Would guys like Bill Rogers and Frank Shorter vs top women runners now both in their prime who wins

Bill was working as an orderly, flicked his cigarette, took off running in scrubs and in a little over 2 hrs, had covered a marathon

The biggest advantage of today's supershoes is the recovery. For high mileage guys like Shorter and Rodgers, they would be able to train faster and eecover much faster along with the instant pop of just throwing them on your feet.

They would at least have 2:06-7 PRs in today's era and be threats to win/medal on hillier and tougher condition type courses.

Just one addendum to your post: in the Munich games, Shorter ran 27:58.23 in the 10,000 heats, breaking the American record, and then three days later broke his own record in the finals with 27:51.32. Seven days later he won the marathon. Here's a nice Toni Reavis article on that race:

tracksmith.com

Frank Shorter Remembers Munich '72 | Tracksmith

How Frank Shorter's performance over 26 miles half a century ago, shaped the modern running world.

Open link

Keep in mind the marathon was run after the terrorist attack in the Olympic village, which took place the day after the 10,000 finals.

Would Bill Rodgers or Frank Shorter do well today against the world's best women? No. Bill and Frank are much older (both 78) and slower than they were in their prime! Besides the great improvements in shoes, there have been big changes in science, training, nutrition, travel, clothing, track surfaces for those who do some of their marathon training on tracks, etc. VAST changes. Humans are better attuned to running faster today -- men and women. You can't know Joan Benoit Samuelson's abilities decades ago as compared to female runners, even megastars, today!!!! No doubt every athlete in the past would have benefited from the knowledge known today, but it is ridiculous to compare the past to the present. Would Mickey Mantle have been such a superstar today, even in his prime? That's a question that will NEVER be answered. Speculation is one thing, reality is another!

Two things can both be true. The super shoes and doping can both contribute to faster times. Ruth C was not going to run 2:09 without doping. Ruth C was not going to run 2:09 without the super shoes. Surely you can grasp this? Or maybe you cannot.

they could not have beaten Abebe Bikila,. The man ran a 2:15 in barefoot for goodness shape and after his easy 2:12 olympic win he was hardly even tired and started doing field calisthenics.

With super shoes Bill Rogers and Frank Shorter are running at least 2:08.

Shorter and Rogers could have made any US Mens Marathon team consecutively for the past 30 years.

No one that I've seen has pointed out that Bill did run 2:08:47 (may be misremembering the seconds on that) against a Japanese relay team, which is why it "didn't count" as his PR.

Bill and Frank ran to WIN, not for records. The emphasis was different back then. They could both have gone faster in supershoes, and they both could have recovered faster with today's nutrition, bigger purses (so less racing) and better shoes. Clearly. How fast? We'll never know.

However, the only reason that Frank doesn't have two gold medals is that he was beaten by a drug fuelled Cierpinski (which we know, for a fact, from the Stasi files). At his prime, Frank was the very best marathon runner in the world. And then Bill came and took that mantle for years as well. That's how good they were.

Which part of the shoes helped her run 2:09. The soles, the uppers or the laces? And how?

There is plenty of information on this. Peer reviewed papers and lay articles.