Shorter's performance in the Munich marathon was a PR for him up to that point. (He ran 2:12:20 and his previous best, from Fukuoka, was 2:12:50.) I suspect that he could have run much faster that day under cooler conditions and with better competition. The temperature was around 70 degrees at the start. Shorter put in a surge at 15 km and was in front for the final 17 miles. He won by more than two minutes.
Are you aware that historians consider the '72 OG marathon field to be one of the finest collections of talent ever assembled for an OG marathon? I am not quite sure what you mean by better competition if you mean the field or if someone was there to challenge Shorter in later stages of the race? Shorter also has commented it wasn't so much a surge as it was him maintaining pace and the field not following. Unfortunately I can't find my Munich T &FN issue at the moment. It would be really cool if somebody could come up with the 5K splits.
You mean the finest collection over-the-hill talent?
Derek Clayton and Ron Hill were two of the biggest names in that field, but they didn't run as well as expected. And neither runner ever performed at the top level again. Hill fared better than Clayton after Munich, as he ran 2:13 in 1973 and 2:12 and 2:13 in 1975.
The two other big names were Gaston Roelants and Mamo Wolde. Roelants was a good all rounder, but he was not a heavyweight in the marathon. He had won the World Cross Country Championship that year, but he wasn't on Shorter's level. Mamo Wolde, who was 40 years old, was the defending champion, but the '68 performance has to come with an asterisk since he won at altitude.
There were other well-known marathoners like Eckhard Lesse, Jack Foster, Dave McKenzie, Kenji Kimihara, and Terry Manners, but none was really on Shorter's level. Karel Lismont was not that well known at the time.
You're right that Shorter put distance on the field more because the competition died than because of any surge on his part. As I said, the field was relatively weak, although it was full of aging greats, and no one was able to keep up with Shorter after he took the lead at 15km, so he likely could have run faster if he had to.
Who are these historians you're referring to, anyway?
Living in the Past wrote:
You're right that Shorter put distance on the field more because the competition died than because of any surge on his part. As I said, the field was relatively weak, although it was full of aging greats, and no one was able to keep up with Shorter after he took the lead at 15km, so he likely could have run faster if he had to.
Who are these historians you're referring to, anyway?
I think part of the reason the competition died had to do with a difficult running surface that caused a loss of coordination. Somehow, it didn't seem to get to Shorter much.
Shorter is the better, based on his Olympic medals. But, as I see it, Rodgers won more hearts.
peak wrote:
But since Rodgers beat Shorters marathon PR not once but FOUR times (including on the NYC course), I'll take Rodgers any day of the week.
Shorter's PR on a record-quality course was faster than that of Rodgers, whose fastest was just under 2:11 at Fukuoka. Rodgers ran very well at NYC in 1976 (low 2:10), but it was on a course that was probably short (although the only NYC course that was "officially" recognized as short was the 1981 course, which was remeasured after the purported world records by Al Salazar and Allison Roe).
I'd probably give Shorter a slight edge in a record-quality marathon under most conditions, although I might very well pick Rodgers on a cold day on Boston's downhill course. Both runners were capable of running significantly faster, however, under the conditions that exist in most big-city marathons today, with pacers and better competition.
At 10K, of course, Shorter gets the nod.
It should be noted that, although they are both about the same age, their peak years didn't overlap that much, since Rodgers had a significant break from running after college. Perhaps the closest they came to matching up at their peak was the 1976 Olympic marathon trials race, which Shorter seemed to win fairly easily in a controlled effort.
It is interesting when you state this with the benefit of history past. If you are old enough you would know at that point of time it was one of the best fields assembled but you judge from today not at that time. So be it. Today it still ranks among one of the best ever assembled, despite your keen analysis.
Experts who are more knowledgable then you or I such as Bowerman, Dellinger,C. Nelson of T & FN, Harry Wilson, track historian Roberto Quercetani to name a few have attested to that.
Shorter unquestionably was at a different level that day and in future years compared to the rest of his competitors. However, Shorter has mentioned he was starting to redline in that race and was just trying to maintain to the finish. This so stated in his book as well as a booklet produced shortly after by TF &N.
On a different note, look on youtube and view Shorter's effort the one video that is 3;3+ minutes the stadium clock at one point shows Shorter and Moore 1 - 2 pretty amazing.
You are right in the respect Shorter ran the tangents and "hid" himself in the english gardens while he extended his lead. "Out of sight out of mind" so to speak. You are correct as well about the cobblestone section. For what ever reason Shorter floated through that section while the field struggled to get through for the reason you mention. Shorter felt the cobblestones worked to his advantage due to his light foot plant and stride. Talk about making lemonade out of lemons. He was both physically and mentally peaked that day. I really believe he knew he was going to win that race when he got to Munich perhaps sooner after seeing Viren win in Oslo, he mentally shifted his focus. Tough, tough,tough competitor, he knew he was the fastest in the field due to his track speed. He really did revolutionize the marathon.
That's a good point. Their careers did not really overlap, even though they were only about two months apart in age. Shorter gained notoriety when he won the 1969 NCAA six-mile championship. The following year, he won the 10k at the US-Soviet dual meet and was ranked number two in the world in that event by T&FN (behind Dave Bedford).
Rodgers didn't burst onto the scene until 1975, when he finished third behind Ian Stewart and Mariano Haro in the world cross country championship and ran 2:09:55 at Boston.
Years later, when they were both appearing at some of the same races as master's runners, the press tried to make it sound as if they had been great racing rivals. But they didn't race each other much at all. And they had very different careers, with Shorter's being far more impressive. He was competitive at the 5,000 and the 10,000 meters, he won a string of AAU cross country championships, and he was able to give milers like Rod Dixon a run for their money at two miles indoors.
Rodgers probably could have done some of those things. But the fact that he didn't probably allowed him to stay competitive at the marathon at an age when Shorter had to back off due to injuries. Shorter might have been even more successful at the marathon had he concentrated on that distance to the extent that Rodgers did.
Shorter's race against Dixon in the San Diego two mile was amazing Frank ran a 1:57 last half to win in 8:26.
We will never know about your last statement, but I suspect Shorter based on his own admission that the body can only handle two marathons a year would not have done much better than he did in terms of volume per year. If he had only focused on those two per year than I agree he probably would have run much faster. Rodgers was amazing in his ability to recover from one marathon then turn another. Back in the day both were forced to run more races than they would have liked as volume was the only way to earn a living, no shoe contracts etc like today.
48 wrote:
It is interesting when you state this with the benefit of history past. If you are old enough you would know at that point of time it was one of the best fields assembled but you judge from today not at that time. So be it. Today it still ranks among one of the best ever assembled, despite your keen analysis.
I agree that 1972 had the best field assembled up to that point. And sure, "experts" said so at the time. But that's not what you said earlier:
"Are you aware that historians consider the '72 OG marathon field to be one of the finest collections of talent ever assembled for an OG marathon?"
There's no way that the 1972 Olympic marathon field was as competitive as the 1984 Olympic marathon field, for example. Just look at the number of guys in each field who had already run 2:10 or faster before the Olympics. In the 1972 field, the only guys who had run 2:10 or faster were Ron Hill and Derek Clayton, and they were both past their prime.
In 1984, you had Takeshi Soh (2:10) Carlos Lopes (2:08), Rob De Castella (2:08), Alberto Salazar (2:08), Toshiko Seko (2:09), Joseph Nzau (2:09), Rod Dixon (2:08), and Hugh Jones (2:09). Plus, you had track standouts like John Treacy. You don't need to be an "expert" or a historian to see that 1972 was NOT one of the most competitive olympic marathons ever. All you have to do is look at the PRs going into the race in 1984 to see that it, for one, was far more competitive than the 1972 field.
Also in the 1984 Olympic marathon was Juma Ikangaa, who had run the 1982 Commonwealth Games marathon in 2:09:30.
So that was nine runners who had run 2:10 or faster going into Los Angeles versus two runners going into Munich.
Also, Seko had run 2:08 before Los Angeles (I said 2:09 earlier).
While Bill has done a better ob of keeping his personality prt of the runner he is todau, Frank was the better runner, though he did not break 4, he was close, his PR times always kept him in the top 25 at 3 km, 5km, 3 mi (yeah I know no on cares), 10 km and marathon over his "competitive" years. Bill was great at the road distances and beyond. Frank gets my vote as the overall best American distance runner "bar none".
Glenn
Living in the Past wrote:
Also, Seko had run 2:08 before Los Angeles (I said 2:09 earlier).
Well, since you're correcting yourself, Takeshi Soh had run about 2:08:55 (not 2:10), and his twin brother Shigeru had run about 2:09:05. Both were on the '84 Japanese Olympic marathon team with Seko.
It's off-topic, of course, but the men's marathon at the '84 Olympics was an amazing field. Even in the Olympics, it's unusual to get so many of the top marathoners in the same race. And do you think that anyone in the entire world correctly predicted the medal winners?
Lorenzo the Magnificent wrote:
How about head-to-head from the 76 track and marathon trials through the 84 Olympics. In 76 Shorter beat Rodgers in both the track trials and the marathon trials. After that, I don't know. There was a good article in The Runner after their 10K road race in Middleton, NY (?) which I beleive Frank won. I think part of BR's legend lies in the fact that he raced so frequently and so ferociously. But taking the semi-arbitrary 76-84 parameters, including road races, it would be interesting to see the results.
Shorter raced a lot also but most of this was before road racing at the non marathon distances became popular. He was injured in '77 and never really was the same.
peak wrote:
Agree with consensus that Shorter was better. But if you took Shorter on his best day and Rodgers on his best day, Rodgers would win the day.
If you are comparing strictly PR's I'd agree. My guess is that Shorter's PR would be a bit faster had there been more head to head at the peak of both runners.
peak wrote:
48 wrote:They were on their best day in the 76 OG trials and Shorter came out on top. Given their best day Shorter would have and did come out on top when it counted. As great as Rodgers was and the tough competitior he was, he did not have the talent or killer competitive instinct Shorter possessed. Shorter could run well under any circumstance whereas Rodgers often times had difficulty performing in hot conditions.
Both great careers, but Shorter much better.
Shorter IS much better but neither was having their best day in the 76 trials and both simply wanted to make the team.
Take each on their very best day and Rodgers blows Shorter away by in the marathon. Period.
What would make anyone think that anyone from that era "blows Shorter away"?
perspective wrote:
Shorter is the better, based on his Olympic medals. But, as I see it, Rodgers won more hearts.
Based on this board it's fairly apparent.
48 wrote:
You are right in the respect Shorter ran the tangents and "hid" himself in the english gardens while he extended his lead. "Out of sight out of mind" so to speak. You are correct as well about the cobblestone section. For what ever reason Shorter floated through that section while the field struggled to get through for the reason you mention. Shorter felt the cobblestones worked to his advantage due to his light foot plant and stride. Talk about making lemonade out of lemons. He was both physically and mentally peaked that day. I really believe he knew he was going to win that race when he got to Munich perhaps sooner after seeing Viren win in Oslo, he mentally shifted his focus. Tough, tough,tough competitor, he knew he was the fastest in the field due to his track speed. He really did revolutionize the marathon.
I recall reading that Shorter felt he had an advantage on the cobblestones because he was a good cross country runner.