Bill Rodgers vs. Frank Shorter

Okay, I guess Kilby wasn't WR holder... I thought he was something like European champ or European record holder or somehting, wasn't he???

Nobby, I don't think Salazar was considered a favorite in Los Angeles, as he had trouble qualifying for the US team and ran fifth in Fukuoka in 1983. He had also run poorly against Deek in the Rotterdam Marathon that same year and finished last in the 10,000 in the World Track Championships. Anyone following his career had to wonder what was going on.

Deek would only get faster after Los Angeles. So while he might have failed to reach a training peak, he was definitely not at a career peak. He ran 2:07:51 in 1986 at Boston. The field at Los Angeles was so deep that it didn't require strong performances from Salazar, Deek, Soh, or Dixon to be a classic race, perhaps the greatest marathon in Olympic history.

As for Clayton and Hill, they were well past their career peaks in Munich. Maybe they added celebrity to the Munich event, sort of like Jack Nicklaus would do at golf tournaments in the 1980s. But they weren't anywhere close to what they had been. I'm not offering that as an "excuse" but simply making an observation about the quality of the race. You're using "peak" in a sly way by applying the word to Clayton and Hill on the one hand and to Deek on the other.

Ron Hill had reached a career peak at the Commonwealth Games Marathon in Edinburgh in July 1970, when he ran 2:09:28. Derek Clayton was a spent force after 1969, mainly due to his accumulation of injuries. I don't think he was really considered a favorite in Munich by people who followed his career at the time. Derek Clayton and Ron Hill are arguably among the greatest marathoners in the history of the sport. But their era of greatness ended after the 1969 season for the one and the 1970 season for the other. To say that their presence in Munich made it a great race is simply an appeal to sentiment.

The difference between Munich and Los Angeles is that the field in Los Angeles was so deep that it was very competitive despite disappointing performances by some of the favorites. The marathon had become a more competitive event by 1984, not just in the US but worldwide. The field in Munich was pretty thin by comparison, although you make a valid point that it took more financial sacrifice in those days. I'm not so sure, though, that the marathon was a lucrative sport in 1984. None of the Soviet bloc athletes were there in 1984, so how many actual racers were being taken care of by their government? In any case, it must have been easier then than in 1972.

As for the shoes back then, they weren't all that primitive. Adidas and Tiger made some pretty decent ones in 1972. And Ron Hill had his custom-designed Reeboks. If you want to discuss primitive shoes, you'd have to go back earlier.

As you said, you made a diplomatic answer. So please answer me this: Do you know the guy who posts under "48"?

Nobby, good answer. You know Tokyo was an incredible marathon also with all of the greats you mention. Like Munich, it certainly wasn't competive as Bikila won by so much, and so easily. Yet that field was loaded. Munich certainly wasn't a competetive race, as Living in the Past points out. Shorter did have it put away quite early. I think what I remember about it was the "changing of the guard" aspect; Shorter becoming the new star, replacing the venerable Clayton and Hill. The guy that I felt the most sorry for was poor Ron Hill. He may have put the pressure on himself, but he never looked quite comfortable in the race. Hard to say when his "peak" was, but probably '69/'70. Also, you're probably right about Bill Rodgers being inspired by Shorter's win. Many of us were because we were about the same age and competed in college. I remember Shorter being a very good runner for Yale, and for him to win the Olympic Marathon was indeed inspiring.

Living in the Past wrote:

Nobby, I don't think Salazar was considered a favorite in Los Angeles, as he had trouble qualifying for the US team and ran fifth in Fukuoka in 1983.

Living in the Past, one thing you're consistent at is being wrong about the past.

Living with a bad hangover wrote: Living in the Past, one thing you're consistent at is being wrong about the past.

Nice post. No facts presented here, but an excellent display of condescension.

Salazar did finish second just behind Pete Pfitzinger and six seconds ahead of John Tuttle to qualify for the US Olympic team. Dave Gordon finished 15 seconds behind Salazar.

Because Salazar finished second, I suppose you would argue that he didn't have "trouble" making the Olympic squad. Salazar had been the greatest marathoner in the world a short time before. And one would have thought that he would have cruised to victory in that field, and with a lot in reserve. That he qualified for the team with only 15 seconds to spare shows that he had to struggle.

I should have written that Salazar "struggled" to make the team rather than that he had "trouble" making the team. I'll give you that much.

So, "bravo" for your brilliant contribution on this thread.

Living in the Past wrote:

So please answer me this: Do you know the guy who posts under "48"?

Yes I do know him.

You are somewhat right about Salazar not being "right". I would still not consider finishing 5th at 83 Fukuoka as that bad--I mean, Takeshi Soh finished 4th in that race, just one spot ahead of Salazar and still finished 4th at the Olympics. He (Salazar) should have still been considered as one of the favorites. Of course, we now know that he was already having some physiological problems then. But more than that, I think his problem was in his head. He thought he was invincible (winning everything in the US) and once he went outside the US and got beat, he started to doubt himself. He started to alter his training (which he shouldn't have).

In regards to the US trial, I'm not quite sure how his physical state was but getting beaten in the final sprint was nothing surprising. In fact, Lydiard predicted that would happen in the trial or Olympics simply because Salazar couldn't sprint and if he put himself in the final-mad-dash situation, he'll have all the trouble in the world (in Arthur's own words). I don't know if he could have "easily" pulled away from the field and won it easily had he pushed; but he certainly looked comfortable in the group. He might have put himself in that situation because he wanted to "save it for the Olympics" and tried to run just hard enough to be qualified. Of course, that might have done more damage to his head than his body.

I still think Salazar should have been in one of the favorites--certainly, Nakamura counted him as one of the dangers along with Deek, Ikangaa, Dixon, Soh brothers and few others.

Nobby, none of the guys you list as favorites ran poorly in Los Angeles. Takeshi Soh, Deek, and Ikangaa finished fourth, fifth, and sixth. Dixon, Salazar, and Shigeru Soh finished in the top 20.

It\'s not that any of those guys failed to do well at Los Angeles, but rather that there were other guys who were better on the day. That\'s why it was such a phenomenal race.

Back to your point that the mere presence of Clayton and Hill in Munich made it a classic race. If you\'re going to take that line of reasoning, you should point out that the mere presence of Karel Lismont in Los Angeles made it a race for the ages. Even though he only finished 24th in Los Angeles, his career was astonishing for its longevity at the highest level. He won a gold medal at the European championships marathon in 1971, won a silver medal in the Munich marathon, won a bronze medal in the Montreal marathon, won a bronze medal in the 1978 European championships marathon, and finished ninth in the Moscow marathon. There aren\'t many guys who have stayed at that level in the marathon for an entire decade. So for sentimental reasons, his participation in Los Angeles helped make it a classic.

Sorry to continue taking this thread off its original topic, but I'm wondering how much the Soviet boycott weakened the field in the 1984 marathon. Clearly it was a very good field, does anyone have the numbers on what the Russians and others would have added to it?

There was an alternative "Boycott Games" for victims of the Soviet boycott.

The major casualties of the boycott in the marathon were Dereje Nedi and Abebe Mekonnen, both of Ethiopia. They finished one and two in that race.

http://www.gbrathletics.com/ic/obg.htm

From what I can tell, Nedi was the only 2:10 guy in that field at the time. Mekonnen, of course, went on to have a stellar marathon career, which included a number two world ranking in 1991. He also competed in the 1992 and 1996 Olympic Games. His best time was 2:07:35 in the 1988 Beijing Marathon. But he was only 20 years old in 1984.

So Nedi and Mekonnen would have added some depth to the field, but they probably would not have cracked into the top six or so.

Waldemar Cierpinski ran 2:10:37 to finish third in the 1983 World Championships Marathon. He might have been a factor in 1984. The second-place finisher in that race was the Ethiopian Kebede Balcha. He also might have been a factor in 1984. (By the way, Deek won that race in 2:10:03.)

I do not think that, like eras, you can not compare great races. And they are all great for different reasons. I agree with Nobby that the 1964 race is right up there with the others. I found it thrilling.

There were numerous World record holders plus Commonwealth and European champions. By the way Kilby,won both races in 1962. In addition, there were three Boston winners. Vandendrische in 1963 and 1964, Oksanen in 1959, 1961 and 1962 and Kimihara, later, in 1966.

I wrote in my programme that at 5 and 10 K it was Clarke, Abebe and Hogan. Track and field news says that the early leader was Clarke in 15:06, 30:14 and 45:35 at 15 K. That was very fast in those days. In their Olympic Track and Field Book Track and Field News states that "Clarke, desperately seeking a resounding success after his disappointing show in the track events, was the early leader". The very fast early pace and the heat did in many of the greats of those days. To see exactly what effect they had, take a look at that classic, Ken Ichikawa's amazing "Tokyo Olympiad". It shows a great deal of the marathon. It shows Hogan, a Commonwealth Games Champion, staggering, siting on the curb and repeatedly begging for water after having been in second place as late in the race as the 7K point. Both the weather and the pace were hot and yet Bikila finished in a world record time, four minutes ahead of all the others. He was very relaxed and looked like he could do it all over again. Then Tsuburaya entered the stadium with Heatley just behind him and with Japan yet to win a medal in Track and Field. The Japanese crowd went wild. I consider it one of the greatest and most thrilling races I have seen and I can still watch it over and over thanks to Mr. Ichikawa.

Living in the Past wrote:

Nobby, I don't think Salazar was considered a favorite in Los Angeles, as he had trouble qualifying for the US team and ran fifth in Fukuoka in 1983.

Living with a bad hangover wrote:

Living in the Past, one thing you're consistent at is being wrong about the past.

Actually, hangover, there is some truth to what he's saying. I remember that time so well. I lived, breathed, and slept running back then. It's not true that Salazar had any trouble qualifying for the US team: He was second in the trials. Still something was different.

Yes Salazar had been the dominant marathoner in 1981-82 and he had still won beyond then but there was a distinct shift in 1983. I remember watching... I think it was Rudolfo Gomez... leading the NYC Marathon and Salazar barely pulling away from him. Suddenly it was like, "What happened to the guy who dominated the marathon".

People expected him to blow everyone away at the trials and instead he got second. He got LAST PLACE in the World Track and Field Championships that year at 10k and did badly at the Rotterdam marathon that year too (like 4th or 5th place). Then there was the Fukuoka finish.

So by the time the Olympics rolled around there was a HUGE question mark over Salazar. "Can he get it back?" and things to that effect. I still have all my running magazines from around then and that was the theme. The sense was that he was no longer quite the favorite he had been and very possibly would not even get a medal. The heat of Los Angeles was mentioned as being a strike against him. But in the same breath, his dominant form had been so recent that you knew if he got it back, he would be the man.

Good to see you, Orville! Hope you had a nice Christmas. You know, this could be one of the most "civil" letsrun threads for a long time.

Steve (Hoag), you mentioned that Abebe winning 64 Olympic marathon so easily; I'd say it was because he was so far ahead of everybody else; not because the field wasn't tough (I know you wouldn't think that the field was weak).

If I remember it correctly, Abebe, starting at the very tail end of the field at the start, coming back ("effortlessly", I might add...) to catch up Clarke and Hogan between 5 and 10K, was the first time we ever saw sub 15 for the 5k split in the marathon history??? Anyone? Anyone? Beauler?

By the way, it's KON Ichikawa, not Ken. I know, it's an odd name even for Japanese... ;o)

As I recall in 1984 Deke was the favorite with Seko considered his main challenger. Most knowledgeable people were aware that Lopes was on a roll (World Cross and 27:17) but hadn't yet won a marathon. Salazar and Dixon were the other big, big names.

And the depth was so great then that there were about 10 others who were very familiar names to any casual reader of Runners World and The Runner: Geoff Smith, Joe Nzau, Rodolfo Gomez, The Soh brothers, Juma Ikaanga, Hugh Jones, and Gidamis Shahanga.

The surprises were the Djibuti runners and John Treacy who had never run a marathon and placed second.

Salazar was the most famous name but as people have noted there was some doubt. Looking back at the guys who were ahead of him his race there doesn't look as bad as I thought it was then and Pfitzinger ran fantastic.

Thanks. That's pretty close to what I was thinking about Salazar. He had gone from being the best in the world in 1982 to just one of the best in 1983. The 1983 Rotterdam Marathon was a good example. It was billed as an epic duel between Deek and Alberto. But Alberto fell off the pace after 35 kilometers and Deek managed to outsprint Carlos Lopes for a victory.

Then there was the fifth place finish in Fukuoka in December of 1983. Not a bad performance, as Nobby said, but Salazar had clearly lost his position as king of the hill in the marathon. By the time Los Angeles rolled around, Alberto could have been considered "a" favorite. In 1982, Alberto would have been "the" favorite.

Thanks Nobby,

I knew it is Kon. I made a few errors in my post. Thanks for the correction. I wish you a Happy New Year.

I will look at the race again soon and see if I can figure out exactly where Bikila was in the first Kilo but I think he was in the top three at 5K. I know he led by "a scant magine at 20,00" and from there kept increasing his lead. Since his win was not in doubt after half way he was able to run as he felt and remain relaxed. It was a marvelous performance.

I'm not sure that Salazar was ever the best marathoner in the world. In the U.S., he seemed that way, based largely on his wins at NYC and Boston and a short-course "world record" that many people in the U.S. continued to believe was a world record even after the course was remeasured. (Unfortunately, but understandably, race directors of mismeasured courses tend not to publicize their mistakes, and Lebow certainly didn't take out any full-page ads in the NY Times to tell people that the "world records" of Salazar and Roe were illegimate.)

Deek and Seko were generally regarded as the favorites in '84. Deek was super-strong; he was the world-record holder and world champion, but more importantly showed surprising closing speed at Rotterdam, and he had been running very well at shorter distances on the roads. Seko had a withering kick when he needed it, and was a much stronger runner since his second-place finish to Rodgers at Boston in 1979, when he was more of a child prodigy than a full-fledged marathoner. I'm not sure, but I don't think that either of them had lost a marathon in several years. I think that Deek's move to Boulder, and his racing schedule leading up to the Games, left him in less-than-ideal shape for the conditions in L.A., and Seko, as it turned out, was not a great warm-weather runner.

I certainly don't recall any prior marathon that came close to the depth and quality of the field in the '84 Olympic marathon.

sergio wrote:

As I recall in 1984 Deke was the favorite with Seko considered his main challenger. Most knowledgeable people were aware that Lopes was on a roll (World Cross and 27:17) but hadn't yet won a marathon. Salazar and Dixon were the other big, big names.

And the depth was so great then that there were about 10 others who were very familiar names to any casual reader of Runners World and The Runner: Geoff Smith, Joe Nzau, Rodolfo Gomez, The Soh brothers, Juma Ikaanga, Hugh Jones, and Gidamis Shahanga.

The surprises were the Djibuti runners and John Treacy who had never run a marathon and placed second.

Salazar was the most famous name but as people have noted there was some doubt. Looking back at the guys who were ahead of him his race there doesn't look as bad as I thought it was then and Pfitzinger ran fantastic.

My high school running career exactly matched Salazar's coming-out party, I recall a network sports brief between basketball games or something mentioning that Oregon track star Albert Salazar has won the NYC marathon." I about fell out of my chair. Rodgers got beat?

Then, for years, on a daily basis I'd shift Seko/Deek/Salazar into some new order, depending on the way the wind was blowing. LA just could not get here soon enough.

By the time of the games, however, I had Deek/Nijboer/Gomez as my medalists, with Seko fifth or so, and Lopes top ten. I didn't put enough faith into his showing at Rotterdam 83, the same race that stuck a fork into Salazar, I guess! (I also had Virgin on the marathon team for some reason, and thought Tony would make it, too.)