Living in the Past wrote:
(Yeah, you were there alright.)
Yes I was there. November 6, 1988 high 63, low 53.
Living in the Past wrote:
(Yeah, you were there alright.)
Yes I was there. November 6, 1988 high 63, low 53.
Living in the Past wrote:
As for Jones's half marathon split in 1985, I think it was 1:01:42. And he went through the first 10k in around 29:30. It's amazing that he didn't implode in the second half of the race. I thought Jones did have pacers in 1985 but that they couldn't keep up! I agree that he could have broken Lopes's world record on that day.
I think there was a British runner who was the designated pacemaker, but Jonesy ditched him by two miles. As I recall, Simeon Kigen, the very skinny Kenyan, stayed on Jonesy's heels for 10k or so, but Kigen wasn't even sharing the lead, so Jonesy was doing all of the work for 24 miles. I talked about that race with Jonesy a few years ago, and he good-naturedly suggested that he was crazy to go out that fast, but that's just the way he was. I know it's heresy to say this, but I'm honestly not sure that Geb or Tergat, without pacemakers, could have run the first half that fast and then hung on as well as he did into a headwind. He was strong and tough as nails.
Charles Spedding ran 2:09:57 in the 1984 London Marathon. So that makes 17 guys with PRs of 2:10 or faster and 14 guys with PRs of 2:09 or faster going into the Los Angeles Olympic marathon. The 1972 Olympic marathon field looks lame by comparison, even if it was held 12 years earlier. Contrary to what "48" says, the Munich marathon field was not one of the "finest ever assembled."
Perhaps what would be more accurate (and may be what "48"meant) was that UP TO THAT TIME, it was the greatest Oly Marathon field assembled. There were some pretty awesome names in the field, besides Shorter: Hill, Clayton, Lismont, Moore and many others. Only a year or two before, there were probably no bigger names in marathoning than Ron Hill and Derek Clayton. I remember the "Big Three" in the late 1960s were Drayton, Clayton and Hill.(Had quite a ring to it, sounding almost like a law firm!) Granted, by 1972, Clayton and Hill were arguably past their prime, and Drayton did not run (?). Still, Clayton and Hill had a "presence", probably enough to worry Frank a little. I may be wrong in this idea, but I feel that you have to compare competition at the particular time and almost disregard actual times, which TODAY are scary, compared to the 2:09s posted in the late 60s/early 70s. (Just for example, I absolutely could not, in 1972, have imagined the 2:04/2:05 times being run today!!) The 1972 Olympic Marathon did not lack for talent, even though the times seem "pedestrian" by today's standards. Just my $.02; have a great Holiday!! STEVE
Shorter winning the marathon was a huge boost to the interest level of distance running in the US back in '72. Then, later on, as Rodgers went on his rampage, it gave people two "stars" to emulate.
By the way, Jack Bachelor (spelling?) seemed to have been an enormous influence on Shorter. My impression is that he may have been a critical factor in Shorter's development.
Steve, one way of looking at competition at a particular time is to see how deep a field is compared to other races. In the Munich Olympic marathon, there were 4 minutes and 36 seconds separating first place and eighth place. In Moscow, it was 2 minutes and 9 seconds. In Los Angeles, it was 2 minutes and 18 seconds. In Atlanta, it was 2 minutes and 19 seconds. So by that standard, Munich doesn't rate.
Clayton and Hill were indeed the superstars of the Munich field, but by that point they weren't really 2:09 runners any more (as you alluded to).
I think Shorter, Rodgers, Drayton, Hill, and Clayton conferred status on the marathon, so that by 1984 it was viewed as being worthy of the best talent. Also, you had the rise of the big city marathons, which were being televised. Since there was a whole lot more interest in the event, the quality of the field was much higher.
As for what "48" meant, all I'm going by is what he wrote. He said that the Munich field was the best up to that point (no argument there) and that "[t]oday it still ranks among one of the best ever assembled."
That's where I beg to differ.
Hard to compare the two, because Shorter's marathoning prime was the early to mid 70s and Rodgers the mid to late 70s. They did not race each other much over the marathon, but in 76 they raced each other 3 times over the marathon with Shorter winning the Trials in hot weather, finishing higher than Rodgers in the Olympics in the rain (Rodgers training was hampered by a foot injury which meant no speed work) and Rodgers beating Shorter handily in the New York Marathon that fall. Shorter was the better hot weather runner. Rodger ran better in cool weather. Shorter trained for all distance events, basically the same year round and did not peak. He raced mostly track and cross country with occasional forays to the roads. Rodgers basically trained for the marathon (high mileage) and mostly just raced on the roads. Shorter was the last American to win the gold in the marathon and finished second in '76 to drug cheat Cierpinski. Rodgers repeatedly won Boston when it was one of the biggest international marathons in the world. Rodgers had the faster PR over the marathon. Probably because of the all-purpose way Shorter trained and raced he never ran as fast as he was capable of in the marathon.
Both Shorter and Rodgers ranked #1 in the World in the marathon 3 times.
Frank... Would have take Billy apart in 2 mile, 10k. in addition to his marathon success. I give Frank credit for his outspoken doubts about today's drug using losers. Billy, to his dis-credit, keeps mum.
Two other Los Angeles Olympic marathon participants with PRs of 2:10 were Gidamus Shananga (2:10:19) and Jorg Peter (2:10:56).
So that makes at least 19 runners with PRs of 2:10 or better going into the Olympic marathon in 1984. There were only two runners in that category going into Munich.
nj Bill wrote:
Frank... Would have take Billy apart in 2 mile, 10k. in addition to his marathon success. I give Frank credit for his outspoken doubts about today's drug using losers. Billy, to his dis-credit, keeps mum.
Billy realizes that Frank whines about it enough for 10 men.
Yeah, Frank is such a whiny little wimp. . . so a doped up cheater stole his gold medal- get OVER it, Frank. You already HAVE one.
Rodgers wasn't even a marathoner in 72.
Rodgers was lucky he saw Shorter winning Munich that got him motivated to start running again--otherwise he wouldn't have had his brilliant running career.
Hey Nobby, some of the posters on here think that the Munich marathon field still ranks among the greatest ever. I say that the Los Angeles field was far greater than Munich. In Munich, there were only two guys with PRs of 2:10 or faster going into the race, and neither was capable of that in 1972. Some of the best marathoners of the era, like John Farrington and Jerome Drayton, were not at the Olympics in 1972.
Los Angeles had at least 19 guys with PRs of 2:10 (and 14 guys with PRs of 2:09) going in. In Munich, the difference between first place and eighth place was 4 minutes and 36 seconds. In Los Angeles, it was 2 minutes and 18 seconds, which is exactly half the time in Munich.
I agree with the argument that a 2:10 in 1967-1970 was a more impressive achievement than a 2:10 in 1980-1984, but the sheer number of guys at that level in 1984 is just astounding. In my view, Los Angeles was a huge leap in quality over Munich because of the dramatic increase in the depth of the field.
What do you think?
I found another guy whose PR going into the Los Angeles Olympic Marathon was 2:10. Henryk Jorgensen of Denmark ran 2:10:47 at the London Marathon in 1983 to finish 3rd.
So that makes at least 20 guys with marathon PRs of at least 2:10 going into the 1984 Olympic Marathon. Contrast that with merely two guys in the same category going into the 1972 Olympic Marathon, neither of whom had run 2:10 in the previous 24 months and neither of whom would ever get close to running that fast again.
But the Munich marathon field ranks, even today, as one of the greatest of all time! Because that's what experts like Bill Bowerman, Cordner Nelson, and Roberto Quercetani supposedly said at some point in the distant past. LOL!
(Nobby, I thought you would have weighed in on this topic by now.)
Nobby, do you know this guy who posts under "48"?
Living in the Past wrote:
But the Munich marathon field ranks, even today, as one of the greatest of all time! Because that's what experts like Bill Bowerman, Cordner Nelson, and Roberto Quercetani supposedly said at some point in the distant past. LOL!
(Nobby, I thought you would have weighed in on this topic by now.)
I think that the Munich '72 Olympic Marathon stands out as a landmark race not so much for the super-fast times or star-studded field, as that it represented a clash between past greats Hill and Clayton v. the younger upstart American Frank Shorter. Clayton and Hill ran scores of great (for the times anyway) marathons. Clayton ran some 2:09s and a questionable 2:08, I believe. Hill won the Commonwealth Marathon and ran arguably the greatest Boston Marathon ever, in 1970....2:10:30 in a freezing rain!! I'll always remember Hill's raised right fist as he crossed the finish line.(There was a lot of pressure on Hill to win the gold, by the British media.) Shorter had won the prestigious Fukuoka Marathon prior to Munich. So, we had a showdown brewing for Munich; that's what made it so great, IMO. I remember, thirty-five years later, the great anticipation we all had for that race and the pride we felt when Shorter prevailed so convincingly. Added to that, Shorter honored another marathon great, Abebe Bikila,soon after the race who was watching in a wheel-chair. Other Olympic Marathons were certainly faster and deeper in talent, but none have that drama, I feel. And an American won!! Nobby, where are you to weigh in?
Shorter
Steve, I can appreciate what you're saying. As an American, I was proud to watch Frank Shorter win the gold medal in Munich and hold his own in the 10,000 against the likes of Viren, Puttemans, and Yifter.
But the Munich marathon was not a competitive affair. Frank was in the lead by around 9 miles, and his lead got progressively longer over the last 17 miles. It was a rout, and Hill and Clayton were never really in contention.
Contrast that with the drama in 1984. John Treacy had run 13:16 for 5,000 that year (a very fast time back then), and he was in a pack of three very late in the race, with Carlos Lopes and Charles Spedding. This was after a stellar field of 2:08-2:10 marathoners (and future 2:07 runner Ahmed Saleh) had fallen off one by one. And then the 37-year-old Lopes put in a surge that Treacy would later describe as a near sprint. Treacy decided not to respond and dueled it out with Charles Spedding for the silver. Lopes's finishing strength on a summer day in Los Angeles has to rank as one of the greatest performances in the history of the Olympic marathon. I'm sure Portuguese fans consider Lopes's win over such a deep field, and his ability to "break" John Treacy with a withering surge, to be as much of a "landmark" as you consider Shorter's victory over two superstars who were well past their prime.