Frank Shorter - Best US Distance Runner of All Time?

Sagarin wrote:

The point is, it is "relative," and the international competition was relatively greater in Virgin's era than in Frank's.

Haha, this is great. I love that Virgin and Shorter are suddenly in different eras now. Tell that to Yifter who medalled at both the '72 and '80 Games, Cierpinski who won the Olympic gold in the marathon over Shorter in '76, then repeated in the brave new world of the 1980 Games, and Lopes who medalled in the '72 Games, won the '76 World Cross Country Long Course, then won World Cross in '84 and '85.

The careers of these guys overlapped both Shorter and Virgin, yet they maintained a high level of excellence relative to the rest of the world for this entire time. Is it possible that each of them got a lot faster over the course of those 4 or 8 years? Maybe. More likely it demonstrates the the level of competition was not noticeably different in 1980 than in 1972 or 1976. Certainly not noticeable enough to call 1980 a greater era.

Colonel Smithers wrote:

Shorter was probably the best male American distance runner ever, however, the best of all time is probably Mary Decker.

Not to downplay Frank's accomplishments, as I admire guys who run to win even more than record setters but, did Shorter ever set an NCAA, American, or World record in any event?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah...that's a good one!

Someone Is Going wrote:

If your opinion is that a win at world cross means more than an Olympic medal, then your opinion isn't worth much.

No opinion is worth much, except to the guy who offers it, yours most definitely included. I never said a world cross win MEANS more than an Olympic medal (who would seriously argue that?), only that it is harder to do. Ask Meb. Silver medalist in the Olympic marathon like Frank and current AR in the 10,000 and has he even ever finished in the top ten at world cross? I know he's competed in it multiple times. The point is, we are arguing who was the BEST. As such, world cross title > Olympic medal. Thanks for giving your opinion that my opinion isn't worth much though.

Shorter ran faster in 1976 than 1972, but got second in 2:10:46, behind Cierpinski's then-record 2:09:55.

Surprisingly that 2:10:46 would still be very competitive today. Winners:

1980 Cierpinski 2:11:03

1984 Lopes 2:09:21

1988 Bordin 2:10:32

1992 Hwang 2:13:23

1996 Thugwane 2:12:36

2000 Abera 2:10:11

2004 Baldini 2:10:55

The idea that his wins weren't that great because the competition wasn't as strong doesn't hold water. His 2:10:46 second place time would have won in 1980, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2004..

That's the silliest argument anyone has made here yet. And you think all of those courses were equivalent? You did watch the uphill finish in the heat of Barcelona or the exceptionally hot, hilly Atlanta and Athens marathons right? Funny thing is, I never said Shorter's accomplishments weren't fantastic given his era, only that I would argue Virgin was the best US runner. That's all this is, an argument after all. Who the fukk knows who the best is? It's a useless, if not entertaining debate, because there's no way to compare apples and oranges. All I am saying is that runners from all distances descend upon world cross, steeple, 5k, 10k, road whore, and marathon specialists alike. Who runs the Olympic marathon? Marathoners, that's right. It's not like Shorter medaled over 10k, which Virgin very probably would hav done in 1980 were it not for the boycott. It's not like Shorter had a faster 10k PR, despite the eras being "not all that different."

The irony about trying to compare a bunch of Olympic marathon times is that Virgin had a faster marathon PR in one of the only efforts (only?) he made at the distance than Shorter. Therefore, by this wonderful deductic reasoning, Virgin would have beat Frank in the 72 and 76 marathons had he run them. You'd think I had insulted someone's mother by posting a rather trivial opinion. Perhaps we should just let Shorter and Virgin have this debate.

No, I'm not comparing courses. The fact is, even though WRs have fallen under 2:05, championship races are still often won in the 2:10-2:11 range, which Shorter was clearly capable of running. So to somehow say that he couldn't possibly compete in the "deeper" championships of today (which, btw, still only have 3 athletes per country) -- is silly.

MTH wrote:

Is Frank Shorter the best U.S. Distance runner to this point?

Yes, certainly.

Championship races are often slower because of the heat, humidity, and hilly nature of the courses. While the heat may have factored in Shorter's era (he was a proven heat runner), I don't believe the Munich and Montreal courses were particularly difficult. Most guys that win the Olympics have PRs many minutes faster. Not true with Frank.

Look, if the debate were about who was the more accomplished runner or who meant the most for the sport or who had the greater longevity, Franks unanimously wins, obviously. But we are talking about who was the "best." If we took the Frank Shorter of 1976 when he medaled at the games and delivered his 10,000 PR I believe (I'm going from memory -- I'd have to check) and lined him up against the Virgin of four years latr, Virgin beats Frank at world cross, on the track at 10,000 meters and over the marathon distance. He was faster at every distance.

You are the guy who wrote:

"The Africans had hardly emerged in that era and if Frank were racing at his very best today, I seriously doubt he medals or is even in contention in any of those championship-type races."

I've just shown that Frank's best time in a championship race (2:10:46) would still be competitive in championship-type races today, which (have been) and still are still being won in the 2:10-2:11 range.

You didn't read what I wrote in my last post. Frank's best time in a championship race was his PR. Most, not all, but MOST who run 2:10:46 in the Olympics nowadays have PRs in the 2:07 range or better. Frank doesn't sniff anywhere near a 2:10 in Seoul or Barcelona or Athens. If you believe otherwise, than it is useless to continue, at least from my end.

Bob Kennedy

KK

Meb

The only flaw in this thread that if you were to ask Frank Shorter, himself, who is the greatest US distance runner in history, he would state, as he has stated in various previous interviews, that Steve Prefontaine is the greatest, as he could not defeat the great Pre.

I still say Frank is the best- moreover, I think if more Americans wanted to be good, they'd be going "Frank, what should I do for training?"

He could tell them his "secrets" in about 5 minutes.

His 2:10:46 in Montreal was run on a broken foot (Frank didn't know it was broken at the time- he just ran through it because it was the Olympics). If Frank could limp a 2:10, then I'd be more surprised if he COULDN'T run 2:07 in a time trial at London or Berlin or Rotterdam in his prime.

He was a great competitor- he would race everyone from Rod Dixon to Prefontaine to Rodgers. He might not have beaten Pre- but Prefontaine was a 3miler and Frank was a marathoner. He was still far closer than he, a nonspecialist in the event, had any right to be. It'd be like if Ryan Hall stepped down and ran like 12:56 to Teg's 12:55 or something.

Yes, Frank was probably the best US runner ever. Bill Rodgers would be a close second.

Best women? I'd say Benoit, Jennings, Kastor

Sagarin wrote: Plus, stories like the one about him almost lapping the filed and running 27:41 or so on a "melting" track is just ridiculous.

The melting track was when he broke the high school two mile record.

For the 10k record (27:39) at the 1979 Nationals, it was merely oppressively hot and windy.

The guy was just in a class by himself. Pretty much untouchable by an American during his short reign.