Who was the "best" depends on your criteria of excellence. It can be a specialist or an all-rounder - as Keino tended to be.
At their peak, I think Ryun and Vasala were superior to Keino over the 1500/mile - notwithstanding the feat at Mexico that was favoured by altitude. Keino was nowhere near the ability of '67 Ryun, with his 3.33 1500 and his 3.51 mile. Vasala, who was a 1.44x 800 runner showed he was simply the better, faster, 1500 man when he beat him at Munich. (Jurgen May also beat Keino in '65, because he had a better finish.) Keino was meanwhile a more versatile athlete than they. Clarke, on the other hand, was a more prolific world record-breaker but did not fare as well in competition as Keino. Keino, however, never got near Clarke's records over the 5k and 10k.
Keino was probably the best all-rounder of his era, being competitive at every distance from 1500-10k, and including the steeplechase. But he held fewer world marks than some of his contemporaries - who had better times over the same distances - and was beaten by shorter-distance exponents - May, Ryun, Vasala - who had more finishing speed. At their best - and at their event - they were better than him and could beat him head to head, even if their careers were not as enduring.
So, in essence, no one else in his era was as versatile or had his range but there were others - specialists - who were better at their distances than he was (again, like Temu over 6m/10k).
Aside from the fluke that was his 1500 at Mexico I tend to think the race that best reflected his capabilities was his 3k record.
Evidently Keino wasn't the best mile/1500m runner at least from the times he clocked, but I think he was the best olympic runner even for 1500m when both OGs are taken into account. And even when he was worse in Munich, interestingly Pekka Vasala specifically said that he wouldn't focus on two distances after breaking the 800m European record (1:44.5), because it was just too difficult to triumph in two distances. Keino did just the opposite, and in addition to having many extra rounds to run, he could've lost most of his appetite after the 3000m steeplechase gold.
Whereas his PBs for 1500 and mile were very slightly slower than the fastest runner(s), Keino does hold one technically unique WR record in the era, mainly his 3000m time of 7:39.6. It is the longest distance with the highest IIAF score, 1179, and there wasn't a better IIAF score for that distance or the longer ones until his 3000m record was broken by Emiel Puttemans in 1972. It would roughly be equal to the following times in other distances, all the longer ones broken only ~a decade later:
The obvious handicap for Keino was that the distances from 3000m to 10000m do not appear to have been that competed during his era that much highlighted by some really slow seasonal best times, e.g. 5000m of 13:28.96 (1969). Particularly 5000m looks interesting being quite similar to 3000m. When Keino broke the 5000m WR 13:24.2 in 1965, the physiologist Bengt Saltin said he wasn't surprised at all and revealed some details about Keino's test results, and his effort was described as a "morsel" ("munsbit") in the Swedish press. It would be interesting to know how many 5000m races he had at all at sea level after that.
And I think he is the best runner of his era because there is no other alternative candidate. WRs (one unique) and many PBs with almost WR times + most olympic medals during the era. Whatever one's criteria are, any other candidate doesn't come even close.
And I fully acknowledge that it would've been interesting to see Jim Ryun and Ron Clarke competing against the Kenyans at sea level in 1968.
I think your argument that he was the best of his era is mostly based on the sheer range of his achievements, in which I grant he exceeds anyone else from the mid-60's to the early '70's, rather than the height of any specific achievement vis a vis his contemporaries. I would make an argument that some in his era were better at their absolute best than Keino. That includes Ryun, who owned him till glandular fever in '68, Clarke's stream of superior world records, and Vasala's convincing victory in Munich. But they were not as versatile or as enduring in the careers. (Vasala not electing to run the 800 at Munich showed how impressive Snell's double was in Tokyo. It may also, for scheduling reasons, be a more difficult double than the 5k/10k - Viren - or the 1500/5k - El G). In a way, Keino was the Daley Thompson or "decathlete" of middle distances, but not the Elliott, Snell or Coe, who at their peak were the absolute top of the mountain over their distances.
Comparing the versatility of different runners during the running boom 1980s to the 1960s is almost pointless and comparing apples to oranges (different amount of competitions, traveling cost different, different amount of top level competitors etc). Interestingly I still don't even know if anyone ever has won both 3000m steeplechase gold and 1500m gold at Olympic level like Keino did.
Again, what is truth behind the Charlie Francis - story? And are you the only one claiming that Keino doped or is there a published source you can refer to?
On general level, everyone in the 1980s was more likely to dope than in the 1960s. By a magnitude far more likely to blood dope, because the common view is that the method didn't even exist until the early 1970s.
HGH existed by the 1980s and there was also at least more know-how about steroid use even when taking astronomical amounts up until major competitions was limited (not a common strategy in endurance sports anyway).
Comparing the versatility of different runners during the running boom 1980s to the 1960s is almost pointless and comparing apples to oranges (different amount of competitions, traveling cost different, different amount of top level competitors etc). Interestingly I still don't even know if anyone ever has won both 3000m steeplechase gold and 1500m gold at Olympic level like Keino did.
Again, what is truth behind the Charlie Francis - story? And are you the only one claiming that Keino doped or is there a published source you can refer to?
On general level, everyone in the 1980s was more likely to dope than in the 1960s. By a magnitude far more likely to blood dope, because the common view is that the method didn't even exist until the early 1970s.
HGH existed by the 1980s and there was also at least more know-how about steroid use even when taking astronomical amounts up until major competitions was limited (not a common strategy in endurance sports anyway).
Not so much in the case of Keino, who as I explained earlier in the thread, was practically full-time 20 years before it was the norm (outside of the Soviet Bloc). He was 28 when he won 1500m gold and 32 when he won steeplechase gold. Most non-African athletes retired by age 24 or 25 to pursue a career. East Africa had the same system back then as they do now - where the top athletes get paid as 'policemen' or such like and in reality, are simply full-time athletes. Kiprop and Rudisha were both paid 'policemen', but probably never did a days work of policing.
The Charlie Francis claim has been made multiple times on this board. I believe it comes from his 1990 book 'Speed Trap'. I will try to get hold of it as soon as possible.
Steroid use was rampant in the 1960's. The US Decathalon gold medalist from 1968 admitted using roids and estimated that at least 1/3 of his team mates were also roiding. GB was one of the first countries (if not the first) to have random testing by the 1980s.
Blood doping existed and was common among cyclists in the 1960s.
Kenio's performance in the 1968 Games defies belief. If it happened today, even the hardened doping apologists here would accept it was suspicious. Literally climbing out of a hospital bed, missing the bus to the stadium and running all the way, then producing an out of this world performance to crush Jim Ryun. I've read Jim Ryun being quoted as saying the reason he didn't chase Keino was because he genuinely thought he (Keino) might collapse and die going off at that pace, knowing his supposed health condition. He never came close to matching that run, before or after. AND he (as well as all the other Kenyans) were in poor form for most of that Summer leading up to the Olympics. And let's not forget a couple of years ago he was arrested for fraud and syphoning off money intended for young Kenyan athletes into his own bank accounts, but the charges were dropped when members of the Kenyan parliament intervened.
No. Spend less time exercising to Keino videos and more time working on your maths, logic, and life skills.
Mike Boit 1:43.57 Sebastian Coe 1:41.73
--------------------1.84
When you live in a fantasy world, as he does, factual veracity is not to be expected.
Boit's NR was 1:43.57
Coe's NR was 1:42.33
a 1.24 difference
To challange that Kenya was the no. 1 nation in the period 1964 - 1979 by giving a time from 1981 is not to beat in his stupidity, also both of you have equaled it several times.
The difference from 1:41.73 to 1:42.28 is 0.55 - but both of you don't know anything and don't understand anything.
But just the attempt to challange the fact that Kenya is the no. 1 nation by a single time (even if from the right time frame) is just laughable.
The fact that both of you have not given a single country which you think has done better than Kenya is eye opening.
Give this country and we compare the success of this country to Kenyas success. But you will not, because Kenya will come first, a fact you just don't like.
But if you like it or not, it will not change reality.
Interestingly, 1968 was the first time an official complaint about steroids was being heard. This complaint wasn't made by sports authorities, but by the World Health Organization. Apparently steroids were being dumped in some third world countries with a kickback volume incentive for doctors. The doctors became quite creative in finding reasons to prescribe steroids, citing everything from malnutrition to menstrual cramps. Coincidentally, the two main countries cited in the report were Kenya and Jamaica, countries that burst into prominence at the 1968 Olympics.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is flushed with victory after catching their first group of athletes for blood doping offenses 31 years after they invented the practice of testing.
Kip Keino was not the most versatile athlete ever.
1:46.41 and 13:26 does not compare to 1:44.0 and 13:20 by Steve Ovett.
Ovett's 1/2 marathon and his 65:08 (jogging most of the way in a race he used as a last minute training run when his plane was cancelled, in borrowed shoes) 1 year after coming 5th in the 800m Olympic final, is a greater achievement and evidence of versatility than Keino's 1:46.41 and 28:06 10k.
Ovett ran 12 seconds faster for two miles waving to the crowd!
And they were not from completely different generations. Ovett ran his 800m pb just 6 years after Keino ran his - 2 1/2 seconds faster.
And if you want to compare by how close their performances were to the then current world records - Ovett's 1/2 marathon time was just 3 minutes and 1 second off the world record (it would have been less than 2 minutes off if run a few weeks earlier in the year). Keino's 10000m pb in 1972 was 30 seconds off the WR.
By the age of 22, Ovett had pbs in every event from the 800m to the 1/2 marathon (except the 10000m which he didn't run) which would have been the WR no more than 12 years previously (except, ironically, for the 1500m). This was a guy who never ran for times until he was 24 and was chasing Coe's WRs.
Aouita was far more versatile than Keino, and no more likely to have been doping than him.
When someone has to rely on a time 4.4% slower than the womens world record (something like a 2m high jump), he has no serious argument. Keinos 10000m mark is 3.1% under the womens world record.
1:44.09 for sure gets a 1:44.0
2.32 difference for sure gets 2 1/2 seconds
Keino was
no. 3 all-time at 10000m
no. 7 all-time at the steeple
comparing their 2 Miles PBs is nonsense when we know Keino's 3000m WR is at least as good as Ovett's 2 Miles mark.
Keino and Ovett are seperated by 15 years. 15 years in which the level in all the events has improved a lot.
Ovett was extremely versatile, Keino clearly was more versatile.
Interestingly, 1968 was the first time an official complaint about steroids was being heard. This complaint wasn't made by sports authorities, but by the World Health Organization. Apparently steroids were being dumped in some third world countries with a kickback volume incentive for doctors. The doctors became quite creative in finding reasons to prescribe steroids, citing everything from malnutrition to menstrual cramps. Coincidentally, the two main countries cited in the report were Kenya and Jamaica, countries that burst into prominence at the 1968 Olympics.
That was the same article I tracked a few years ago, and linked to at LRC. Even presuming the reference to the WHO article is accurate, the claim is far from the entire Kenyan endurance running team either confessing or being tested positive at the 1968 Olympics. Hyperbole doesn't increase your case, but makes you only look dubious. Whereas many athletes are known to have used steroids in the 1960s, it is strikingly difficult to find any references to endurance athletes that decade even when almost certainly some of them did.
About cyclists and blood doping in the 1960s, the only reference I've seen making this claim is the vague reference to Jacques Anquetil in one research paper written decades after the fact. Author Feargal McKay looked at the source material and almost certainly debunked the claim. Anquetil did indeed go through some weird blood ozone therapy, but it had nothing to do with elevating hemoglobin count.
The great majority of this thread has become a diversion. It is an attempt to prove that there is no connection between the idealised Kenya of the past and the country that it has become - one of the transparently worst dopers in distance running today. Yet if Kenya was historically a world leader in the sport, - as is claimed - without doping, there is no adequate reason given for why it should have become the virtual East German equivalent that it has today. Talent and success don't require doping - so we are told. Yet, here they are - one of the worst offenders. The reason for that will indeed lie in the past. They will have begun doping any way they could once they entered the sport, and that means was available decades ago.
When you live in a fantasy world, as he does, factual veracity is not to be expected.
Boit's NR was 1:43.57
Coe's NR was 1:42.33
a 1.24 difference
To challange that Kenya was the no. 1 nation in the period 1964 - 1979 by giving a time from 1981 is not to beat in his stupidity, also both of you have equaled it several times.
The difference from 1:41.73 to 1:42.28 is 0.55 - but both of you don't know anything and don't understand anything.
But just the attempt to challange the fact that Kenya is the no. 1 nation by a single time (even if from the right time frame) is just laughable.
The fact that both of you have not given a single country which you think has done better than Kenya is eye opening.
Give this country and we compare the success of this country to Kenyas success. But you will not, because Kenya will come first, a fact you just don't like.
But if you like it or not, it will not change reality.
Hahaha, you are getting beyond parody. To think that the question as to whether Kenya was the leading distance running nation between 1964 - 1979 (sure you began with 1964 - 1980) rests on Coe running his pb in 1981 is pretty farcial. You really do need to get a life.
The great majority of this thread has become a diversion. It is an attempt to prove that there is no connection between the idealised Kenya of the past and the country that it has become - one of the transparently worst dopers in distance running today. Yet if Kenya was historically a world leader in the sport, - as is claimed - without doping, there is no adequate reason given for why it should have become the virtual East German equivalent that it has today. Talent and success don't require doping - so we are told. Yet, here they are - one of the worst offenders. The reason for that will indeed lie in the past. They will have begun doping any way they could once they entered the sport, and that means was available decades ago.
If the enormous Kenyan success (not "success" Army) in the 1960s and 1970s was just due to doping is something I can't know. Maybe it was.
But you are denying that they have had this success. Despite all the amount of facts which were presented to you in just this thread. You still deny they have had this success. You have challenged it so far by the name of some individuals. Anything, absolutely anything which I have written in this thread is just completely correct. Any number. Any resasoning. To wipe this just away without going into some point is just eye opening (the unbelievable Keino/Clarke issue - a 6 second better 5k PB from Clarke manifests that he is faster, despite regularly losing to Keino at the big one to Keino, despite over 7 seconds better PB from Keino in the 1500m and Mile - hey, Keino is faster than Clarke if you ADD their 1500m and 5000m times (and Clarke has regularly raced over 1500m/Mile, also during his prime) - IF Clarke is faster than Keino (as you claimed) than it's a 100% consequence that Keino is faster than Clarke). But you will NEVER accept when beeing wrong, never.
The USA (250 million population?) still has had much more depth back then. But the still relatively low number of Kenyan top runners resulted in leading in almost any measurable metric someone might think of.
The altitude of Mexico 68 might have some favor for Kenyans compared to most other countries, but Temu has beaten Clarke also at the 66 Commonwealth Games (same for Keino) and Kenya also was the most successful nation in Mexico in the middle distances. Kenya was also the most successful in the middle distances in Munich - a pure fact, if you like it or not.
Kenya today is not the equivalent of the GDR from the late 1960s to 1990. In the GDR there was a state organized program going, talents were searched right from Kindergaten, doping was organized by the federation.
The GDR success wah heavily influenced by doping, but also here doping is just one of many reasond for the success. As far as we know, the doping in Kenya is an individual affair (or from some groups). But not state organized. The runners who dope do it to have mor success, it's not hard to understand (no hard for you). Kenya as hundreds or thousands of runners, much more than any other nation. How many dope? We don't know. 10%? 20%? 50%? 100%? We just don't know.
BUt we know that Kenya was the most successful nation in the period 1964 - 1979 in the track distances. If you still dispute this despite the enormous amount of facts which I have presented, than name just a single country which you thin was more successful in this period. Than we can compare them. To wipe this just away, is just an statement about yourself.
Now point on my username which you don't like, change the period, ask me something different which I have answerd several times, tell me Herb Elliott would have won in Montreal and Peter Snell in Los Angeles if not for..., just write squirrel(?), point on the fact that I'm not a native speaker and so on.
To challange that Kenya was the no. 1 nation in the period 1964 - 1979 by giving a time from 1981 is not to beat in his stupidity, also both of you have equaled it several times.
The difference from 1:41.73 to 1:42.28 is 0.55 - but both of you don't know anything and don't understand anything.
But just the attempt to challange the fact that Kenya is the no. 1 nation by a single time (even if from the right time frame) is just laughable.
The fact that both of you have not given a single country which you think has done better than Kenya is eye opening.
Give this country and we compare the success of this country to Kenyas success. But you will not, because Kenya will come first, a fact you just don't like.
But if you like it or not, it will not change reality.
Hahaha, you are getting beyond parody. To think that the question as to whether Kenya was the leading distance running nation between 1964 - 1979 (sure you began with 1964 - 1980) rests on Coe running his pb in 1981 is pretty farcial. You really do need to get a life.
Jesus Christ. Track & Field News always changes their yearly and decade rankings years after. Coe is their AOY for 1980 because of his 1981 records.
I have not began with 1964 - 1980. Show me this post.
Which nation was more successful than Kenya in the given period? A 1.24 better NR from Great Britain at the end of this period is not enough. From 64 to 72, Kenya has won five Olympic medals in the middle distances compared to zero from GB.
GB was also good with world records in the 3000 and 10000m and then Coe and Ovett at the end. But they can't challenge Kenya. It's not even close.
You have stated that you will leave the sport if there will be proof that Coe and Ovett were dopers.
You wouldn't. You would NEVER accept it. You don't even accept the most objective measure which we have in this sport: times and medals. A proof for Coe and Ovett beeing dopers would be challenged by you until death.
Coe was literally running against Boit in the 80's. Several of his WRs Boit was second. Boit set his 1500 and mile pbs in 1981 chasing Coe.
That's true.
What has it to do with the fact that Kenya was the most successful nation in the period 1964 - 1979? Coe is the greatest middle distance runner in history. Part of his success was in the 1970s. But his and Ovett's success combined can't make GB more successful than Kenya over a 16 year period (1 silver and 2 bronze medals from GB in the four Olympics combined). Kenya was the most successful nation. Which country do you think was more successful?
You have stated that you will leave the sport if there will be proof that Coe and Ovett were dopers.
You wouldn't. You would NEVER accept it. You don't even accept the most objective measure which we have in this sport: times and medals. A proof for Coe and Ovett beeing dopers would be challenged by you until death.
Yes I would, although I don't think I said that. I probably said that if one or two British middle-distance runners of today got busted, I would leave the sport. Or that if it was proven Coe or Ovett (or Cram) doped, then I would doubt all of them.
Kenya was not the leading distance running nation, no matter how you try to arbitarily set boundaries on your claim. You can't ignore the fact that they were non-existant in the marathon, which most people consider the ultimate yardstick of 'distance running' success. Look at all the marathoners that other countries produced. A fair few of them would surely have shone on the track if they had chosen to pursue that.
Kenya enjoyed success on the track in the 60's and 70's because they were full-time professional athletes who were fortunate enough to be able to continue their careers well past the age at which most Western athletes were effectively forced to retire at. Despite that, the biggest stars and the best runners of the 60's and 70's were not Kenyan. There are also strong reasons to believe doping was an issue with Kenyans even in the 60's and 70's, not least as Armstrong points out, they are doping en masse today, so their culture is prone to it.
