Would Pre be a legend if he didn't die?

Very good point, at least through the 1960s, more than five years after he hobbled through the finals of the Olympic 10,000m in Tokyo. If Gerry had died shortly after thrashing Pre in the 1969 NCAA National Cross-Country Championships, perhaps he would be the big legend, though I suspect that he was too soft-spoken and socially awkward for Americans, who tend to prefer brash characters like Pre to mythologize. Gerry, by the way, is still alive, but seems to be struggling.

1969 AAU 3 mile

There's no "Liquori's Rock" or "Shorter's Rock" because neither of them killed themselves on such a rock. The big movie studios don't make movies about them because they didn't die in their primes. So I think the answer to the OP's question is that Pre would not be the legend that he became if he hadn't died young.

Pre was only 21 in Munich. Shorter won his medals at 25 and 29. Pre wasn’t even in his prime yet, and he finished 4th in the world. Ever see that pic of him preparing for ‘76? He was absolutely shredded. Of course, we’ll never know. We’re both speculating.

Yes, Schul, not Dellinger for gold. I really blew that one but it was Schul I had in mind. Thanks. And I agree IF Prefontaine had won gold in Montreal it would have been huge but would it have been huge enough for him to have become the cult figure he did? If so, why? Other huge things happened with US distance running, Schul (thanks again) and Mills in Tokyo, Shorter in Munich, Virgin's two wins at World Cross Country, and none of them became the cult figure Prefontaine did. I think Prefontaine's legacy would be very comparable to these other four guys' IF he won gold at Montreal which is a really big if.

I'm saying if he did win in 1976 and stayed alive, he wouldn't be the legend he is now.

As far as his fame goes, the most significant thing he did was crash a car.

Jeez, cheer up. I hope you do something better with your life than sh*t on a dead guy.

Thanks. When Pre was 18?

Agreed, the OP is not really interested in the topic. He's just an angry troll.

I'm not sh*tting on the guy. It's true. He wasn't significantly better than the other Americans at the time. Yet, he's held up as some sort of running god. The only reason appears to be his early death. If he didn't die young he'd be remembered as a good runner, but not a legend.

Give it a rest, and grow up. His competitive record is posted all over the internet. One of the most competitive runners of the time. A God, only when seen through Nike goggles, but he was one of the best in the world. And he raced anyone at any distance. His 10k record was on a Saturday morning all-comers race, with zero competition.

Mine weren't Turkey Trots, either. In fact, they were big races with lots of fast runners.

Frank is eleven years older than I. He is eight years older than you. He is, in fact, considerably older than either of us. But if you're just trying to point out that he was faster when you beat him than he was when I beat him, I have no problem with that.

According to the AI engine that I asked, "Yes, Frank Shorter did beat Steve Prefontaine in some races." The italics are the AI engine's, as if it's tired of answering that question. But it provides no details. (I will note that Frank won four straight national cross-country championships from 1970 to 1973, something that no one seems to have mentioned in this thread.)

I think we're getting far afield from the original question, which had to do with the relationship between Pre's death and his legendary status (at least, in the eyes of Americans). And regarding that question, I don't think that Pre would have achieved that legendary status if he had lived a long time. I don't think he would have won any major international championships at any distance or in any event, and I think he would have drifted into the long line of very fine runners that the U.S. has produced over the decades. No big films about him, no big international track meets named after him, no generations of groupies worshipping him. In fact, probably not even a popular wood-chip trail that would bear his name.

People are confabulating all sorts of things on this thread. Was Pre a "better" runner than Shorter, or have more accomplishments? No. Gerry Lindgren also had a better HS and college careers than Pre. But, even before he died, neither had the following that Pre had. He just had that charisma. You really had to have been alive & a runner during that time to understand his appeal.

They’re not better in different ways Malmo. Maybe if Pre was an 800m runner and Shorter never raced below 10k that could be true. But it isn’t true. Shorter raced from 3k up and Pre raced from the 1500 up to 10k. There’s too much overlap. Of course Pre was better at the middle distance races and Shorter was a marathon phenom who also succeeded at 10k. However, when you look at the fact that they are both distance runners with enough race distance overlap, Shorter is clearly better than Pre. He achieved the pinnacle of the overall sport and was far more successful winning on the international stage. To say that Pre is better than a two time Olympic medalist just because he beat that medalist four times over the medalist’s off distances is unfair. Pre never raced a marathon and only ran one 10k. We have to go by what is each person’s greatest accomplishments in their career, not by just if one beat the other. You trashed me early for using the world objectively. It’s an adverb which is applicable here. Frank Shorter had an objectively better career than Pre. Shorter’s best wins are objectively better than Pre’s best wins. Winning medals, marathon majors, the pan am games, and being ranked US number 1 at the marathon numerous years and at the 10k twice are achievements Prefontaine never accomplished. I’m a fan of Prefontaine too, but I’m also honest and Shorter was just better. Everyone values Olympic medals and Shorter has two and Pre has none. That’s just how it is. Sorry.

Exactly. (I just want to be clear that we're on the same side of this discussion.)

I couldn’t have said it better myself and I actually forgot about Frank’s success at USA XC.

Only thing I would contend with is it is possible he could have won the 10k in Montreal. He would have been the fastest miler in that field with his 3:54. I’ll have to check the competitors list and their PBs. Shorter himself actually once said in an interview that Pre was planning on doubling and that he thought it was likely Pre would win the 10k and at least medal in the 5. He said he believed if he raced the mile a few times more before the 76 games, that he was capable of getting down to 3:52. In the 10k that means even without a kick he could have broke away easily from Viren and company with 800 to go. None of those guys could match that acceleration over the last 8. Think what Grant sometimes does with a mile to go against American competition and apply it to Montreal. To just count out Pre entirely because he was outmatched in Munich isn’t looking at the big picture or his progress or his would be competition in Montreal. He very well could have been a double champion.