women but there is no one else even close. Second, Trason even beats the top males in ultra trail runs and regularly finishes in the top 1% in races she enters. Is there any other female runner in the world that competes with the best men in her event with that type of success. Can you imagine a female finishing in the top 5 overall at the Boston Marathon or Peachtree Road Race?

[Dan]

Again, I don't question Trason's greatness in her sport, but your two points hardly refute my statement about a small pool of competition.

1) There is no depth of female competition.

2) There is little depth of male competition.

1+2 = There is little depth of competition.

Granted, it takes a special athlete to handle the rigors of ultra running, but imagine a thoroughbred like Paul Tergat racing at 2-3 minutes per mile slower than he typically runs 10k's and even half marathons at. One event isn't necessarily any easier than the other, but a larger pool of participation invariably draws better athletes.

Dan

[Micah Ward]

Dan, I love this stuff so let me throw this out. If Paul Tergat runs a 100K at 2:30 minutes per mile slower than his 10K pace then he finishs in 7 hours 3 minutes. That is 3 minutes SLOWER than Trason's PR which isn't even the world record anymore. A Japanese lady broke it earlier this year. But I will slightly concede your point about the competition while admiting to a strong bias toward ultrarunners in general and Trason in particular.

Now on to other stuff. It is hard to compare and judge greatness for runners of different eras if we rely on times and PRs as our criteria. Times get faster almost every year. That is why I like the criteria of comparing how runners faired against the world class competition of their era. Utilizing that criteria then, if we step out of distance running we have to give the crown to someone such as Edwin Moses, Carl Lewis or even Florence Griffith Joyner. If we stay with distance runners though, who has faired well against the world class competition of their day?

How about Bill Rodgers with four wins each at Boston and New York? Or Lynn Jennings with three World Cross Country titles? Or how about recognizing a career for its longevity and excellence...Steve Scott with more sub 4 miles than anyone else in history?

Like I said...I love this stuff!!!

Micah

[Leech Boy]

Didn't the Japanese woman blow away Trason's record? Trason did some really incredible things. She won pretty much all the major ultras and some the same year. But the competition isn't nearly the same as in track.

Bill Rodgers was pretty incredible. Outside of Boston, I don't think people even know his name.

Steve Scott was pretty darn good too.