Bill Rodgers or Pat Porter

I haven't argued anything about World XC and whether Rodgers was better, worse or equal to Pat Porter at that venue. I would argue that Porter was more accomplished than Rodgers at XC.

As to Rodgers competition record vs. his contemporaries...it was as good as anyone's during that period with the exception, arguably, of Frank Shorter and at a higher level comparitively than Pat Porter ever achieved in his main focus.

I wasn't simply referring to 1984. I was referring to all performances in totality. Look, the original question was who do you think was a better runner, not who had more international wins, who was more well known, who was a better marathoner or cross-country specialist. I think Steve Hoag has this right on. Hard to compare the two and perhaps we shouldn't. Each was awesome in his own place and time.

I just simply believe that if you lined Porter at his best up against Rodgers on the road, track, or cross-country at any distance below and including the half-marathon, Porter would have taken him. Over the half, Rodgers. Of course this is just an opinion. As to the guy who asked how many times Porter was ever favored to win an Olympic gold as if though THAT were the defining criteria, I would point out that Porter actually DID make two Olympic teams compared to Rodgers' zero. Would Rodgers have won the trials if he raced? Probably, but he also lost some marathons in his time and he may have lost there as well. And I think its a complete stretch to say he was a shoe-in for Olympic gold. The marathon, as you all know, is very unpredictable. On the other hand, the post about Rodgers overracing relative to runners in a later era is a valid one indeed. Rodgers may have dropped a 2:07 if he peaked correctly. And the debate goes on. I've sounded my opinion. Not much more I can add.

Is it true that Bill Rodgers ran a 1:48 half mile? Says on Wikipedia.

Rodgers made the team in 1976.

[quote]The Ghost of Harry Murphy wrote:

A lot of good stuff... we should make a sign !!!

Sounds like Harry\'s Ghost has been talking with Eddie Coyle

and Sgt Kurt.

I think Bill was the greatest racer of his era and Pat was a great XC runner. Compare across years and type of races is impossible to do but an lot runners looked at second place as a win for themselves if Bill was on the starting line. I do not believe Pat had that scare factor... Bill was the complete racer... speed, stamina, road smarts and a lot of guts.

This thread is not about the 2007 Worlds.

You are correct sir. Minor oversight :) If forgot he ran but was injured.

maybe 1'58, he wasn't that fast for half miler

Which is Brian Sell most like?

deer park wrote:

Who was a better runner? This debate has been going on between my roommate and I so we will take it to the boards...

deer park wrote:

Who was a better runner? This debate has been going on between my roommate and I so we will take it to the boards...

Reality check, folks: Three times (1975, 1977, and 1978) Bill Rodgers was ranked #1 in the world in an event (Marathon) by Track and Field News. Once, in 1978, he was ranked #2 in a highly disputed decision. Porter, on the other hand, was never ranked in the TOP 10 in the world in any event, nor was he ever ranked as the top AMERICAN in any track event. If you wish to bring in the blather about Rodgers dominating non-Africans, even if we accept this argument, for three years Rodgers was the best white guy in his event, Porter was NEVER the best white guy in ANY event---cross country included.

Doctor Truth wrote:

deer park wrote:

Who was a better runner? This debate has been going on between my roommate and I so we will take it to the boards...

Reality check, folks: Three times (1975, 1977, and 1978) Bill Rodgers was ranked #1 in the world in an event (Marathon) by Track and Field News. Once, in 1978, he was ranked #2 in a highly disputed decision. Porter, on the other hand, was never ranked in the TOP 10 in the world in any event, nor was he ever ranked as the top AMERICAN in any track event. If you wish to bring in the blather about Rodgers dominating non-Africans, even if we accept this argument, for three years Rodgers was the best white guy in his event, Porter was NEVER the best white guy in ANY event---cross country included.

My bad---1975, 1977, and *1979*.

Someone said they thought Rodgers had more talent.

I don't know what that means, but I think the two runners had different training methods.

Evrything was planned out for Porter right down to what he ate everyday. Vigil was ahead of his time in this regard.

Rodgers training was more just doing what came to mind that day and eating whatever he needed to have the energy for the next days workout. Of course when you are doing the kind of mileage he did, you have to eat some "junk" food just to keep enough calories coming in without eating all the time.

I believe that is why both excelled at the events they chose to run. The events matched their training style.

Rankings mean nothing. Races do.

rippy cripple wrote:

Rankings mean nothing. Races do.

And how do you imagine T&FN determines "rankings?" Hmmm...perhaps by results in---care to buy a vowel--"r_ces?"

Doctor Truth wrote:

Porter, on the other hand, was never ranked in the TOP 10 in the world in any event, *.

But he placed 9th, 4th, 6th, and 7th at the World XC championships.

See my above post.

rippy cripple wrote:

Doctor Truth wrote:

Porter, on the other hand, was never ranked in the TOP 10 in the world in any event, *.

But he placed 9th, 4th, 6th, and 7th at the World XC championships.

See my above post.

he was referring to olympic events, but I guess what you are saying is that at his very best pat porter was the 4th best in the world in any event while bill was the best marathoner in the world for three or four years

toast is cool wrote:

he was referring to olympic events, but I guess what you are saying is that at his very best pat porter was the 4th best in the world in any event while bill was the best marathoner in the world for three or four years

i guess what he is saying is that porter was damn good in the most stacked event in distance running in a deeper,tougher era than rodgers, while bill was a big fish in a smaller sea.

Pat trained very hard and was very intense... but he also loved DQ's Blizzards.

Rodgers vs Pat is like comparing Apples vs Oranges. Both have pros and cons.

I do not know Rodgers.

I was able to watch 3 of Pat's wins at US XC Nationals. He would destroy his competition.. he would start out with a 4:15 to 4:20 mile and no one ever came close.

Keep in mind international runners also ran in our national XC race. He beat them also. In international XC, Pat was a super star.

Said another way wrote:

toast is cool wrote:

he was referring to olympic events, but I guess what you are saying is that at his very best pat porter was the 4th best in the world in any event while bill was the best marathoner in the world for three or four years

i guess what he is saying is that porter was damn good in the most stacked event in distance running in a deeper,tougher era than rodgers, while bill was a big fish in a smaller sea.

If that's what he's saying then he would be wrong.

I think his point was that Porter was "ranked" 4 times in the top 10 in the World. Pretty damn impressive. The earlier post said Porter was never ranked in the top 10 in any event. True of the track and marathon, but 4 top 10 finishes at World Cross deserves tremendous respect. Maybe not as impressive as Rodger's record, but damn tough. Alberto Cova, a track champion, once said the toughest race in the World to win was World Cross. That says a lot about how much Porter was respected at that time.