Men's Marathon World Rankings: Geoffrey Kirui is #1, Eliud Kipchoge #2... Galen Rupp #6

I understand the argument for Kamworor ahead of Adola.

Here we factored in that Adola lost to Kipchoge who is clearly the best at the marathon distance. And there may be some inconsistency but the criteria we look at to see if you're #1 in year isn't necessarily the same as if you're #8. A guy who didn't win could never be #1 over someone who did but #8 he can be.

In the "has anyone broken the world record in practice" thread someone points out they paced Regina Jacobs to a world record in a mixed race. This race wasn't recognized by anyone. Should that factor into rankings? Same issue applies to Breaking2.

If we're going to establish more Breaking2 type attempts then going forward we might include them in the rankings. But as is it was a fabulous exhibition event.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8611508

What about the hour record? This used to be a big deal. Say Kipchoge ran 15 miles in an hour instead of Berlin next fall. What then?

In the cycling world the hour record comes in and out of favor, and somehow is a thing, even though it's just laps around an indoor (mostly any more) track. What if Adola ran laps around an indoor track and set a marathon record?

Where does Nick Symmonds rank in all of this?

Lmfaorofl wrote:

Geoffrey Kirui lmfao. Is this a joke?

Kirui won the two of the weakest WMM's this year. Boston and the World Championships are a joke compared to the other majors. The problem is that Americans think Boston is soooo great when in reality, it's the defacto choice for the guys who can't handle London. The World championship is the lowest of them all as the best don't even run. There was 10 guys at least in 2017 who would have dominated Kirui had they run Boston and the World championships. This ranking is a joke that gives too much creedence to inferior races.

Lol lol. So of course to some bumbletwats Boston quality is not nearly as good as London and Berlin quality. Is that why Boston has the largest purse in running? Berlin has like two decent runners and now all of a sudden it's a more respected marathon than Boston? Just because the race is a circus show with a million pacers and being completely flat doesn't all of a sudden make it a superior marathon. Bring those "awesome" runners from Berlin and watch them fold one by one in Boston.

I often worry about the lack of brains here. Have people not heard of Bekele, the literally best runner in the world? He is ranked number one, and I look forward to seeing him run the marathon world record this year. He is so far ahead of Kirui it's crazy.

Beautiful Day wrote:

What about the hour record? This used to be a big deal. Say Kipchoge ran 15 miles in an hour instead of Berlin next fall. What then?

It certainly wouldn’t count for the marathon rankings (just like Breaking 2). Now, if it were generic road racing rankings (or, long road race rankings, even), that 1-hour record would count (assuming it was run on the road, which, now that I think about it, would be unlikely). But Breaking 2 wouldn’t.

Pete Sampras beat Roger Federer in an exhibition match five years after Sampras retired:

It wasn’t an official, WTA-sanctioned event, so while it may have proven that Sampras was still one of the best tennis players in the world, he didn’t reappear in the world rankings because of it. That’s because that tennis exhibition was exactly what Breaking 2 was: A silly season event by an all-time great that may have at the same time proven that the athlete was (one of) the best in the world while also in no way impacting rankings based on performance in official events.

Banana Bread wrote:

I often worry about the lack of brains here. Have people not heard of Bekele, the literally best runner in the world? He is ranked number one, and I look forward to seeing him run the marathon world record this year. He is so far ahead of Kirui it's crazy.

Bekele #1? At some point. In the 5000 and 10000 yes. In the half marathon and marathon, now, no. 5 out of 10 times he is a DNF. 4.9 out of 10 times he gets whupped by a nobody (ex. D. Wanjiru). He only had one good run his entire half and full marathon career. That makes him #1?? wth

It's beyond craziness to conflate Kipchoge's 2hr run with an exhibition tennis game including retired past Tennis greats. Even crazier to conflate it with a practice throw of a javelin.

The sub 2 run wasn't a watered down event, it was watered UP. It was quite possibly the greatest marathoner ever running 26 miles in the best shape of his life.

The comparison with Bannister is a good one. Who in their right mind would suggest that, in the history of racing a mile, that race wasn't supremely significant?

There is absolutely nothing that happened in 2017 that suggested Kirui is a better marathoner than Kipchoge for the year.

The marathon is a good bit different than track. The athletes largely determine which event matters most, not the editorial board on a website.

Although they may differ in a lot of ways (of course they do, they're different events/sports), they're all alike in at least one major way: that they weren't conducted under the accepted rules and conditions that allow them to be considered for record-eligibility in their sport/event.

I don't disagree with the second sentence, although the first sentence uses some strange terminology. Breaking 2 was built maximally for time in a way that no marathon conducted within the rules of competition can be. I think that's what you mean by "watered UP." If so, I also agree with that.

Nobody would suggest that Bannister's sub-4 wasn't very significant in the history of the mile (depending on the definition of supremely used, you might get some argument, but that's neither here nor there--it's on the Mount Rushmore, and I happen to think that even if your definition of supremely means solely the top one, that Bannister's accomplishment meets that criteria, too).

I also wouldn't contest the claim that Kipchoge's Breaking 2 attempt was significant in the history of the marathon (although if we were to call it "supremely significant" and we're using the strict definition of "supremely" I would contest that).

But there are at least two things that make the above statements irrelevant to the argument at-hand:

1) In an early sub-4 attempt, Bannister had a pacer fall a lap behind to be able to begin to pace him later in the race; he ran just over 4 minutes and broke the British record in that attempt, but the governing body of British Athletics wouldn't sanction the record. Bannister himself later said that he was glad not to have broken 4 minutes under "such artificial conditions." That's the race that seems most analogous to Kipchoge's, both in that he didn't break the barrier and that it wasn't accepted for legitimate record-keeping purposes. So the race that you're comparing Kipchoge's to isn't the best comp, and the race that is the best comp wouldn't make your case.

2) Whether something is significant (supremely or otherwise) in the historical context of its event is largely unrelated to whether the person who has accomplished that significant thing should be ranked #1 on a list of performers for a specified time period. Those are different accolades that are judged by different criteria.

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. Kipchoge is the best marathoner we've ever seen to-date. But see #2 in the section above and replace "something is significant (supremely or otherwise) in the historical context of its event" with "someone is the best ever at their event."

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with the above statement (except the part about the editorial board of the website not deciding, which is obviously true, but also a red herring--they made a value judgment here, but it was also pretty much in line with a lot of mainstream thinking about what marathons are most import--the WMMs, WCs, and other major city marathons are all considered at or near the top of the heap, and that's what their rankings reflect) and I see how it's related to the argument, but I'm also not sure that even if it's true it supports your argument. If I accept your premise that athletes determine the importance of a marathon (which, again, I'm not sure I do), do I believe that because the best marathoner in the world (who was the only truly top marathoner offered a spot in Breaking 2) chose Breaking 2 over London any other legitimate spring marathon that that makes Breaking 2 the most important marathon of the year (over races like the other World Marathon Majors that were chosen by many of the top marathoners in the world)? I don't think it does.

In conclusion:

Mike Trout is the best baseball player in the world. He didn't win the 2017 American League Most Valuable Player because he didn't play enough games in 2017, but he is still the best baseball player in the world and is the player most likely to have the best season in 2018.

Kipchoge is the best marathoner in the world. He didn't top the 2017 LetsRun.com rankings because he didn't run enough official marathons in 2017, but he is still the best marathoner in the world and is the marathoner most likely to have the best marathon season in 2018.

The only way this isn't true is if you include Breaking 2, an exhibition conducted under unique circumstances outside of the accepted rules of competition, in Kipchoge's "games played" total for 2017 (or if you really, really overvalue his performance at Berlin).

It seems like a lot of you have a huge issue with the fact that LetsRun.com didn't count Kipchoge's performance in (the fun, exciting, and unique) Breaking 2 (exhibition). I don't have an issue with that. It wasn't an official competition, and if you're going to have rules about what counts and what doesn't when evaluating who was the best marathon competitor in 2017, that seems like the as good a dividing line as any to me (if not the best one).

"Kipchoge is the best marathoner in the world right now" - continues to put him 2nd in their rankings.

Yes, Boston has the highest purse but the bigwigs prefer to race London and Berlin because their records will count, Boston won't. My guess is that besides the money they want their records to be official.

The American list is embarrassingly slow

No Jared Ward on the list for the Americans? Why????