Bill Rodgers or Pat Porter

Although there aren't "World rankings" in cross, Porter's three (four?) top ten finishes in World cross are very relevant when comparing an athlete's standing across the globe. Agreed, his XC performances don't match up to Rodgers marathon performances, but still very noteworthy.

another perspective wrote:

Although there aren't "World rankings" in cross, Porter's three (four?) top ten finishes in World cross are very relevant when comparing an athlete's standing across the globe. Agreed, his XC performances don't match up to Rodgers marathon performances, but still very noteworthy.

Most of this is accurate, but I disagree on your very last point. Rodgers would have no major marathon wins during the Porter era because long distance running at every level became so much more competitive globally. Craig Virgin won the world cross title twice, but he was "only" a tad under 27:30 in the 10k. Whie Africans have considerably dropped world leading times into the 26:30 10k and 2:05 marathon range, white European males are still running barely under 27:30 some 25 years later. Rodgers would not have been faster simply because he competed during a later era. He would still be a 28:00, 2:10 guy today -- good, but hardly noticeable. 140 miles a week is 140 miles a week, no matter the era, shoes, etc. In fact, if anything, the "better" running shoes and training methods got, the more guys got injured.

So to compare Rodgers 3rd place finish at world cross in a bygone era to Porter's 4th finish is silly. Just as it would be silly to say that Craig Virgin would have a shot at winning world cross today. In the end, Porter was a dominant cross-country runner who won multiple national championships and made two Olympic teams in the 10k. Rodgers was a tough son of a bitch on the roads and won multiple, what basically were national championship marathons, in the US, to go with his Fukuoka and Netherlands performances. If anything, I would throw props to Rodgers, because he was fighting an uphill battle pursuing a sport that had yet to really gain credibility or respect during a very contentious political era. Porter had it much easier in that regard. But the original question as to who was better is just plain silly. A much more relevant comparison would be Rodgers-Shorter or Porter-Virgin.

another perspective wrote:

... 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 am not sure what your definition of making a fine living out of being a XC specialist is but I guess Porter would switch bank accounts with Rodgers in a heart beat. Not much money running in the grass.

Very few US runners really took post collegiate XC running too seriously.

I'm guessing you were commenting at this point to other posts as I've been one that's been defending Porter's cross record, but I absolutely agree with you that Rodgers 3rd place doesn't compare to Porter's World cross record.

I'm sure you're right, but I know that Porter did quite well financially, maybe not compared to a successful marathoner/road racer, but it was a better living than most runners at the time.

cgray wrote:

[quote]another perspective wrote:

... 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 am not sure what your definition of making a fine living out of being a XC specialist is but I guess Porter would switch bank accounts with Rodgers in a heart beat. Not much money running in the grass.

Very few US runners really took post collegiate XC running too seriously.[/quote

Yes, I doubt Pat or anyone would make a great living from XC per se, but the unknown is probably what NIKE paid him for his XC prowess.I'm sure Porter's XC dominance moved more than a few pair of NIKEs! Big bucks? All relative, I think. I'm sure that Pat was well-rewarded for his XC success nationally and internationally.

Yes I am, and yes, we are in agreement on much, though I just wrote a blanket response since I haven't interjected on this thread for awhile. I just simply believe that there's no way one can assert that "A" performance was better than "B" from one era to the next, one event to the next. This is particularly true as running got exponentially more competitive internationally after Rodgers left the sport. Jack Nicklaus has 18 major titles and may be the greatest golfer that ever lived, but there's no way he wins 18 in the contemporary era as competitive as golf has become. I think he'd struggle to get even half of those majors.

Porter actually was considered the favorite by Swiss newspapers to win in Neuchatel in 1986. I was there and read the papers, although I'm sure the informed consensus was that it would be an unknown Kenyan or Ethiopian.

I believe this was when Pat Porter was at his peak. He still never did anything big Internationally in track other than make the Olympic finals in 84 and finish last. No American records either but remember he did smash the WR in the 10k on the roads but it turned out to be a little short so no record.

He was way too intense to be a good marathoner. No way could he relax for that long, it would drive him crazy. He trained to run just to the point of oxygen debt and maybe a little behond and maintain it longer than anyone else.

Sagarin, I disagree with you regarding your statement about Rodgers not running faster if he would have been running during Porter's era.

I believe he would have still been winning, just the times would have been faster. he didn't run the time trial courses of today (London, Rotterdam etc.) He ran the most competitive races. He was capable of running whatever it took when he was at his best.

That's a fair point, and I'll give you that his low-2:10 at NYC could have been much faster on a course like London or Chicago. However, Rodgers popped his only two sub-2:10s at Boston, which can be, but certainly is not always, notoriously fast in good conditions with a tailwind. He may have run even faster at Rotterdam for example, but the fields are just so much deeper nowadays that I don't see him winning anything. That's not to discredit the guy at all. Everything he accomplished was amazing, and his longevity is unparalleled. I wish he would have gotten his shot in 1980, because he very possibly could have achieved a podium spot. I also admire his tenacity when everything surrounding him probably told him to get a "real" job, and training in urban Boston is probably not nearly as favorable as training in Colorado.

The course in Rabat in '75 was almost like a road race according to Rodgers.

Bo sox wrote:

Sagarin, I disagree with you regarding your statement about Rodgers not running faster if he would have been running during Porter's era.

I believe he would have still been winning, just the times would have been faster. he didn't run the time trial courses of today (London, Rotterdam etc.) He ran the most competitive races. He was capable of running whatever it took when he was at his best.

Bo sox: I think you are absolutely "right on" with this assesment of Rodgers' PRs. I think that he ran whatever was needed to win and did not race the superfast "track" courses common today. Bill was the ultimate competitor, along with Shorter, and I believe those two were capable of 2:07-08 with today's fields/courses with rabbits available. Certainly not quite in the class of today's Kenyan and Ethiopian "A" teams, but for certain both of their PR's were "soft". I agree with Sagarin that a better comparison would be Shorter v. Rodgers at their respective peaks. I would favor BR on a hilly course (e.g. Boston) and cool day. I'd pick Frank on a flat "track" course (e.g. London) and a warmer day. The variables do get a little crazy, though. I would also agree with Sagarin that technology would not account for a whole lot as it was the high mileage that got both men the results they got. Shoes, etc. matter far less than most would think. Hey, they weren't exactly training and racing in combat boots! ( I saw Frank's Tiger racing flats at the '76 Oly Marathon Trials and they were VERY LIGHT) The big factors would definitely be the competition of the East Africans and super-fast courses set up for very fast times.

How 'bout Porter v Cummings:

http://www.runningnetwork.com/news/paulcummings.html

Didn't Porter run a marathon once? I recall that it didn't go well.

2:19 at Twin Cities in 1993. It was the U.S. Championships.

Can't remember who won that one. Probably Eyestone.

I agree that we're dealing with apples and oranges. Porter was a nonentity at the marathon, but he was better at cross country than Rodgers, who finished third behind Ian Stewart and Mariano Haro in 1975. I doubt Rodgers would have finished as high as third in any of the years that Porter competed.

By the way, Haro finished second four times in a row from 1972-1975. (His last three second-place finishes were within a second of the winner.) And in 1963, he was third. Now that's some impressive longevity.

One thing that Rodgers and Porter have in common is that they were mediocre high school runners. As I recall, Rodgers had a two-mile PR of about 10:00. And Porter's mile PR was around 4:30.

Rogers is a legend!

He transcends running.

Boston Billy tying the shoe!

The GBTC hand lettered !

Rogers owned the road for a few years.

Didn't Rogers smoke in hs

Desert Rodent says: "He (Rodgers) cheated himself and more importantly us....................

You sound like one of the worlds great a**holes. Rodgers didn't and doesn't owe you anything. Not then, not now and not ever. Crawl back in your hole rodent.