Bill Rodgers or Pat Porter

At least Rodgers DID race the 10k on the track. Maybe not enough times to suit track purists but he did it.

I remember the entire career of both runners well. Rodgers was a GREAT runner, period. He chose to run mainly on the roads. He had outstanding success in both x-c and track when he chose those venues.

Porter was GREAT as well. Challenged the Kenyans in x-c and made an Olympic team on the track. Porter chose to run mainly on the grass and track.

Who was better? Like comparing a singles hitter with a home run hitter, different specialties. Gun to my head, Rodgers by an elbow swinging wide.

Boston Billy was the most dominant marathon runner of all time. When he ran the big marathons, he won, time and again. The goal of a race is to win. Ask any runner if he would rather have a PR or win a serious, competitive (i.e. not your local Turkey Trot) race against the best competition in the world, and he will take the win every time. True, it was in a different era, but BR's times would still have been competitive today. Porter was a helluva runner, but Billy was the best (at what he did).

Porter = Karl Malone, Rodgers = Wilt Chamberlan

I agree. Boston Billy is Boston Billy. Pat Porter is Pat who?

Which of them would win in the discus?

Brazilian coelho wrote:

I agree. Boston Billy is Boston Billy. Pat Porter is Pat who?

Pat "The Panther" Porter. Panthers tend to do well in the woods, not the urban corridor. Just like Porter could never beat the best Africans at world cross as they were emerging during his era, Boston Billy would have 0, count them ZERO, major marathon victories if he were racing against the international fields of the mid-80s to now. That said, he was the dominant marathon runner of his time, pre-Africa.

And the numbers of today's dominant runners may not stack up against those of thirty years from now. So what?

I suppose that means Paavo Nurmi, Keino and Bob Mathias also don't stack up.

Boston Billy's legacy would be secure if he had only been smart enough to challenge those runners not yet born?

Porter was also 4th before the Africans really came to the fore. Lopes, Hutchings and Jones were ahead of him.

'86 was his better race I think.

Amazing that Lopes won the year after Rodgers had his third and again when (and again after) Porter had his best finish.

He was better than both.

As someone else mentioned, it's apples to oranges. Despite Rodgers bronze in World cross, Porter was a much better cross country runner with his 8 straight US titles and multiple top 10 World cross finishes, throw in two Olympic teams in the 10k and it's a career that 99.9% of letsrunners will only dream about. Rodgers on the other hand put together quite a record of victories in Boston and New York plus success in cross and other road distances. He competed in one Olympics and would have very likely competed in Montreal. Again, very few will ever accomplish as much as Rodgers did. Impossible to compare, but both were great runners.

Rodgers didn't just race marathons, he raced at any distance on the roads and raced well. many 28:20ish 10k's as workouts. he was making a great living road racing, why do x-c?

There is no comparison, Rodgers was far superior to Porter.

another perspective wrote:

As someone else mentioned, it's apples to oranges. Despite Rodgers bronze in World cross, Porter was a much better cross country runner with his 8 straight US titles and multiple top 10 World cross finishes, throw in two Olympic teams in the 10k and it's a career that 99.9% of letsrunners will only dream about. Rodgers on the other hand put together quite a record of victories in Boston and New York plus success in cross and other road distances. He competed in one Olympics and would have very likely competed in Montreal. Again, very few will ever accomplish as much as Rodgers did. Impossible to compare, but both were great runners.

The chance that Rodgers would compete in Montreal is even greater than the percentage letsrunners who would dream of having Porter's career :) You mean Moscow, of course... When comparing an apple to an orange you can only say which is the better among its peer, er, fruit. Using this metric there is really no doubt: Rodgers is far, far better than Porter. Rodgers was ranked #1 in the world in the marathon 3 times, number 2 once number 6 once and number 7 once. Even if we count Porter's ranking in XC on the basis of his finishes in the world champs, he doesn't come close. He has no medals i.e no top three rankings. He finished in the top 10 fewer times than Rodgers was ranked in the top 10. Porter has no major wins. He was never considered a gold medal or world championship favorite (not that that's a perfect measure) and aside from XC he was never even really the top guy in an event in the US, let alone the world. The answer to the OP's question is Rodgers -far and away, Rodgers.

A correction and a few points:

1) 1976 was NOT the boycott...Rodgers did finish 4th in the 10k trials, but he ALSO finished 2nd in the marathon trials to Shorter a few days earlier

2) Rodgers was bothered by foot problems and ran a 2:20ish marathon at Montreal..He later said he was going to hammer from the start, knowing he was injured and would probably DNF or finish in the back..He did this because he was so insensed that Lasse Viren would try his first marathon after winning gold (again as in 72)in the 5k and the 10k..Rodgers wanted Viren to earn it the hard way...Viren, I believe, finished 6th

3)Many agree that had the boycott not taken place, Rodgers would have won Moscow gold..but we'll n ever know...Rodgers was so disappointed with the boycott, that he and others like Tom Fleming really ripped into the Carter administration, and their later actions, particularly Fleming's, led to the end of the hypocritical era of amatuerism finally.

4) Rodgers did have some longer than 10K track records..I beleive 20K and 25K..not too sure..He also competed on the European circuit, though not as much as others

Try to get your hands on Derderian's Boston marathon book and Sandrock's Legends book..great stories in there about Rodgers..Hopefully a Hollywood scriptwriter will do something with it someday

In answer to your (implicit) question:

Rodgers still owns the American records for the one hour run (set in 77! along with records set in route at 15k, 10 miles and 20k). He also set the 25k and 30k track records (79). At the time he ran them, the 25k was a world record. Seko broke that in 81 before his victory at Boston.

It's little remembered that 2 weeks after destroying Shorter and many of the best in the world at NYC in 76 Rodgers flew to Japan to race against a relay of Japanese runners. Rodgers (this is from memory...) finished in 2:08:23 on a course which was later found to be about 200 yds short. This means he ran 2:10 on a tough NYC course (which included stairs!) and then broke 2:09 2 weeks later. NYC was less than 10 weeks after Montreal, I think.

Thanks for the help!!

Ivory wrote:

How many marathons or road races, or World X-C's for that matter, have you won or medaled in?

Hmmmmm?

What about you (See, I can post retarded questions, too)?

deer park wrote:

Who was a better runner? This debate has been going on between my roommate and I so we will take it to the boards...

There should be no debate.

Rodgers.

thank you for adding nothing whatsoever to the discussion

This is really like comparing apples to oranges in that BOTH were incredible runners in their respective venues and times. To fault Bill for not producing fast track times or Pat for not running a great marathon, to me, is like faulting Jeremy Wariner for not running a great 800m, or Seb Coe for not running a great 200m.Everyone has their niche, and while Rodgers and Porter overlapped somewhat as distance greats, each had his own specialty. Very hard to compare them, along with an approximate 10 year difference in their eras. All I can say on a personal, anecdotal note is that I once placed second to Bill Rodgers at the Boston Marathon (1975) and virtually everyone I know, has heard of BILL RODGERS.(Even my non-running friends, relatives, neighbors....) He's ALMOST a household name, along with Frank Shorter. No offense to Pat Porter, but he is not a household name, despite his excellent credentials. On that basis, I would give the nod (slightly) to BR!!........for what it's worth.

deer park wrote:

Who was a better runner? This debate has been going on between my roommate and I so we will take it to the boards...

Bo sox (and others)... I didn't intend to imply that Rodgers was strictly a marathoner by any stretch. Also, I'm sure Porter could and did run 28:20 as "workouts" as well. And Porter made a fine living out of being an XC specialist with occasional road and track races, so he had no need to run the marathon and really not much desire.

I have no problem admitting that Rodgers had a better career, but I would disagree that Rodgers "was far superior" or "far, far better" than Porter. I think very few reach their levels and to make such a differentiation between the two isn't realistic in my opinion. Porter made two Olympic teams and even with the assumption that Rodgers makes the team for Moscow, that's two teams for him. When only 3/event make a team, that's pretty rare company. Yes, Porter was never a favorite for an international title, but calling Rodgers "far" better than someone who made 2 Olympic teams and had multiple World cross top 10 finishes seems a bit of a stretch.

But at least we all agree that both were extraordinary athletes. :)