With all the record times we're seeing run this season, it's only natural that we start having new and different debates. Who had the better season, new 800m WR holder David Rudisha in 2010 or former WR holder Wilson Kipketer in 1997? Or who are the "best" runners in the US today?
I take a look at these questions in my latest article at Runner's Tribe Let the Debates Begin. But before I settle those, I identify the top 12 types of arguments made in these types of debates. Here's a snippet:
By my count, there are 12 arguments people make when debating runners' seasons and/or careers. A good message board thread will usually have all of these come up at some point:
The Hardware Argument: How many championships did they win? The basis of this argument is that there is only one thing that matters, and that's winning. In track, this argument is usually diluted to include the top three, but only when it can't be settled by gold medals.
The Record Books Argument: Where do they rank all-time? This argument assumes the best put up the best marks. Faster, farther and higher = superior. For young runners, this argument is often modified to be relative to age. This is the one argument that tends to hold some weight against the Hardware Argument. Especially when somebody is still the reigning record holder.You can click here to read the complete list!