Bannister didn't win any Olympic or world championship races.
He didn't even run as fast as John Landy.
El G is on a much higher plane. He has won the championships and he has the records.
~
Edith if you get all the other runnners banned, then use drugs or tents or whatever, you'd be the only one left wouldn't you. But that doesn't mean you're the best.
First of all, its hard to compare times from different eras, as has been stated here ad nauseum.
Secondly, medals and championships do count more than times. Zatopec is still arguably the best distance runner of all time (save, perhaps, Haile) because of his incredible 5k-10k-marathon triple. According to your argument, every NCAA champion in the 5k and 10k (and most All-Americans) is a better runner than Zatopec simply because they ran faster. Medals are a better comparison becuase it shows which person is the best given the technology of the time (shoes, tracks), training methodology and information (exercise physiology) and mental barriers of the era (like the 4 min mile).
Yes, Paula has run much faster than IK, BUT she hasn't shown the domination of the international running community demonstrated by IK, Zatopec, or Haile. If she goes into the 2003 WC 10k and demolishes the field, or starts routinely spanking all the African competition that had previously beat her (Adere, Wami, Tulu), then we can start to recognize her as the best female distance runner of all time. However, she has not demonstrated this yet on the track. She is the best female MARATHONER hands down, but she still loses out on the track thus far. The future will tell...I fully expect her to dominate on the track, but we'll have to wait and see.
I appreciate Paula's new fitness level; however, unless she
runs the 10000m Worlds from the front-to grind the life out of the other runners-and push from start to finish she won't win. Tulu, Wami, & Sun (Chi) all have run under 30:30 with or without competition, indicating that they along with Paula can run much faster. Paula CAN DEFINETLY
dominate the marathon for awhile; however, the 10000m won't be so easy even if she runs 29:45! She deserves to win but someone have to tell and convince the Ethopians of that!
sevatonic wrote:
D2FAN was right. You dont compare Bannister and Hicham. You dont compare Lundgren with Ritz. You don't compare Prefontaine with Webb. And even if you do, the result is obvious : Earlier runners are always better.
karangasem.
And why are earlier runners *always better*?
Because runners now are inferior despite more advanced training etc?
Or because times get tighter so it is harder to clean up all-round like the best runners did back then?
If you transported PR back in time to when Bannister was running or earlier she could probably sweep the men's field as well as the womens' because athletics has moved on some, you know?
A few months after breaking the sub-4 barrier Bannister raced Landy at the British Empire Games in Vancouver (which later became the Commonwealth Games). In the intervening period Landy had broken Bannister's record. It was billed as the race of the century. Banister won.
runningrebel wrote:
First of all, its hard to compare times from different eras, as has been stated here ad nauseum.
Secondly, medals and championships do count more than times.
First statement is true, second false: if times don't fairly compare athletic ability in different eras (because unfair on early competitors), then counting medals and championships more than times is equally unfair on later athletes who have to compete against stronger standards.
Perhaps it would be fairer to say that early athletes ran closer to their *natural* abilities as amateurs which was the Olympic ideal. How much better would they have run given the latest professional training and technology?
Impossible to say but it don't make them better than now!
If we can't make too meaningful comparisons across the generations, we should be able to recognise that it gets harder to dominate all-round and not specialise more than they did back then.
Edith
SlgEdith wrote:
[quote]runningrebel wrote:
it gets harder to dominate all-round and not specialise more than they did back then.
Radcliffe doesn't dominate. She eliminates. Big difference.
[/quote]Radcliffe doesn't dominate. She eliminates. Big difference.[/quote]
Yeah, has anyone else noticed how the African and Asian runners convieniently turned into corpses to let Radcliffe win in London and Chicago? Wierd. Someone should tell the cops!
dunes runner wrote:
SlgEdith wrote:[quote]runningrebel wrote:
it gets harder to dominate all-round and not specialise more than they did back then.
Radcliffe doesn't dominate. She eliminates. Big difference.
1. Paula is faster
2. Ingrid was better, so far.
3. Dunes runner is an idiot.
dunes runner wrote:
[quote]SlgEdith wrote:
[quote]runningrebel wrote:
it gets harder to dominate all-round and not specialise more than they did back then.
Hello,
That was me replying to runningrebel not quoting her. Sigh.
dont even think to COMPARE ive said.
why dont u just bring ur beloved PR to 1000BC?
u dun still get wut i mean?
First you agree with d2fan up there and now you don't. I get it.
Zacherie
I agree with your No. 1 and 2 comments wholeheartedly.
My point is faster doesn't always mean better overall!
Vipam
Zacherle wrote:
1. Paula is faster
2. Ingrid was better, so far.
3. Dunes runner is an genius.
Well thank you Zacherle. What a nice compliment.
Yeah, well, if Jonathan Edwards was a chick, he'd be better than all of them!
...and if they didn't have stop watches they would swear they ran faster back then too.
Maybe she will do the FloJo and retire...
wut do u mean?
cant u read it clearly?
earlier runners are always better: i can say the cavemen were better runners. they can survive by catching 'cheetahs'.
sorry i mean by running away from 'cheetahs'
they didn't get away from me.
love,
paula