If Frank Shorter and Bill Rogers lined up today in Boston or in New York, but they were in their bodies when they were in their prime against the top women runners of today who wins and how does the race go down?
I don't see them inferior the 2:01/2:05 guys. Even on poor shoes (I ran in them) which hurt training as well as racing he was very efficient. And Rogers was racing as much as twice a month and lost just his first and last races, which might have been 5 mile midnight runs. And Shorter win two Olympic Marathons and has a well-known silhouette, although you probably don't know that.
If Frank Shorter and Bill Rogers lined up today in Boston or in New York, but they were in their bodies when they were in their prime against the top women runners of today who wins and how does the race go down?
Well, Rogers ran 2:10 flat in Boston and New York. The courses haven't changed, and the women's course records are 2:17 and 2:19. Not sure what your confusion is.
If Frank Shorter and Bill Rogers lined up today in Boston or in New York, but they were in their bodies when they were in their prime against the top women runners of today who wins and how does the race go down?
Stop. You must be younger. It wouldn't even be close. Go back to the shoes that were used in the 70s , nutrition etc. You give Shorter and Rodgers super shoes they definitely would be 2:06 2:07 at the worst
It would not be close they would crush those women. But a more interesting question is if Bill and Frank were born in 1990 and had all the benefits of athletes today, how would they fare against the nest in the world... I believe they would dominate and a 20 something Frank Shorter would dominate the Africans and everyone in the world and Bill would be just as incredible.
If Frank Shorter and Bill Rogers lined up today in Boston or in New York, but they were in their bodies when they were in their prime against the top women runners of today who wins and how does the race go down?
Well, Rogers ran 2:10 flat in Boston and New York. The courses haven't changed, and the women's course records are 2:17 and 2:19. Not sure what your confusion is.
Neither have Bill Rogers and Frank Shorder changed their names.
Well, Rogers ran 2:10 flat in Boston and New York. The courses haven't changed, and the women's course records are 2:17 and 2:19. Not sure what your confusion is.
Neither have Bill Rogers and Frank Shorder changed their names.
how do you people expect to have a serious discussion of Bill Rodgers when half of you can't even spell it right!!!
If Frank Shorter and Bill Rogers lined up today in Boston or in New York, but they were in their bodies when they were in their prime against the top women runners of today who wins and how does the race go down?
Give the top women runners of today the same types of shoes that Rogers and Shorter had to run in. Then watch them drop out at around 10 miles with stress fractures. Give Shorter and Rogers the same types of shoes that the top women of today run in. Then watch them cruise to sub 2h 05 mins times. We could also go into the PEDs that the top women use but that would be a long discussion.
Bill 2:09:27 (at Boston) Ruth Chepngetich's WR is 2:09:56.
If Frank gets modern shoes then I think he gets her but not by much. (Figuring modern shoes would give him the 35 seconds plus maybe he has to outkick her). Rodgers with super shoes likes wins and then drinks everyone under the table, but does not win by much.
Now all the rest of the women are slower than 2:12...
Shorter was a 2:10 marathoner and 27:45 guy with 1970s shoes and nutrition. He'd be a 2:06 guy at a minimum in this era.
Rodgers didn't have the track credentials that Shorter did, but I'd guess he'd be a 2:06 guy as well.
Still. His 28:04 track time ain't bad for a guy who didn't focus on track.
If Frank Shorter and Bill Rogers lined up today in Boston or in New York, but they were in their bodies when they were in their prime against the top women runners of today who wins and how does the race go down?
Do today's women get to fuel with space-age carb cocktails x6 during the race or do they race on a couple sips of water like Bill and Frank?
If everyone fuels the same the guys win by 10+ minutes. If everyone wears the old shoes then the guys win by 15 minutes (if the women even make it halfway). If everyone gets a chance to acclimate to the new shoes and nutrition then both guys make the men's Olympic team and have a chance to medal.
I think their track credentials close this argument, but also in an earlier post in this thread mentioned that no woman has come to the times that they ran at NYC or Boston. Put Frank or Bill in Berlin or Chicago (even without super shoes) and it's case closed.
Just as a point of clarification: 2:09:56 is, technically, the world record. It's a travesty, and everyone know its bullsh;t - but the official World Athletics-ratified world record for the women's marathon is 2:09:56.
I think their track credentials close this argument, but also in an earlier post in this thread mentioned that no woman has come to the times that they ran at NYC or Boston. Put Frank or Bill in Berlin or Chicago (even without super shoes) and it's case closed.
100% on the mark. There are hundreds of men who have run faster than the very best women at nycm. Tbe great majority of them weren't paid a penny to run there. There is no comparison between the men and the women at all. This thread is silly. Why does it exist?