Yes, Brain Sell and Alan Culpepper ran courageous races. It is great to see a resurgence of some American talent. But let's cut the crap with comparing them to Bill Rodgers. That is like comparing Phil Mickelson to Jack Nicklaus. When Brian Sell has won 4 Bostons and 4 New Yorks and gone a year (almost) without losing ANY race, come talk to me. Have Brian Sell ever eb=ven won a notable race of any kind ? Has Culpepper ?
Richard, Thank you for interjecting some common sense.
No disrespect to Sell, but his race wasn't courageous. His race was very, VERY smart, but even splits aren't a sign of courage.
perspective wrote:
It was 1980 that was going to be Rodgers' year - the year of the Olympic boycott.
Yes, he had a good medal shot that year as well as 1976. He didn't run the Trials race, but obviously it would have been a huge upset if he had run and didn't make the team.
In the Olympics, Cierpinski repeated as champion with a low 2:11, with Dutchman Gerard Nijboer, a 2:09:01 PR marathoner, in second. I think a Soviet runner got the bronze, but his name escapes me. It took a mid-2:11 to medal, something a healthy Rodgers could do routinely at the time, so there went another shot down the drain for him. I think Tony Sandoval could have had a good chance for a medal there, too. The guy was fit and fast and could inject or respond to surges with no problem.
Mtn Dew wrote:
No disrespect to Sell, but his race wasn't courageous. His race was very, VERY smart, but even splits aren't a sign of courage.
In your mind, smart and courageous are mutually exclusive. That is a "courageous" stand to take.
Mtn Dew wrote:
... even splits aren't a sign of courage.
They are if they're at 2:10 pace and your PR is 2:13.
Sweet.
Luigi Vercotti wrote:
In the Olympics, Cierpinski repeated as champion with a low 2:11, with Dutchman Gerard Nijboer, a 2:09:01 PR marathoner, in second. I think a Soviet runner got the bronze, but his name escapes me. It took a mid-2:11 to medal, something a healthy Rodgers could do routinely at the time, so there went another shot down the drain for him. I think Tony Sandoval could have had a good chance for a medal there, too. The guy was fit and fast and could inject or respond to surges with no problem.
Although (as I hope was clear from my earlier comments) I had great respect for Rodgers's talent and ability, I wouldn't say that, by the summer of 1980, he could routinely run a mid-2:11 on a record-quality course in a summer marathon. His fastest marathon performance ever on a record-quality course was his 2:10:55 at Fukuoka in 1977, and the only time he ran faster than a mid-2:11 at New York was in 1976 (on a course that, as I recall, was never used again). Almost all of his fastest races were on cold days, with favorable winds, on a very familiar and sharply downhill course in his home town that was very well suited to his running strengths. Also, although he ran one of his best races at Boston in 1979, and probably ran one of his better races to win New York later that year, he was not the same dominant runner by mid-1980 and thereafter. If there hadn't been a boycott of the Moscow Games, there were at least six or seven runners (including three from Japan alone, and probably Sandoval as well) who might reasonably have been rated as stronger medal contenders than Rodgers at Moscow.
By the way, a little-known fact about Rodgers: In 1976, just two weeks after winning New York in 2:10:10, he ran an exhibition marathon against a relay team on Sado Island in Japan. It was later discovered that the course was 200 meters short, but Rodgers's time -- 2:08:23 -- gives some indication of how good this guy was. It's hard to say how fast he would have run in a time-trial race of the sort that one finds in London, Berlin, and Chicago these days.
He still has the record for this one as well.
Had a little trouble with the results link.
Click on results on the homepage.
Snatch.
Rodgers was a bit off top form by 1980, although it seemed the announced boycott played some factor in him letting his fitness slip. I still think he would have made the U.S. team on the Niagara Falls course. He did run 2:10 at Boston behind Seko and Virgin in 1981, so he wasn't dominant by then but was still very much a major player. According to the people I know who were in the race, weather for the 1980 Trials had cooled off from the fairly warm temperatures in the days leading up to the race, and a slight breeze off the river offset the hint of mugginess in the air. I don't know if those were Rodgers-friendly conditions or not, but my guess (just a speculation, mind you) is that a fit Rodgers would have run mid-2:10 and made the team. Sandoval threw down a 4:41 on mile 22 to eat up the lead Durden had built over the previous few miles and I really think he'd have beaten Rodgers on that day. In Moscow, the Soh brothers or Seko might have posed major threats had they run, but Sandoval in my mind had a very good shot and you couldn't have counted out Rodgers in any race in those days.
one of bills most impressive performances was in 1980 where on the saturday afternoon in purchase ,newyork, diet pepsi champs, ran 28;43@10km, and then next day won the toronto mar. easily in 2;14....this is a great double.
rodgers at boston this year could have run 2;07 if it were 1979...that day was cold/rainy and not much of a wind at all...definitely no tailwind.
he never ran well in the heat, which is why he tended to perform well in apr/ oct.
still a great run by the americans this year...keep up the good work hansons etc...
Richard wrote:
Yes, Brain Sell and Alan Culpepper ran courageous races. It is great to see a resurgence of some American talent. But let's cut the crap with comparing them to Bill Rodgers. That is like comparing Phil Mickelson to Jack Nicklaus. When Brian Sell has won 4 Bostons and 4 New Yorks and gone a year (almost) without losing ANY race, come talk to me. Have Brian Sell ever eb=ven won a notable race of any kind ? Has Culpepper ?
No one will ever rip off 4 Boston's and 4 New York's again. Bill was running against a couple of guys from Wellesley, two Englishmen, and a Canadian competing for a bowl of beans and a wreath. The world is half the size as it was 27 years ago. Now the BAA brings in some of the best racer's from around the world and puts up $100,000 to the winner. The Boston Marathon pre/post 1986 are different competitions and can not be compared with any objectivity. Anyone saying otherwise is just an "I remember when" glory guy who wants to remember his time as the toughest.
Bill was a great runner and gave us a lot to cheer for but he would be eaten alive by 2:04-2:07 guys of today, just like the current best Americans are now. Bill would have been 3rd or 4th on Monday at best and a DNF if he tried to race at the front.
Bill ran to win, not for records. It was necessary given how frequently he recaed. When he beat Seko in 1979 with his AR 2:09:27, he let up a lot over the last few miles, to enjoy his victory and wave to the crowds. I recall something about a 5:50 final mile. If he was pushed over the end certainly a 208 or even 207 was an obvious possibility. Also he ran a 47 minute 10 mile in central park less than a week later, finishing second to craig Virgin.
My point is that when he was at his best there was no one else close to him, no one to push him (at least in the marathon). He customarily won marathons by wide margins, running comfortably. Its not unreasonable to think that were he running today with the higher competition he would be running 2:08/2:07
the top end of american distance running is at a very healthy state to say the least. Meb, Sell, Culpep, Gilmore, should all be applauded for their efforts. The interesting thing here is not that Bill Rodgers ran equally as fast but the DEPTH people. LOOK AT THE DEPTH. Don't dilute yourselves in thinking that we are the same running nation as we were in the 80s. We most definitely ARE NOT!!! To summarize, the top end is very healthy but our depth is horrible. It has been for some time now. We have to stop view 213 or 214 as competitive. Those are national class times and only that. U.S. national class times. The world standard is far FAR better. The goal for our marathoners should be what it was in the 80s, to break into World Class status. At this point, it seems that is 208 or faster. We continually set the bar low for ourselves and surprisingly enough, we clear that bar.
Summary of the threads so far:
1. Rodgers was really good in his day, but he would finish a full mile behind the world record holder (even at his best) if he were running today.
2. Guys like *Meb and Sell are about as fast as Rodgers and this makes them JV runners in today's world of 2:04s, 2:05s and 2:06s aplenty.
*Meb's Olympic medal was more a feat of masterful execution than of physiological superiority.
Exclusion Wins wrote:
Bill was a great runner and gave us a lot to cheer for but he would be eaten alive by 2:04-2:07 guys of today, just like the current best Americans are now. Bill would have been 3rd or 4th on Monday at best and a DNF if he tried to race at the front.
Possibly. Or, he would have increased his training to remain competitive. I don't know what sort of mileage he averaged at the time, but perhaps if he was at 130 mpw, he would have increased to 160 mpw.
Are there splits available for his 2:09:27?
Actually you could look at things another way.
I would say that it takes great courage to stick to a certain time schedule when you see the field charging off into the distance in the first half of the race. In addition, it takes a lot of self confidence and discipline to hold back in those early stages. It is so easy and tempting just to "jump on the train" as it were.
There are a couple things to note here. Firstly, 1983 was the first ever World Champs for Track and Field that following August in Helsinki.
The Boston marathon was the US Trials/Championships to determine who would make the team.
And because the US had boycotted the 1980 Olympics, this was the first international championship in 7 years that the US was going to compete in.
So combine those two factors plus it was the BOSTON marathon and EVERYONE geared for it that year!!!! And with the US hosting the Olympics in 1984 everyone was gunning for the marathon trials standard as well.
Check the results of the years around 1983 and it looks more like 2006 except no 2:07.
My old college coach Fred Torneden actually ran in this 1983 race and yes he is the top 50. He said he was a bit off that day in Boston, had been running around 2:14-15ish in other marathons. He ran a PB the following year in 1984 to win Twin Cities in 2:11:35, the same exact time Dan Browne ran there to win in 2002.
If every year was "2006" then a lot more US guys would run Boston each year, but because now every year except 06, 10, 14 etc. has a World Champs or Olympics that means you have to run in the US Champs or Olympic Trials wherever they are to be in consideration for a World Champs or Olympics team. That doesn't leave a lot of room for other marathons to be run in one year.
Just the facts, if Boston was the US Champs or Olympic Trials every year then there would be a lot more US guys there, but that's not the way it is.
And as for courses, weather, etc. you CAN'T compare them because each day is different. How about 1982 Salazar vs. Beardsly, pretty warm day. Great performances that would've been even better without the heat. Or on the other end how about 1994 when there was a massive tailwind and Cosmos set the record in 2:07:15 or what about 1986 when DeCastella ran 2:08. How can you compare them? You can't.
Fact is that in 2006 there were 5 US guys in the top 10 and they all ran tough and smart races to finish where they did. Nobody gave them that. They ran great and made the most of the race on that day. That's all the results tell us.