Greatest British Sports Man/Woman

[Bazzaboy]

I think it is a mistake to judge distance runners by times when judging their greatness.

In the 100m, there are no tactics in terms of opponents, you just execute your race plan, which in John Virgo terms is "run as fast as you can". So to win titles you need to be close to world record pace

In the 5K/10K, it is far more tactical with the early laps being run at snail's pace. It is 1.0000001 that a record time will be set in the final of a championship race.

When records are set in the 5K/10K, they are stage managed events with pacemakers.

Mo seems interested in only winning titles. He is competing in fields that have 3 runners from the same country who may be running to a team race plan designed to upset his race plan. You only have to look at the way Mo finishes races off to see how majestic he is.

His full race times may not be great compared to WR times/attempts but I reckon his last 400/800m would compare very favourably. An empty claim without the data, I know but it's just as empty as using his time in a final to judge his overall greatness

He is only interested in winning titles because he wouldn't get anywhere near a WR. As has been said he is dominating a very weak era in distance running. There's no doubt he is a very good championship runner and very strong in the last 400/800m but in a stronger era he would have been tailed off before that stage as the Africans would have taken it out hard to negate his finish. They aren't doing that because none of them are capable of running a fast 10k either.

[ruud]

I still think Derek would have won gold in Barcelona but for his hamstring. Some great British 400m runners round then but he could've been the best. 44.5 was a great time then. Or now tbh

I'm sorry but this is complete sentimental tosh. Quincy Watts ran 43.50 in the final, the second fastest time ever (at the time) and beat Steve Lewis (champion in Seoul) into silver. Injury free, Watts would have been pushing MJ throughout the 90's. Redmond would have been scrapping around for the bronze but that's as good as it gets I'm afraid. Expect 44.50 to be very ordinary over next 5-6 years if this season is anything to go by. You may have to run sub 44 to be in the final in Rio.

The reason Thompson, Coe, Radcliffe, Jackson & Edwards come out on top in this list for me is that they would still be in the top 5 ever when discussing their events now.

Bekele, Gebresellaisse, Tergat, Skah, Farah for me in my lifetime of 5k/10k, so he's in the discussion - but only just

[arbboy]

I still think Derek would have won gold in Barcelona but for his hamstring. Some great British 400m runners round then but he could've been the best. 44.5 was a great time then. Or now tbh

I'm sorry but this is complete sentimental tosh. Quincy Watts ran 43.50 in the final, the second fastest time ever (at the time) and beat Steve Lewis (champion in Seoul) into silver. Injury free, Watts would have been pushing MJ throughout the 90's. Redmond would have been scrapping around for the bronze but that's as good as it gets I'm afraid. Expect 44.50 to be very ordinary over next 5-6 years if this season is anything to go by. You may have to run sub 44 to be in the final in Rio.

The reason Thompson, Coe, Radcliffe, Jackson & Edwards come out on top in this list for me is that they would still be in the top 5 ever when discussing their events now.

Bekele, Gebresellaisse, Tergat, Skah, Farah for me in my lifetime of 5k/10k, so he's in the discussion - but only just

Imagine what they would have done with top level lottery funding throughout their careers which most didn't have and all the performance centres and improvements in training and nutrition since they competed yet, quite correctly, like you state their marks still stand as world class (or still world records to this day) despite this.

[JohnCharver]

I still think Derek would have won gold in Barcelona but for his hamstring. Some great British 400m runners round then but he could've been the best. 44.5 was a great time then. Or now tbh

I'm sorry but this is complete sentimental tosh. Quincy Watts ran 43.50 in the final, the second fastest time ever (at the time) and beat Steve Lewis (champion in Seoul) into silver. Injury free, Watts would have been pushing MJ throughout the 90's. Redmond would have been scrapping around for the bronze but that's as good as it gets I'm afraid. Expect 44.50 to be very ordinary over next 5-6 years if this season is anything to go by. You may have to run sub 44 to be in the final in Rio.

The reason Thompson, Coe, Radcliffe, Jackson & Edwards come out on top in this list for me is that they would still be in the top 5 ever when discussing their events now.

Bekele, Gebresellaisse, Tergat, Skah, Farah for me in my lifetime of 5k/10k, so he's in the discussion - but only just

Imagine what they would have done with top level lottery funding throughout their careers which most didn't have and all the performance centres and improvements in training and nutrition since they competed yet, quite correctly, like you state their marks still stand as world class (or still world records to this day) despite this.

tbf I think paulas records are so good because she was ahead of her time, which includes today. Dont think lottery funding is relevant to anyone who makes it to the top, its relevant to getting them in and keeping them in until they reach a stage where money isnt a concern.

[samurai]

Redmond ran 44.5 in 1987. That time would have come 5th in the 2015 world championship. That's pretty impressive. Maybe he wouldn't have challenged Watts and Lewis in the final. I think he may have done as he was in the form of his life . Both the Americans trained by John Smith (I Think)which casts some doubt over the legitimacy of their times.
Maybe 44.5 will look ordinary in 6 years time but that's irrelevant when discussing an athlete who retired over 20 years ago. Finally can't imagine it's going to be necessary to run sub 44 to get to the final in Rio. Only the medallists beat that in this year's final. Be an amazing final if true though!!

[JohnCharver]

MP all but names Radcliffe as british athlete with questionable blood data.

"When you hear that the London Marathon, potentially the winners or medallists at the London Marathon, potentially British athletes are under suspicion for very high levels of blood doping....When you think of the effect that has on young people and the community nature of that event, what are your emotions about that, how do you feel about that?"

Radcliffe felt the need to defend herself

"I categorically deny that I have resorted to cheating in any form whatsoever at any time in my career, and am devastated that my name has even been linked to these wide-ranging accusations."

[arbboy]

what is mp?

[JohnCharver]

what is mp?

Sorry member of parliament, parliamentary select committee has all but named her as the high profile british athlete who had abnormal results

Radcliffe "I was made aware that I would be facilitating mass coverage of my name in connection with false allegations of possible doping, which would enable further irreparable damage to be done to my reputation. As a result of today's parliamentary hearing I can no longer maintain my silence."

[david3103]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/08/paula-radcliffe-denies-cheating-parliamentary-committee

[arbboy]

Haven't MP's got more important issues to discuss currently than blood doping?  WTF are they even doing discussing it in Parliament?  Surely it's an issue with the athletics governing body not UK mp's?

Paula must be fuming at her rep being exposed like this.  The MP might be looking at a serious legal dispute with Paula so effectively saying her name in public regarding this.  So unprofessional.

If Paula is a drug cheat then it is GG WP athletics as a credible sport.

[JohnCharver]

Haven't MP's got more important issues to discuss currently than blood doping?  WTF are they even doing discussing it in Parliament?  Surely it's an issue with the athletics governing body not UK mp's?

Paula must be fuming at her rep being exposed like this.  The MP might be looking at a serious legal dispute with Paula so effectively saying her name in public regarding this.  So unprofessional.

If Paula is a drug cheat then it is GG WP athletics as a credible sport.

He didnt actually name her, but did make it pretty obvious. Also immunity as with the ryan giggs naming anyway, which is why they do it.

[mulhuzz]

Parliamentary Privilege means they can say what they like without being sued for defamation btw.

Have to 'follow rules of parliamentary language' but that's it (quite low bar)

[Longy]

Wish I had seen this thread earlier, the rumours about Radcliffe have been swirling for a while in the athletics world.

I would be very skeptical about making any statement about athletes from years ago being clean. The recent bbc doc made it very clear that Allan Wells was cheating and that is was rife at the time.

The Cycling world of the late 90s/ early noughties should teach us that these things were covered up for a long time before the truth came out and a bit like that era in athletics the sporting public are pointing their fingers at the confirmed cheats (gatlin now) where in fact pretty much everyone was at it.

Having said all that if Jonathan Edwards is dirty I think I might give up on the human race.

[The Camel]

The net is closing in on Sebastian Newbold Coe.

Counting the days until the weasel is unmasked as a cheat.

[TightEnd]

The net is closing in on Sebastian Newbold Coe.

Counting the days until the weasel is unmasked as a cheat.

there has never been a single suggestion that he is, that i have heard or read, apart from yourself

if there was any potential for it, he sure as heck wouldn't have been voted in as IAAF supremo, would he?