Rodgers WAS a junk food addict and tried going to better training areas but it didn't suit him.
Incidentally Shorter beat Dixon when he(Shorter)was well past his best and Dixon was a sub 2:09 guy.
Hall still only has that one race that's carrying the whole argument in his favor.
Not yet, I'm afraid.
Flagpole wrote:
Jessee Owens - No, he could not compete with today's sprinters.
Pretty sure you're wrong about this one. Owens' 10.3 S 100 m effort in Berlin, set on a cinder track and without starting blocks would probably have gotten him through a round or two of the most recent Olympics. Who knows what he could have done with a longer career and modern tracks and training.
which 1 race? his 2:06 in london or his american record 2:08 in boston?
Using your logic you are saying that all past champions and Olympic winners were just a bunch of hacks as their times were not very good by todays standards.
I don't buy it.
You should invest some time in learning more about the history of distance running. Times only tell a small part of the story.
um, no. nice inability to comprehend standard written english. you should invest some time into becoming more proficient in reading comprehension. you must be joking when you stated that "times only tell a small part of the story" regarding distance running. seriously, could you possibly make a more asinine statement than that? so, should i assume that you and your 17 minute 5k actually makes you a better runner than someone who is running 14 minutes because the times "only tell a small part of the story"?
Flagpole wrote:
As the pool of people gets deeper and deeper, there's a greater and greater chance that someone will come along with superior ability to what came before.
So this *is* your basic premise then. It's all genetics. All the time, money, and research spent on improving training, recovery, racing gear, sports psychology, and (ultimately) performance are wasted efforts that are easily trumped by genetics. So you claim that it matters little how you choose to train or race, so long as you get out there and run, you will come within a fraction of a percent of your genetically predisposed potential. I agree that genes play a big factor, but unless you really believe that how you train and race is not that relevant, you'd really need to look in detail at each individual's training and racing schedules to assess whether they were anywhere near their full potential.
It also seems that your premise assumes that ones competitive disposition (i.e.-winning attitude) has very little to do with racing performance.
lucKY2b wrote:
So this *is* your basic premise then. It's all genetics. All the time, money, and research spent on improving training, recovery, racing gear, sports psychology, and (ultimately) performance are wasted efforts that are easily trumped by genetics. So you claim that it matters little how you choose to train or race, so long as you get out there and run, you will come within a fraction of a percent of your genetically predisposed potential. I agree that genes play a big factor, but unless you really believe that how you train and race is not that relevant, you'd really need to look in detail at each individual's training and racing schedules to assess whether they were anywhere near their full potential.
It also seems that your premise assumes that ones competitive disposition (i.e.-winning attitude) has very little to do with racing performance.
You act as if today's top East African runners are being trained under extremely advanced and controlled conditions like the Russian dude in Rocky 4. Well, let me wake you for a second, they aren't. They train much like how they did in the 70's and 80's. Don't believe me? Just ask around or go see for yourself. In fact, the next generation of East Africans are probably dirt poor and are out there doing shit ass training. Yet they are probably already faster than our best.
It's a different time now. You got multiple Americans running sub 13 when in the 70's you'd be tops with a 13:20. I'd believe in Rodgers running a 2:05-2:06 if he was at least way beyond the ability of everyone else, but he wasn't. He'd occasionally lose and when he did win, he still looked human. If you transplanted a 2:05-2:06 runner to that era, he'd be dominating by wide margins.
I guess you ran out of arguments.
Bill Rodgers pr. for the mile was 4:08. Hall ran 3:42 for 1500 in high school and he can still probably go 3:40 today if he sharpened up for 6 weeks.
Hall ran 13:12-14 for 5000 his senior year at Stanford. Rodger's pr. was 13:40. He did run around 28:03 for 10,000.
Hall's half-marathon is beyond what Rodgers was capable. I know they didn't race them much then but he probably could have dipped under 1:02:00 at his best (a meaningless guess, I know).
He would probably be one of our very best and a 2:07 marathoner but I can't see him going faster. Are there examples of runners today going faster with his times in the shorter distances?
Therefore I would see him not staying with the leaders in a 2:05 race like Berlin, Chicago, or London, and I think I would give Hall the edge and being up to a minute faster.
In an American only race like the trials I could imagine Hall running a 4:30 mile late in the race to break away but I don't know if Rodgers could do that. If they stayed close until 22 miles I could see Rodgers finding a way to win.
This is so stupid and meaningless.
666 wrote:
You act as if today's top East African runners are being trained under extremely advanced and controlled conditions like the Russian dude in Rocky 4. Well, let me wake you for a second, they aren't. They train much like how they did in the 70's and 80's. Don't believe me? Just ask around or go see for yourself. In fact, the next generation of East Africans are probably dirt poor and are out there doing shit ass training. Yet they are probably already faster than our best.
It's a different time now. You got multiple Americans running sub 13 when in the 70's you'd be tops with a 13:20. I'd believe in Rodgers running a 2:05-2:06 if he was at least way beyond the ability of everyone else, but he wasn't. He'd occasionally lose and when he did win, he still looked human. If you transplanted a 2:05-2:06 runner to that era, he'd be dominating by wide margins.
OK. In Africa, it maybe is a case where they throw a bunch of runners at the problem and see what comes out on top. I think that in the United States, much of the recent improvements have come as much from being more easily able to make a living running coupled with optimized training techniques that include a focus on things like nutrition, creating running peer groups, and proper altitude training. Do you think these things have had little effect, or do you think it just keeps the US runners with good genes from ditching the sport?
To lazy to check, but did anyone mention that Rodgers was 10th in 1983 with a 2:11:58? What was 10th this year like 2:13? So, yes.
George Webbs wrote:
Bill Rodgers pr. for the mile was 4:08. Hall ran 3:42 for 1500 in high school and he can still probably go 3:40 today if he sharpened up for 6 weeks.
Hall ran 13:12-14 for 5000 his senior year at Stanford. Rodger's pr. was 13:40. He did run around 28:03 for 10,000.
Hall's half-marathon is beyond what Rodgers was capable. I know they didn't race them much then but he probably could have dipped under 1:02:00 at his best (a meaningless guess, I know).
He would probably be one of our very best and a 2:07 marathoner but I can't see him going faster. Are there examples of runners today going faster with his times in the shorter distances?
Therefore I would see him not staying with the leaders in a 2:05 race like Berlin, Chicago, or London, and I think I would give Hall the edge and being up to a minute faster.
In an American only race like the trials I could imagine Hall running a 4:30 mile late in the race to break away but I don't know if Rodgers could do that. If they stayed close until 22 miles I could see Rodgers finding a way to win.
This is so stupid and meaningless.
Forget the track times. Rodgers ran at Div. 3 Wesleyan, once he got back into running after a couple of year layoff, he was a road racer, never focused on the track. What he ran is no indication of what he was capable of.
Heck, my senior year in college I ran an 8:56 2 mile indoors, my mile pr at the time was 4:33, I'm pretty sure I was better than the pr would indicate, the 2 mile was a pre-season meet in Dec, never ran another indoor race that season, the 2 mile time does not indicate my potential either.
Rodgers showed his worth by winning the biggest 2 marathons in the world several times.
Another thing, you talk about Rodgers not being able to answer a 4:30 mile late in the race, isn't that what put Hall out of the picture just a couple of days ago?
Sorry, Hall is a nice time trialer, will never win a major race.
This racer versus pacer stuff is nonsense. Take me for an example: in high school I won most of my races, always ran to win, covered every move, etc. In college I was usually running for time or place; if I ran to win I'd blow up. After college I've been winning my local road races, usually by big margins. Did I suddenly become a wimp in college, or was the competition better? Did I become a racer again after college, or was I racing weaker competition?
Look, I grew up in Boston, and Rodgers is one of my personal heroes. And I'd like to see Hall take more chances in races. But the old dudes that come on all these threads and argue that the runners of their time were the best are pathetic losers. You notice that Bill Rodgers himself isn't claiming to be better than today's runners. That's because, unlike the over-the-hill posters here, he's secure in his accomplishments.
competitor21 wrote:
This racer versus pacer stuff is nonsense. Take me for an example: in high school I won most of my races, always ran to win, covered every move, etc. In college I was usually running for time or place; if I ran to win I'd blow up. After college I've been winning my local road races, usually by big margins. Did I suddenly become a wimp in college, or was the competition better? Did I become a racer again after college, or was I racing weaker competition?
Look, I grew up in Boston, and Rodgers is one of my personal heroes. And I'd like to see Hall take more chances in races. But the old dudes that come on all these threads and argue that the runners of their time were the best are pathetic losers. You notice that Bill Rodgers himself isn't claiming to be better than today's runners. That's because, unlike the over-the-hill posters here, he's secure in his accomplishments.
No, you didn't become a wimp in college, you just aren't very good. Winning in HS is easy, we all won, winning local road races is easy, you just don't have the talent to win anything worthwhile.
One other thing, sorry I can't let it go, but, no one has mentioned the obvious.
If Bill Rodgers would have shaved his arms and legs he would have run two-three minutes faster.
Wow "racer, not pacer", competitor21 wrote a good post and it went right over your head. And than like the moron that you are you insulted him. You owe him an apology and you owe it to yourself to stop posting and looking like an idiot.
racer, not pacer wrote:
competitor21 wrote:This racer versus pacer stuff is nonsense. Take me for an example: in high school I won most of my races, always ran to win, covered every move, etc. In college I was usually running for time or place; if I ran to win I'd blow up. After college I've been winning my local road races, usually by big margins. Did I suddenly become a wimp in college, or was the competition better? Did I become a racer again after college, or was I racing weaker competition?
.
No, you didn't become a wimp in college, you just aren't very good. Winning in HS is easy, we all won, winning local road races is easy, you just don't have the talent to win anything worthwhile.
Flagpole wrote:
Henry Rono - 13:06 5,000 from 1981 is pretty stout. He's close enough to elite now that with all the advancements in the last 30 years he likely could have competed.
Not fair. You can't decide who gets the benefit of better technology and advancements to running. If Rodgers doesn't get them neither does Rono.
I think this thread is laughable. Rodgers was a far superior athlete. He won. A lot. Second place is the first loser. You run to win. He was a winner. Case closed.
Mr. Me wrote:
Wow "racer, not pacer", competitor21 wrote a good post and it went right over your head. And than like the moron that you are you insulted him. You owe him an apology and you owe it to yourself to stop posting and looking like an idiot.
Agreed!!!
competitor21 wrote:
This racer versus pacer stuff is nonsense. Take me for an example: in high school I won most of my races, always ran to win, covered every move, etc. In college I was usually running for time or place; if I ran to win I'd blow up. After college I've been winning my local road races, usually by big margins. Did I suddenly become a wimp in college, or was the competition better? Did I become a racer again after college, or was I racing weaker competition?
Look, I grew up in Boston, and Rodgers is one of my personal heroes. And I'd like to see Hall take more chances in races. But the old dudes that come on all these threads and argue that the runners of their time were the best are pathetic losers. You notice that Bill Rodgers himself isn't claiming to be better than today's runners. That's because, unlike the over-the-hill posters here, he's secure in his accomplishments.
Well said, sir.
The comparison between Rodgers and Hall is not an unreasonable one. A rational person could argue either way. But I would say that a few things should be obvious to all:
1) "This racer versus pacer stuff is nonsense."
2) No American of any era could have run with the east Africans of today so the fact that Hall will not win umpteen majors as Boston Billy did is really not a credible argument against Hall
3) Better quipment and knowledge along with an emphasis on peaking for a few races per year will inevitably lead to better peak performances so the fact that Hall's top marks are faster than Rodgers' is really not a credible argument against Rodgers.
4) Statements about posters being "losers" because they are not/were not world class runners are terribly pathetic.
5) Oh, and of course, Coca Cola is better than Pepsi.
Adjourned.
competitor21 wrote:
But the old dudes that come on all these threads and argue that the runners of their time were the best are pathetic losers.
Whatever. Go ahead and use your infantile name-calling if it makes you happy, but I don't see how it enhances your argument.
I'm not claiming that somehow he was better, I just don't agree with the premise that for american runners it's just genetics. It's the old nature vs. nurture argument. Yes, genes play a very important roll, it's usually why runners become runners in the first place. In East Africa, there was this huge untapped resource that exploded onto the running scene and it is still figuring out what it can ultimately produce based on raw talent and some imported coaching. I don't believe that's as much in play in the United States. Here, I think, we are learning how to better what we've got. I've seen many also argue that we start at a disadvantage in america not so much because of inferior genes, but because we don't start developing talent at an early enough age, but that's a topic for another thread.