Oh, sure. She is the greatest female sprinter, I don’t disagree one iota with that. But that is not what the author said. As people like to say here, words have meaning. If one argues that the writer meant to say “female sprinter” but was inept or lazy and omitted it, I have no beef with that. If words have meaning, of course.
So it is inarguable that she is the greatest female sprinter.
But her name doesn’t generally appear in history textbooks unless they are about the Olympics or sports specifically. But Jesse Owens does appear in history books that appear in classrooms. And he competed and won gold and set records in more events
In a sport in which the winners and losers are separated by hundredths or thousandths of a second, Joyner still finishes nearly a full second behind the fastest man, and in 2016, would not have qualified to run in mens. Not even close.
Just FYI, Joyner’s time of 10.49 was first eclipsed by a man back in 1921 and has been incrementally improved on by nineteen men breaking that 10.49 record with likely hundreds of men surpassing it since 1921.
My point is that she is neither the best sprinter, nor the most celebrated unless you specify her sex, then it is completely true. And that is not even arguable.
Someone may set high school or college records of various kinds that stand for decades, but to say they are best in that category is one thing while competing against others at the same level may be true. To say they are the best overall at any level of competition against a measurable metric is quite a different thing. Completely.