Bill Rogers....was he good enought to finish in the 5 or 10 in todays marathons?

Flagpole wrote:

Rodgers was a winner, yes; a winner in a much less competitive time. Hall is a better marathoner.

You are just making yourself look more and more like an idiot. How many posters have written very logical posts and all you can come up with is Hall ran faster, therefore he is better. It is much more complicated than that and we will never know the answer of who is actually better, but the fact that Hall has run faster 30 years later does not make a good argument. Try thinking with your brain for once and put some thought into what you have to say and actually read some of the well thought out posts.

Maximus wrote:

You are just making yourself look more and more like an idiot. How many posters have written very logical posts and all you can come up with is Hall ran faster, therefore he is better. It is much more complicated than that and we will never know the answer of who is actually better, but the fact that Hall has run faster 30 years later does not make a good argument. Try thinking with your brain for once and put some thought into what you have to say and actually read some of the well thought out posts.

1) I'm not the only one on this thread to say that Hall is better.

2) I've considered all the evidence that there is in 30+ years where it could still be that Rodgers is better than Hall, and it just doesn't add up.

3) It's not just that Hall was faster...he's at least 3 minutes faster (and I don't believe Bill could have run 2:06 or even 2:07 anywhere with any amount of preparation and focus) with significantly faster times below the marathon too AND he's not even close to being done with his still fledgling career.

So dude, it's not a thinking with anyone's brain issue. It's just an opinion. You even said that we can't know for sure who is better, so it's all just speculation. I'm not one to look back and say woulda shoulda coulda. We all have our time in the sun, and we are as good historically as we make it. Rodgers was a great champion. With the MUCH more competitive environment now, Ryan Hall just has no shot to be the CHAMPION that Rodgers was, BUT he is better, and that's already been proven. I believe that Dathan Ritzenhein is also a better marathoner than Rodgers, but he hasn't proven that yet...he will though.

Yes Rodgers was a great racer-against American roadies and the smaller pool of foreign marathoners at Boston and New York (Seko, Jerome Drayton).

And Adam Goucher was a great racer against NCAA competition. In the Olympics and World Champs you might have been able to catch a glimpse on t.v. of him back in 10th place.

However there is no question that Rodgers had a uniquely amazing durability and competed at the top for a long time. Other than Montreal when he was injured he was a factor to win in nearly every marathon he raced, even as late as 1984 when he was 36 and was hanging tough late in the Olympic Trials marathon.

Flagpole wrote:

2) I've considered all the evidence that there is in 30+ years where it could still be that Rodgers is better than Hall, and it just doesn't add up.

Please quantify. On the one hand, you felt Rono could have been competitive today given a PR of 13:06 5k in '81, and yet Rodgers could not have been. Percentage-wise, there is not a big difference; 20 seconds in a 5k is almost 3 minutes in the marathon. So what percentage do you feel the last 30+ years of training, equipment, nutrition advancements, etc. have had on distance running performance?

lucKY2b wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

2) I've considered all the evidence that there is in 30+ years where it could still be that Rodgers is better than Hall, and it just doesn't add up.

Please quantify. On the one hand, you felt Rono could have been competitive today given a PR of 13:06 5k in '81, and yet Rodgers could not have been. Percentage-wise, there is not a big difference; 20 seconds in a 5k is almost 3 minutes in the marathon. So what percentage do you feel the last 30+ years of training, equipment, nutrition advancements, etc. have had on distance running performance?

He doesn't have to give a specific number to be right. The comparison is vague.

It's fascinating to me that Flagpole's calm tone and reasonableness pisses so many people off.

George Webbs wrote:

Yes Rodgers was a great racer-against American roadies and the smaller pool of foreign marathoners at Boston and New York (Seko, Jerome Drayton).

And Adam Goucher was a great racer against NCAA competition. In the Olympics and World Champs you might have been able to catch a glimpse on t.v. of him back in 10th place.

However there is no question that Rodgers had a uniquely amazing durability and competed at the top for a long time. Other than Montreal when he was injured he was a factor to win in nearly every marathon he raced, even as late as 1984 when he was 36 and was hanging tough late in the Olympic Trials marathon.

I do not disagree with anything you've said. He was awesome in a lot of ways. When it gets down to who is BETTER though, Hall is better.

deleuze wrote:

It's fascinating to me that Flagpole's calm tone and reasonableness pisses so many people off.

Me too brother. Me too.

lucKY2b wrote:

Please quantify. On the one hand, you felt Rono could have been competitive today given a PR of 13:06 5k in '81, and yet Rodgers could not have been. Percentage-wise, there is not a big difference; 20 seconds in a 5k is almost 3 minutes in the marathon. So what percentage do you feel the last 30+ years of training, equipment, nutrition advancements, etc. have had on distance running performance?

Track surfaces from late 70s/early 80s to now create more of an advantage than running on roads. Besides, you are comparing two questions which aren't necessarily the same.

1) Would Rodgers be competitive today? I say yes to that. 2:09 on the Boston course is still competitive (depending how you define competitive). I said Rono would be competitive.

2) Is Rodgers better than Hall? I say no. I also say that Rono is not better than Ritzenhein, though VERY VERY close to being better, but I'm not as adamant about that as I am that Hall is better than Rodgers.

I'm not trying to change your mind brother, and I'm not about to change mine on this topic, so ask questions if you want, and if I feel like it, I'll answer, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you think you can convince me otherwise.

Flagpole wrote:

[quote]lucKY2b wrote:

I'm not trying to change your mind brother, and I'm not about to change mine on this topic, so ask questions if you want, and if I feel like it, I'll answer, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you think you can convince me otherwise.

Fair enough. We shall agree to disagree, then. I am not one to believe that Rodgers was better than Hall, I just don't think Hall has demonstrated that he is better than Rodgers to this point. Rodger's lived in a world where the expectation of what it would take to win at Boston was sub-2:10, Hall lives where the expecation of what it will take to win is sub-2:07. Rodgers met his expectations, Hall has not. The psychology of a runner is not detached from those expectations. As times have improved expectations have also increased. I would contend that Rodger's would have done the necessary prep work to meet those expectations. At 10000 m, the most common track distance for marathoners, and thus the best yardstick, the two are equal.

I don't think the psychology of expectation is to be taken lightly. Best example currently is in the 100m dash. I personally do not believe that Tyson Gay would have run 9.71s last year at worlds if not for the fact that Usain Bolt is running even faster. As the stakes have been raised, the mindset changes, this does significantly affect performance.

That's the end of my discussion on this matter. Good day.

It is easier to be the hunter than the hunted, so I agree with you about expectation levels. Where we disagree is the level to which that is important. If so, why don't these runner just tell themselves that 2:01 is the expected level and train for and run that? Anyway, you said you are done, so that question was rhetorical.

Flagpole wrote:

When it gets down to who is BETTER though, Hall is better.

Depends on how you define better.

Pizza tastes better than hamburgers.

Not going to jump in on who is better, but Rodgers would still be competitive today. One fact that few, if any, have touched on, was that courses were rarely "certified". Road races were generally a line drawn on the ground or on the street, a course defined and a race run. First one back is the best. Times really did not mean all that much. That's why many of the more famous races of old were unique distances. Many races reported results with place and no times (Usually just first place) The goal was the win. That's one of the reasons that Al Salazar when first exposed to the possibility of riches to be found on the roads, made the comment track is carnegie hall, road races are rock and roll (sic)

I know from a personal stanpoint, it's weird to look at old training diaries where I've got numerous races listed with a place, a comment and possibly who beat me or who I beat...no times.

shortshorts wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

When it gets down to who is BETTER though, Hall is better.

Depends on how you define better.

Well, that's finally a good point.

In this context I define better as being physically able to run the distance faster than Rodgers. It IS the only thing we can measure, because we have a distance and a clock. Since the time between them isn't insignificant, I give the edge to Hall. Hall can't ever be the champion that Rodgers was because Rodgers competed in a much less competitive time. He is though a better marathoner than Rodgers.

Flagpole wrote:

In this context I define better as being physically able to run the distance faster than Rodgers. It IS the only thing we can measure, because we have a distance and a clock. Since the time between them isn't insignificant, I give the edge to Hall.

How would you compare Hall and Meb? Hall has run significantly faster but hasn't had the high international placings that Meb's got. If their careers were over today, which would be the better marathoner? I believe most would take Meb's results over Ryan's times given that they are essentially running in the same era.

The key is how did they compete on a world wide stage. When compared to their peers Rogers was winning races while Hall has won only one marathon. Also, having seen both compete there is no doubt although he is too humble to post on these boards, but Rogers would privately tell you he could compete with the best the US has to offer and still win in today's environment.

Do you not understand the concept that winning against vastly inferior competition with slower times isn't superior to losing to better runners but with faster times? Who was a better high school miler, Webb or someone who was undefeated with a pr of 4:20 in a small state?

Also, why does it matter if Rogers would privately tell you that he would win today against 2:04 marathoners? I could tell you the same thing. If you ever have talked to Rogers, which it sounds like you haven't, you would know that he probably would be the last guy to make hollow boasts like that. He is incredibly humble and respectful of today's runners.

SWEDES wrote:

The key is how did they compete on a world wide stage. When compared to their peers Rogers was winning races while Hall has won only one marathon. Also, having seen both compete there is no doubt although he is too humble to post on these boards, but Rogers would privately tell you he could compete with the best the US has to offer and still win in today's environment.

Well, my opinion doesn't change whether Rodgers says he could compete or not. I actually agree he could compete. Doesn't mean he could BEAT Ryan Hall...not regularly anyway.

SWEDES wrote:

The key is how did they compete on a world wide stage. When compared to their peers Rogers was winning races while Hall has won only one marathon. Also, having seen both compete there is no doubt although he is too humble to post on these boards, but Rogers would privately tell you he could compete with the best the US has to offer and still win in today's environment.

So you're saying Rogers is equal to the best in the world today? By your logic, he would beat Wanjiru, Lel, and Cheruiyot as well as Hall?