Bill Rodgers or Pat Porter

I bet most of the people on this site are only vaguely familiar with Porter but everyone including the youngsters has heard of Bill Rodgers.

I have thought about this for a few days but haven't came to a conclusion. Rodgers, of course, is far more recognizable and I have met him a few times. I spent a year at Adams State right after Pat graduated and watched him train.

The one thing I do know is that both were the absolute best for a few years at the events they chose to participate in.

Rodgers in the 1970's and early '80's the most famous distance runner in America. More than Shorter, maybe only Ryun comes close in recognizeability among the general public. I remember a Sunday supplement cover article that made notice of his "bad" diet (the media always picks up on stupid things) and I got a detention when I argued with my 8th grade teacher that the most famous runner in the world ate crappy junk food. She was trying to teach a lesson on the importance of nutrition.

I don't know if Rodgers' fame was due to good timing from being around at the time of the running boom, or if he was partly responsible for it. I know in 1979 I didn't know who Pre or Shorter was. Had heard of Jim Ryun. But I knew who Bill Rodgers was.

Steve Hoag wrote:

DreamTeam wrote:

1:48???

Seems a little fast for Rodgers. Did I read that right?

That must be a typo or mistake. Doesn't compute with Bill's 4:18 mile PR and others. I know Bill's fast, but....Hodgie-san, help us out with this one.

I'd bet it was closer to 1:58.

This has become a popularity contest. The original question was who was a better runner, not who is more well known. Dean Karnazes is well-known, and he sucks. Is this really an answerable question? You're trying to compare a marathoner to a cross-country specialist, from different eras. I believe Pat Porter had more talent and would have been faster at any distance, save for maybe the marathon, if he had focused on it, but I can't automatically say he was a better runner based on that criteria alone. Rodgers was the best marathoner of his time (mid-late 70s).

along the same lines we can separate them this way....Rodgers would have been the favorite for the gold medal in an event in the Olympics. The same can't be said of Porter.

Porter was terrific but Rodgers was a bit better and more accomplished.

I imagine Emil Zatopek or Hannes Kohlemainen would have a tough time vs. guys running 26:30 or even 27:30 but that doesn't make the 27:30 guys better than the Czech and the Finn.

Sagarin wrote:

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.

Agreed. It would absolutely impossible for ANYONE to dominate golf in these times.

Bill Rodgers is the man.

The Ghost of Harry Murphy wrote:

Agreed. It would absolutely impossible for ANYONE to dominate golf in these times.

Oooh, wow, what a compelling point, and yet, so obvious that I knew some simpleton couldn't reject making this retort. Is this the claim I made? Nope. You totally missed the point. All the current record says is that Tiger is probably a better golfer than Jack Nicklaus, despite the fact that many would fervently continue to hold the position that Jack was the greatest of all time. If jack were playing today, much as, if Bill Rodgers were running today, he would face much greater competition and have far fewer victories. That's just common sense. A 2:10 marathoner doesn't become a 2:05 marathoner simply becasue he runs in an era 20 years later. Yes, this assertion would hold truer if you were comparing the greats of the early 1900s or 1950s to today, because training methods improved immensely in the 1960s. Hell, Derek Clayton ran a solo 27:39 in very windy conditions in the early 60s, probably worth a sub-27:20 in normal conditions, and here we are 40 years later, and caucasian males are still running the same times. Hell, Dave Moorcroft ran 13:00 solo in 1982. Genetics, physiology, and training hasn't changed so much in the last 20 years that Rodgers would have improved dramatically.

Bill Rodgers was great and he may have run a legitimate 2:08 on a faster course with better competition. But he would have no major wins today. It's not like he was capable of a 2:05, even if he were running today. That's the only point I'm making. If you don't agree, then you are delusional. Your point is so stupid, that's you may as well substitute Kenny Bekele for Tiger Woods, and then maybe you will understand.

Sagarin wrote:

It's not like he was capable of a 2:05, even if he were running today. That's the only point I'm making. If you don't agree, then you are delusional. Your point is so stupid, that's you may as well substitute Kenny Bekele for Tiger Woods, and then maybe you will understand.

You appear to be someone who believes that faster = better.

I disagree.

Unless one thinks that I'm better than Hannes Kohlemainen and that a whole bunch of guys are better than Emil Zatopek.

Here's the point I'm making. If Alberto Salazar had been around just five years earlier, he alone would have beaten Rodgers at both New York and Boston. Heck, Dick Beardsley would have beaten Rodgers at Boston. The deep African fields of today just simply didn't exist during the Rodgers era. They did however emerge during the Porter era. Hold onto your fanciful notions and fond memories of Bill Rodgers if you are an old-timer. He was great and what he did inspired generations. But to compare Rodgers to Porter is simply fruitless. It's like asking what's better, chocolate ice cream or chocolate chip cookies?

The Ghost of Harry Murphy wrote:

You appear to be someone who believes that faster = better.

And this is where you've got it all wrong. I don't necessarily think faster is better, but I also think it's just plain dumb to hold a person's win-loss record as proof of how much better they are, particularly when they were competing in a less-competitive era. The only reason I bring times into the debate is because people, including yourself, act as though Rodgers would have been faster and as victorious simply because he competed during an era some 20 years later. That may have been true if he was competing in the 1940s versus today, but not so over the last 40 years. Training methods are the same now as they were then. White European males are running the same times now as they were in 1960. Rodgers would be a very good, but not great, marathoner if he were competing today, kind of like Alan Culpepper.

Who's to say Rodgers couldn't match today's times? Yeah, today's times are indeed faster - but for those of us who remember, Rodgers had a "calendar" like none other - including Porter. If Bill is reading this, which he may very well be, he's probably chuckling at the selectivity of today's elites, as opposed to his wife finally taking over as his booking "agent" because he simple couldn't say "no" to any race director. Could he have run today's times? with his training? and the selective nature of today's elite? Absolutely. Same goes for Beardsley, too. These guys spent their entire careers overraced. To a certain extent it was the $$. Today that's not quite the factor.

Sagarin wrote:

Here's the point I'm making. If Alberto Salazar had been around just five years earlier, he alone would have beaten Rodgers at both New York and Boston. Heck, Dick Beardsley would have beaten Rodgers at Boston.

Both of those are big assumptions.

You say you don't necessarily believe that faster = better and then you list an explanation of why Rodgers wouldn't be faster and therefore not as good if he competed today.

How about this....Rodgers was a more accomplished runner internationally in his main events than Porter was in his main events.

True, and just as big of assumptions as Rodgers still being able to win Boston and NYC today. It's also as big of an assumption as saying that Rodgers' 3rd place in Morocco was as good as anything Porter ever achieved at world cross, based on finishing place alone. This is obviously all conjecture on all of our parts, and many have contributed very good, opposing views. I can only merely offer an opinion that at any distance half-marathon and below, I would have put my money on Porter, if both runners were at the top of their game. Above the half, there's probably no contest. Rodgers takes him every time. This is honestly just a stupid, irrelevant debate. If you honestly think you can discern who was a better runner when they never competed head-to-head and never specialized in the same event, you're deluded.

The Ghost of Harry Murphy wrote:

You say you don't necessarily believe that faster = better and then you list an explanation of why Rodgers wouldn't be faster and therefore not as good if he competed today.

How about this....Rodgers was a more accomplished runner internationally in his main events than Porter was in his main events.

Geez man, I was just providing that example to prove a point, or disprove if you will. Is it not fair to say that Rodgers was more accomplished internationally because the fields were far less competitive than they were some 10-15 years later? So that argument is a ruse. It's a general consensus that the best of the best meet at world cross, marathoners, 10,000 meter specialists and steeplechasers alike. It's a much deeper venue than Boston or New York or Fukuoka. Fair enough, Rodgers proved his prowess at that one world cross event, but you'll never convince me that he would even have placed in the top ten some ten years later, and I'll probably never convince you otherwise.

Sagarin and Ghost of Harry Murphy, I love the debate you guys are having because it's always intrigued me: how do you compare "greatness" of athletes from different eras. We "old-timers" ( I'm 60 ) are like the Sat. Night Live characters who always said Ditka and da Bears could beat the whole NFL.(BR, Shorter, Frank, Bikila, Zatopek, Nurmi et al were the absolute "greatest runners ever" is our way of thinking!) I actually ran against Rodgers and Shorter (mostly behind!), so I am in total awe of their abilities, guts, and competitiveness. Although intellectually I know better, I have a hard time believing that BR and Shorter could lose to ANYONE, ANYTIME. At their peaks they totally dominated the rest of the distance running world. That says a lot.Yet, it's hard to argue with the 2:05-06 times being put up today and realize our heroes could (and would) lose. As to competitive fields, how about Drayton, Ron Hill, Derek Clayton, Seko, etc. that Frank and Bill lined up against? Were they "hacks"?? We had no say who competed against us in the 1970s/early 80s. I ran Boston in 1973-75.Yes, I thank my lucky stars that there were few Africans in the Boston races I was in, but that's hardly my fault that they chose not to run there or elsewhere. I don't believe that Bill or Frank could be accused of dodging anyone; they basically took on the best in the world (and often!) and usually came out on top. I think that the only fair way to compare runners is how they did against their contemporaries. It's easier with Shorter and Rodgers, as Sagarin pointed out, technology/training has not changed much. (It gets much tougher with guys like Zatopek and Nurmi who had to race in 1 lb. shoes, etc.) Trust me, Shorter and Rodgers would find a way to be competitive today. Maybe not win, but be in there and running faster than they did in the 1970s/early 80s. Again these comparisons are pretty futile, especially when you add someone like Porter who had a specialty like XC. Let's just say that they were all great runners in their day and events. We definitely need more Rodgers and Porters today!