The question was asked: who is/was the best miler ever.
I answered "Ryun on talent, Elliot on competitiveness."
YOU then argued my opinion (instead of expressing yours). Don't come around two pages later saying you didn't argue anything...what the hell else do you call it?
And what do you call someone who beat everybody if not competitive?
So he left the sport earlier than some others. So what? Are we supposed to base our opinions on some fool "what might have been if only.." type of thinking? In that case:
--Ryun would be considered the best ever IF ONLY he hadn't been tripped up at Munich.
--IF ONLY Coghlan had given up the prime indoor money and concentrated on outdoors, he'd have had a better chance of beating Coe in that Dubai mile.
--IF ONLY Walker had not lost two years to injury, he'd have lowered the world record at least a few seconds more, possibly discouraging Coe and Ovett from trying for it and beginning their back and forth battles of the early eighties.
--IF ONLY Ben Jipcho hadn't turned pro with the ITA group, he would have been the first under 3:50.
--IF ONLY the US hadn't boycotted Moscow, Scott might have used his strength to upset in the 1500 after getting through the tough rounds the easiest.
--IF ONLY I had been born with better genes resulting in a talent far beyond any of the milers named on this thread, this whole discussion would be moot!
My point is, your arguement is based on what if/if only and the only way to answer the initial question is by basing your answer on what actually WAS in reality.
P.S.ru4real=learn to read more accurately, argue rationally, and while you're at it, look up what condescending truly means.