Introduction

In 1894, Pierre de Coubertin organized the modern Olympic movement around the concept of citius, altius, fortius (“faster, higher, stronger”) [1], borrowed from Henri Didon, a Dominican priest who taught sport near Paris [1]. Since the first modern Olympic Games, this concept has defined our quest for perfection in sport, with more contemporary values expressed in terms such as excellence, respect, and friendship. Despite many flaws, scandals, doping, commercialism, and elitism [2], as well as cancellations because of two World Wars and considerable political interference [3], the Olympic movement remains one of the most remarkable ideas humankind has ever had for promoting sport, culture, and education. In recent decades, the structure and concept of the Olympics have been extended to World and continental championships and to cross-country and indoor competitions.

At its simplest, this quest for excellence centers around medals won in Olympic Games (OG) or World Championship (WC) competition or World Records (WRs) achieved. Although the relative merits of global medals and WRs are debatable, they are frequently the main parameters of success when comparing athletes across generations and specialties when intending to award the unofficial title of Greatest of All Time (GOAT) within any given sport [4–6]. Many sports do not readily lend themselves to defining the best individual, as they depend on team play [7], and are not inherently quantitative. By contrast, athletics is highly quantitative, with distance and duration as precisely measured variables, lending itself to identification of a GOAT. Of course, the Olympic program changes over time and the potential size of the athletic population is steadily increasing, attributable to increased human participation in sport and more countries participating in the Olympic movement. Nonetheless, championship medals and WRs provide strong parameters for measuring sporting success [8] and in setting outcomes for defining the GOAT.

Beyond the intrinsic enjoyment of fans debating how to determine the identity of the GOAT, the process can also lead to conceptually analyzing sport, with the potential to inform data-driven evaluation of sports performance more broadly. This study represents the fruits of a quantitative discussion by 16 of us, predominantly scientists rather than elite athletes or coaches, to identify the GOAT in running. To aid this process, Florentina Hettinga, as part of a presentation at the 2024 European Endurance Conference, informally surveyed 63 coaches, athletes, and sport scientists using a show of hands on how to determine the GOAT in running. The conference delegates were shown the questions on a screen, and each question was debated in the context of the conference. When asked which of two criteria they believed was of more value relative to determining the GOAT, 71% favored becoming Olympic Champion whereas 29% favored setting a WR. Regarding minimum thresholds, there was a more even split regarding whether the GOAT had to have been an Olympic champion (yes: 54%, no: 46%). Respondents were very much (95%) in favor of identifying a GOAT per main running subdiscipline (e.g., sprints, hurdles, or distance) and in identifying a GOAT in men’s and women’s running separately (95%). Respondents were unanimously in favor of eliminating any candidate who had been banned for doping.

Thus, taking into account these differences of opinion regarding the relative importance and value of OG and WC medals and WRs, the research team considered there were several potential contributing factors for identifying the GOAT runner:Outstanding performance reflected by WR performance(s), particularly WRs that went unbroken for many years or set multiple times by the same athlete. It was not considered necessary for an athlete to have set a WR to be identified as the GOAT (overall or in any subcategory).Outstanding performance reflected by medals won in major global championships (OG or WC). We decided to match the points awarded for Olympic gold medals and WRs as an acknowledgement that, whereas Olympic gold medals theoretically reflect racing excellence, WRs were an equivalent reflection of physiological and performance superiority.Outstanding performance in smaller global championships, specifically the World Cross Country Championships and the World Athletics Indoor Championships.Competitive dominance reflected by the range of competitive distances, particularly “doubles” or “triples” where the athlete medaled in more than one event at a single OG or WC and as reflected by the length of their career, which was quantified by the number of medals won or WRs achieved. We did, however, not factor in how many years each athlete actively competed for or how many championships they competed in.We decided to include all performances that are currently accepted as valid by World Athletics, regardless of previous or later doping offences, given that these performances are officially sanctioned.

Each of these factors is quasi-independent, reflecting differences in physiology [9, 10], competitive goals, avoidance of competitive disruptions secondary to lack of opportunity, injury, war, boycotts, and other factors that affect the ability to compete [11]. Accordingly, the purpose of this exploratory study was to develop an objective assessment of the running GOAT by analyzing historical performance data of running events contested at the OG or WC (including indoor and cross-country events). We sought insights regarding extremely talented and highly trained athletes in terms of optimal physiology as they perform at the limits of human performance, as well as examining whether specific events meant a greater likelihood of being identified as the GOAT. We evaluated the winning of medals at major championships and the setting of WRs in the context of the opportunities available to elite runners during their competitive lifetimes using a custom-made normative scoring system that was intended to be organic and framed in the language of athletics, rather than physiology.