This thread is proof that Bill Rodgers is a f u c k i n g god.
This thread is proof that Bill Rodgers is a f u c k i n g god.
TRACK
800 - 2:00
1 mile - 4:16:08
2 mile - 8:48 (indoor practice)
5 Km - 13:42:00
10Km - 28:04:04
15Km - 43:39:08
10 mile - 46:35
20 Km - 58:15
1 Hour - 12 miles, 1361 yds.
Current ARs
15 Km: 43:39:08
20 Km: 58:15
25 Km: 1:14:12
30 Km: 1:30:56
1 Hour: 12 miles, 1351 yds.
Former World Record:
25 Km: 1:14:12 (1979)
ROAD
10 Km: 28:15
15 Km: 43:25
20 Km: 58:42
25 Km: 1:17:23
30 Km: 1:29:04
Marathon: 2:09:27
Former American Records:
30 Km: 1:29:04
Marathon: 2:09:27 (broken 1981)
The Marathons:
1. 1973 Boston (DNF)
2. 1973 Bay State (2:28:12) 1st CR
3. 1974 Boston (2:19:34) 14th
4. 1974 NYC (2:36:00) 5th
5. 1974 Philadelphia (2:21:57) 1st CR
6. 1975 Boston (2:09:55) 1st CR
7. 1975 Enschada, Holland (DNF)
8. 1975 Fukuoka (2:11:26) 3rd
9. 1976 Olympic Trials (2:11:58) 2nd
11. 1976 NYC (2:10:10) 1st CR
10. 1976 Montreal Olympics (2:25:14) 40th
12. 1976 Sedo Island, Japan 1st CR
13. 1976 Baltimore (2:14:28) 1st CR
14. 1977 Kyoto, Japan (2:14:25) 1st
15. 1977 Boston (DNF)
16. 1977 Amsterdam, Holland 2:12:46
17. 1977 NYC (2:11:28) 1st
18. 1977 Fukuoka (2:10:55) 1st
19. 1978 Boston (2:10:13) 1st
20. 1978 NYC (2:11:28) 1st
21. 1978 Fukuoka (2:12:53) 6th
22. 1979 Boston (2:09:27) 1st AR
23. 1979 Montreal (2:22:12) 15th
24. 1979 NYC (2:12:12) 1st
25. 1980 Boston (2:12:11) 1st
26. 1980 Toronto (2:14:47) 1st
27. 1980 NYC (2:13:20) 5th
28. 1981 Houston-Tennaco (2:12:10) 1st CR
29. 1981 Boston (2:10:34) 3rd
30. 1981 Atlantica - Boavista, Brazil (2:14:13) 1st CR
31. 1981 Stockholm, Sweden (2:13:28) 1st
32. 1981 Bank 1, Columbus, OH 2:17:34
33. 1982 Houston (2:14:51) 5th
34. 1982 Tokyo (2:24) 301st
35. 1982 Boston (2:12:38) 4th
36. 1982 Atlantica - Boavista (DNF)
37. 1982 Big M, Melbourne, Austrialia 2:11:08
38. 1983 Orange Bowl, FL (2:15:08) 1st
39. 1983 Boston (2:11:58) 11th
40. 1983 Beijing, China (DNF)
41. 1983 Chicago (2:21:40)
42. 1984 U.S. Olympic Trials (2:13:31) 8th
43. 1985 New Jersey Waterfront (2:14:46) 2nd
44. 1985 NYC (2:15:31) 7th
45. 1986 Boston (2:13:35) 4th
46. 1986 Chicago (2:15:31) 11th
47. 1987 Phoenix (DNF)
48. 1987 Boston (2:18:18) 15th
49. 1987 NYC (2:25:01) 54th
50. 1988 Phoenix (DNF)
51. 1988 Los Angeles ( 2:20:27) 2nd masters
52. 1988 Boston (2:18:17) 2nd masters
53. 1988 NYC (DNF)
54. 1989 Los Angeles (2:22:24)
55. 1990 Boston (2:20:46) 5th masters
56. 1992 Vietnam International 19th
57. 1996 Boston (2:53)
58. 1999 Boston (DNF)
Exwins say:
>>>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. <<<
1977 Ranked #1 in the World in the Marathon by Track & Field News
1978 Ranked #2 in the World in the Marathon by Track & Field News
1979 Ranked #1 in the World in the Marathon by Track & Field News
1981 Ranked #7 in the World in the Marathon by Track & Field News
The thing about Bill is his unwavering Ali-esque belief, sans braggadocio, that he was the best marathoner in the world. He was almost disdainful of the roadie who would occasionally beat him by a few seconds in a 10K. "Wait until Boston (or NY, or wherever)" he would say. I think this alone made him such a tought competitor. BJ, Pfeffer, Randy Thomas, Seko, and a host of other fine runners fell in his wake, all no doubt thinking that this was the time that Rodgers was vulnerable.
road stumbler wrote:
In your mind, smart and courageous are mutually exclusive. That is a "courageous" stand to take.
actually it's a smart stand to take
Hodgie-san wrote:
Exwins say:
>>>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. <<<
1977 Ranked #1 in the World in the Marathon by Track & Field News
1978 Ranked #2 in the World in the Marathon by Track & Field News
1979 Ranked #1 in the World in the Marathon by Track & Field News
1981 Ranked #7 in the World in the Marathon by Track & Field News
He was also ranked #1 in 1975. I\'d have to look it up, but I think he was ranked in the top 10 in 1976 as well. Perhaps 6th?
link wrote:
He was also ranked #1 in 1975. I'd have to look it up, but I think he was ranked in the top 10 in 1976 as well. Perhaps 6th?
Good guess. 6th in 1976.
Right you are:
1979 Ranked #1 in the World in the Marathon
by Track & Field News
1977 Ranked #1 in the World in the Marathon
by Track & Field News
1975 Ranked #1 in the World in the Marathon
by Track & Field News
1978 Ranked #2 in the World in the Marathon
by Track & Field News
1976 Ranked #6 in the World in the Marathon
by Track & Field News
1981 Ranked #7 in the World in the Marathon
by Track & Field News
Luigi Vercotti wrote:
My guess is that Rodgers would have run 2:10-something in the 2006 Boston. I can't imagine he'd survive going out any faster than 1:04-flat at halfway without a tailwind, so he'd probably have to run a Sell-type race if the leaders split 1:02:43. He liked to be at the front fairly early, so a cherry-pick race could have been hard for him. Either way, I don't see him winning these days with the deeper competition (certainly not against a 2:07), but a good race would put him at least where Sell finished, probably ahead of that.
Hard to exactly compare runners of different eras, but I'd say Meb is a better marathon runner than Rodgers was. That Olympic silver stands out, but Rodgers had an amazing string of 2:09-2:11 races and had a great chance for a medal himself if he hadn't been injured in Montreal. Culpepper is also better than Rodgers until the distance gets up around 20 or so miles, then Rodgers might beat him as often as not, especially at Boston. An average performance from Rodgers would probably beat Sell's best so far. We think of Rodgers as "Boston Billy," but his 2:10:10 at New York might have been his best performance.
The U.S. was just as good at the top then as now, and obviously a lot deeper. Guys like Shorter, Rodgers, Kardong, Sandoval, Durden and Wells (and Salazar and Beardsley later on) would fare just as well at Boston today as the top Americans just did, provided they prepared specifically for that race. Obviously, the game might change for runners of both eras if there was no London marathon and the Tergats and Gebrselassies of the world showed up at Boston.
Meb better and Boston Bill? Come on!!! Meb has run only a handful of marathons, and done quite well. However, that's like saying Tiger is better than Nicklaus. To be a complete champion, it takes years of winning and perservance, not just a couple of good years to be considered the best.
ToDisagree wrote:
Luigi Vercotti wrote:My guess is that Rodgers would have run 2:10-something in the 2006 Boston. I can't imagine he'd survive going out any faster than 1:04-flat at halfway without a tailwind, so he'd probably have to run a Sell-type race if the leaders split 1:02:43. He liked to be at the front fairly early, so a cherry-pick race could have been hard for him. Either way, I don't see him winning these days with the deeper competition (certainly not against a 2:07), but a good race would put him at least where Sell finished, probably ahead of that.
Hard to exactly compare runners of different eras, but I'd say Meb is a better marathon runner than Rodgers was. That Olympic silver stands out, but Rodgers had an amazing string of 2:09-2:11 races and had a great chance for a medal himself if he hadn't been injured in Montreal. Culpepper is also better than Rodgers until the distance gets up around 20 or so miles, then Rodgers might beat him as often as not, especially at Boston. An average performance from Rodgers would probably beat Sell's best so far. We think of Rodgers as "Boston Billy," but his 2:10:10 at New York might have been his best performance.
The U.S. was just as good at the top then as now, and obviously a lot deeper. Guys like Shorter, Rodgers, Kardong, Sandoval, Durden and Wells (and Salazar and Beardsley later on) would fare just as well at Boston today as the top Americans just did, provided they prepared specifically for that race. Obviously, the game might change for runners of both eras if there was no London marathon and the Tergats and Gebrselassies of the world showed up at Boston.
Meb better and Boston Bill? Come on!!! Meb has run only a handful of marathons, and done quite well. However, that's like saying Tiger is better than Nicklaus. To be a complete champion, it takes years of winning and perservance, not just a couple of good years to be considered the best.
AMEN brother. Also, I wonder what kind of technology was available in shoes in the late 70's/early 80's vs today? Wonder if Boston Bill got pampered like today's runners? Think he got the money they get today? Think the knowledge about nutrition was as good then as it is today? Put Tiger in the same clubs/balls as Nicklaus used, and let's see how many tournaments he wins today! Technology increases as well as knowledge. Attempting to compare Bill R. to todays marathons is really pointless.
ToDisagree wrote:
Meb better and Boston Bill? Come on!!! Meb has run only a handful of marathons, and done quite well. However, that's like saying Tiger is better than Nicklaus. To be a complete champion, it takes years of winning and perservance, not just a couple of good years to be considered the best.
Keflezighi is looking damn good so far:
2002 2:12:35 9 New York
2003 2:10:03 7 Chicago
2004 2:11:47 2 Olympic Trials
2004 2:11:29 2 Olympic Games
2004 2:09:53 2 New York
2005 2:09:56 3 New York
2006 2:09:56 3 Boston
Hodgie-san wrote:
1977 Ranked #1 in the World in the Marathon by Track & Field News
1978 Ranked #2 in the World in the Marathon by Track & Field News
1979 Ranked #1 in the World in the Marathon by Track & Field News
1981 Ranked #7 in the World in the Marathon by Track & Field News
If you look at the top 10 in the above rankings, you will notice one thing about the countries of the ranked athlete's, not one from the continent of Africa. All US, Europe, Austrailia, or Japan. As the 80's blend into the 90's, African's start making a charge to the top of the rankings not because they are all of a sudden good runner's, but because they have been excluded from the earlier races because of location, money, communication, whatever. They weren't there, so comparing Brian, Alan, and Meb to the great US runner's of the past based on T&F news world rankings doesn't make any sense. It is apples and oranges. I never said Bill wasn't a great runner and obviously the inspiration for a lot of people getting into our sport. The way people talk about him being the best and why could he do it and other americans can not is not fair to today's runners. They are working just as hard, they face more and tougher competition in a world that shrinks every day. Today the world ranking's are every continent.
boston william wrote:
This thread is proof that Bill Rodgers is a f u c k i n g god.
Kenenisa Bekele anyone???
yeah if he had different shoes in the 70s then he would have run faster... holy hell, aren't you a victim of the nike, reebok and every other shoe company's media machinei would admit, if they knew more about training, about nutrition, etc. but shoes? come on
AMEN brother. Also, I wonder what kind of technology was available in shoes in the late 70's/early 80's vs today? .
Everyone claims that this was a weak Boston due to the fact that London is so strong. If this was weak then what were the fields that Boston Billy beat? How many times did Billy ever run against a sub 2:07 marathoner? How about sub 2:08? Todays races do not compare to races of the 70's or 80's.
There was probably 8-10 runners in this race that have run faster than the world record in 1980.
Everyone claims that this was a weak Boston due to the fact that London is so strong. If this was weak then what were the fields that Boston Billy beat? How many times did Billy ever run against a sub 2:07 marathoner? How about sub 2:08? Todays races do not compare to races of the 70's or 80's.
There was probably 8-10 runners in this race that have run faster than the world record in 1980.
hrunner wrote:
i would admit, if they knew more about training, about nutrition, etc. but shoes? come on
Nothing's changed in 20 years. What is that these guys didn't know about training and nutrition?
1. G. Meyer, MA 2:09:00
2. R. Tabb, OR 2:09:31
3. B. Durden, GA 2:09:57
4. E. Mendoza, AZ 2:10:06
5. C. Bunyan, IL 2:10:54
6. D. Edge, Canada 2:11:03
7. M. Layman, WA 2:11:24
8. D. Schlesinger, MA 2:11:36
9. J. Wells, OR 2:11:42
10. B. Rodgers, MA 2:11:58
11. D. Hinz, MI 2:12:05
13. D. MacDonald, CA 2:12:49
14. B. Coates, PA 2:13:02
15. D. Gordon, OR 2:13:11
16. H. Schulz, CA 2:13:37
17. D. Rinde, CA 2:13:48
18. R. Sayre, OR 2:13:49
19. G. Vega, NY 2:14:01
20. K. McCarey, CA 2:14:09
21. T. Fleming, NJ 2:14:14
22. C. Law, NC 2:14:21
23. D. Matthews, GA 2:14:46
24. T. Shibutani, Japan 2:15:12
25. D. Patterson, PA 2:15:20
26. J. Dimick, VT 2:15:23
27. B. Allen, CO 2:15:36
28. E. Castellanou, Venezuela 2:15:40
29. L. Barthlow, MA 2:15:43
30. M. Mesler, MI 2:15:44
31. M. Pinocci, CA 2:15:50
32. P. Cummings, UT 2:16:05
33. J. Hope, CA 2:16:10
34. J. Anderson, OR 2:16:19
35. R. Serna, CA 2:16:26
36. J. Thomas, MA 2:16:28
37. F. Stonecipher, MO 2:16:35
38. A. Azocar, Venezuela 2:16:38
39. S. Molnar, PA 2:16:41
40. M. Patterson, PA 2:16:45
41. B. Hensley, CT 2:16:50
42. J. Metcalf, OK 2:17:02
43. R. Hagemann, TX 2:17:05
44. F. Torneden, KS 2:17:08
45. A. Cendejas, CA 2:17:15
46. P. Friedman, NY 2:17:17
47. D. Ryberg, NC 2:17:18
48. G. Fanelli, PA 2:17:29
49. A. Treffinger, PA 2:17:30
50. R. Fritzke, CA 2:17:31
Meb is coached by the same guy who did OK back in 1976 with a team called the Jamul Toads.
ToDisagree wrote:
To be a complete champion, it takes years of winning and perservance, not just a couple of good years to be considered the best.
If wins and longevity are the criteria under consideration, then yes, Rodgers was a better marathoner than Meb has been so far.
That's not what I mean, though. I mean in head-to-head competition either in the fields of the 1970s or in those of today, I think Meb would beat Rodgers most of the time. And that's a maybe. Rodgers was amazing when he was on, but he didn't have to face as many runners who would set out at sub-4:50 pace. That changes the nature of the race. If guy tried that in the 1970s or 1980s, people would let him go and assume he'd come back to them. Runners can't make that assumption today. Meb has to either make the choice of latching on at a pace Rodgers and others of his time would have considered foolhardy and bound to fail or he has to run a safer race and hope to pick up the pieces, knowing that such a strategy usually isn't a winning one in today's big marathons, knowing that 2:06 pace is not foolhardy anymore.
The mere presence of those runners who could possibly hold on at 2:06 pace makes it much tougher to decide on and execute your best strategy in today's marathons. My guess is that if the Meb of today found himself in the 1970s Boston races, when the world record was 2:08 and the course record was 2:09, he would find the going much more to his liking than he does today, and he would probably be in greater control. His 2:09 this year was done the hard way compared to how a 2:09 would have been done against Rodgers, and I imagine Meb would have been the most comfortable of anyone in the field in the 1970s. Conversely, I don't think Rodgers would have been too comfortable at the front in 2006 and might have been out of his element trying to come from behind against that kind of pace.
But hey - maybe I'm wrong and Rodgers would have hung with any pace he had to or could have let the leaders go and worked his way up to pass Meb if he'd been in this year's race. For all anybody really knows, Rodgers might have run 2:07 if necessary, but that's an awfully big stretch and I'm guessing he couldn't do that. There's no doubt he was awesome when he was at his best, but I still think Meb would beat him heads-up.
Rodgers was a racer, not a time trialer. accordingly, Bill always ran to win, not to set records. So after he broke free, he'd cruise home. Because of his devastating breakaway moves, generally up First Ave in NYC, and on the hills in Boston, he never had to race hard to the line. Only in Boston `79 in the race with Seko, did BR come onto Ring Road at the finish, and seeing the clock, realize he could move up to 4th on the all-time list if he nipped under Ron Hill's 2:09:28. That's the great picture of Bill snarling the tape, sock hat in hand, giving it up for that place in the books. He once ran a marathon in Japan against an Ekiden team in which he ran a 2:08. But since it wasn't an official marathon, the time was never recognized.
No, if he had had company in his 1976-1979 prime, he could have well run in the mid to high 2:08s/