toast is cool wrote:
I guess what you are saying is that at his very best pat porter was the 4th best in the world in any event
You're right, Porter wasn't very good... only 4th best in the World at his very best.
toast is cool wrote:
I guess what you are saying is that at his very best pat porter was the 4th best in the world in any event
You're right, Porter wasn't very good... only 4th best in the World at his very best.
Let's have Porter smoke cigs for a bunch of years like Rodgers did, then see how good he can be.
You and Alberto Cova exactly right about World X-Country...it's the most difficult race in the world to win. Ask Kenny B what's harder Mombassa or Osaka? Even at the NCAA level I'd argue that the X-Country championships are much more difficult than the spring track & field championships. Why do you think Galen Rupp's sacrificing the dollars in order to return to the Ducks.
Whether the Africans show-up at the World XC Champs is not the issue. The bottom-line is that only at the World XC can you determine who is the greatest distant runner for that day in the world. When you throw in 5K, Steeple, 10K, marathoners etc into the same event w/o a rabbit then its just "Book City."
Both Porter/Rodgers should be saluted for their World XC performance and patriotism today. Today our "weak sister" US athletes compete in our national championship, take the money, but refuse to represent our great nation at the ultimate championship....world XC. Then they wonder why they can't PR/rise to the occasion at Osaka....you can't do it, unless you do it...part of that is sacking up & toeing the line at a crucible type event like World XC.
As for Porter being "cocky" and not personable. Disagree. Saw him training in HI on his honeymoon back in 92/93....he jumped in my jeep and we tooled around the local area. Great freaking guy.
In my opinion, there will never be (at least in my life time) another Bill Rodgers. Bill Rodgers focused on the roads, but if he had concetrated on the cross country races, I think he could have been the 70's Kenny Bekele; very light runner who barely touched the ground when he raced. Bill Rodgers also would have won Gold in the 80 Olympics, I would have guaranteed that victory for him.
If you are talking about influence on the sport - no question - Rodgers.
If you are talking about the better competitor - no question - Rodgers.
If you are talking about the better runner - no question - Rodgers.
Pat Porter was a great xc runner but he is not in the same class with Rodgers.
Rodgers, Shorter, Salazar - in a class by themselves
In 1987, the qualifying meet for the world cross country team was in Dallas. I was there, and let me tell you that John Easker left Porter and Eyestone in his wake over the last 150 yards. He put in a surge that no one else could respond to. The guy was like a horse, but he retired soon thereafter to work on the family farm. He also had asthma that required him to use a respirator during races.
I think Easker retired before competing in the worlds in 1987. In other words, he won the top spot in the February trials but didn't go to the championships in March.
If Easker had continued his running career, I imagine that he would have been as great as Porter. The previous year, 1986, Easker finished 10th in the world cross country champs and Porter was 6th.
It seems that he was much better in cross country than in track.
Lickety Split wrote:
who is the greatest distant runner for that day
"distance"
I respect Billy, but another Kenny B? That's a bit of a stretch.
another perspective wrote: 4 top 10 finishes at World Cross deserves tremendous respect. Maybe not as impressive as Rodger's record, but damn tough.
Which is exactly the point that a lot of people are making yet the XC issue keeps coming up as if Porter is being dismissed.
Steve Hoag wrote:
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!
Steve,
I'm always intrigued that when people make these "across the ages" compariaons they ALWAYS take athletes from the past, move them to the present, and say, "The old guys would get hammered because their times are slower."
No one ever seems to look at the other side of it. If you take El Guerrouj or Gebreselassie and move their birthdates back to, say, 1935 so that their career peaks in 1960 or so.
If you could do that, does anyone really believe that those guys would be running sub 27:00 for 10,000 or 3:43 for the mile and if so, how would one account for the fact that no one in those older era was running those sotrs of times. Physiology hasn't changed and by the late mid 60s we'd pretty much figured out how to train.
The thing about times is that how fast you run is closely connected to how fast you think you can run and that's closely connected to how fast your competitiors are running. In thirty years people will likely be faster than they are now and a major reason for that will be that incremental improvements will have been made over the intervening decades that make the faster times possible.
One thing that has changed is the emphasis on times today where in earlier years the emphasis was mostly just on winning. Before this year's Boston Marathon the Boston Globe had an article about Greg Meyer and his win in 1983. Greg said that once he knew he had the win sewn up he eased his pace back from a bit over 5:00 to something in the 5:20s. I think that happened around the 22 mile mark which would mean that he cost himself more than a minute on his final time.
...and I still maintain that the comparison precludes the fact that Rodgers, along with other elites, had race calendars that agents and coaches these days wouldn't let their runners touch. Bill had a reputation for never saying "no" to any race director. They were all over-raced, along w/ maintaining 100+ weeks. C'mon Bill! Say something!
This is such a great thread! Having met and talked to both of these great runners, these are the two runners who inspired me more than any other American runners when I ran in college and afterwards. Porter is one of the funniest guys you will ever meet. My college roommate and I lifted his phone number off our coach's desk (he ran with him at AW) and after a few beers the week before XC Nats in 88, we called him up and wished him good luck. He laughed and gave us a bad time for disturbing his beauty rest. The next year I ran with him at Golden Gate Park and had great laughs as he ripped my coach for the stuff they did in Europe. Rogers, is a very sincere and thoughtful person. Very encouraging in everything he says and freely gives his time to talk to people. Both were incredible work horses. Both guys are just down to earth and I am glad to see guys like Brian Sell, who reminds me of Rogers and Alan Culpepper, who reminds me of Porter, doing well. We need our working class hero runners.
With that said, even though Porter won 8 straight XC titles and was an Olympian in 84 and 88, with a cool panther tattoo, my vote will have to go to Rogers. The man is nearly 60 and he is still inspiring people to take up the sport today. If you ever get a chance to meet him, you will not be disappointed.
Where's the Panther now?
well
The Ghost of Harry Murphy wrote:
Most of this is accurate, but I disagree on your very last point. Rodgers would have no major marathon wins during the Porter era because long distance running at every level became so much more competitive globally. Craig Virgin won the world cross title twice, but he was "only" a tad under 27:30 in the 10k. Whie Africans have considerably dropped world leading times into the 26:30 10k and 2:05 marathon range, white European males are still running barely under 27:30 some 25 years later. Rodgers would not have been faster simply because he competed during a later era. He would still be a 28:00, 2:10 guy today -- good, but hardly noticeable. 140 miles a week is 140 miles a week, no matter the era, shoes, etc. In fact, if anything, the "better" running shoes and training methods got, the more guys got injured.
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.
wow I really didn't expect this much response to this... this is awesome.
well, now I'll share some of my own thoughts on this. I'm no expert, especially since I've never ran one, but I don't know if people quite understand the marathon these days. It just isn't like the 100 meter dash. Just from my oberservations, Meb won the silver medal last Olympics and his PR is only 2:09:56. Now, thats blazing fast, but there were plenty of 2:07 guys, a few 2:06ers, etc and I know at least one 2:04 guy in Tergat in that field. Meb ran his 2:09 in NY which is of similar difficulty to Boston (correct me if I'm wrong?) where Bill Rodgers ran 2:09:55 during which he STOPPED numerous times to drink water and even once to tie his shoe. He might not be able to hang with Geb, Tergat and Khannouchi in a rabit-paced race on a fast corse, but to say that Rodgers in his prime would not have any major marathon wins might be an overstatement, I think. The Marathon is still distinctly human compared to many shorter distances, and a tough SOB like Rodgers could run with most anyone from any era.
not even a good comparison.
Bill Rodgers easily wins.
Bill was ranked number 1 in the world in his event 3 times and was ranked second once.
Porter was never world ranked (albiet XC is not ranked) and at his best performance finished 4th in the world.
Given Rodgers dominance in major marathon during the late 70's and his 3rd place finish in the 75 XC Worl Champs (admitedly an event he said he isnot that good at) which is one place better than Porter ever did in his premier event.
Rodgers hands down.
But Porter was one of the best XC runners in US history.
deer park wrote:
Meb ran his 2:09 in NY which is of similar difficulty to Boston (correct me if I'm wrong?)
Boston is an aided course.
yeah, Boston is allegedly aided but only when the wind is in the right direction. just because it goes downhill for a while doesn't mean it doesn't go back up... no more aided than a pancake-flat corse like Chicago. And yes, I do believe its comparable to NY, where Rodgers ran 2:10 flat range anyway which is exactly where Meb ran a few seconds faster so this whole thing is pointless anyway...
dont correct with incorrect wrote:
yeah, Boston is allegedly aided but only when the wind is in the right direction. just because it goes downhill for a while doesn't mean it doesn't go back up... no more aided than a pancake-flat corse like Chicago. And yes, I do believe its comparable to NY, where Rodgers ran 2:10 flat range anyway which is exactly where Meb ran a few seconds faster so this whole thing is pointless anyway...
The year Rodgers ran 2:10 the course ran up the East Side Drive and up and over an overpass including running up the steps....and as it did for many years....included the northern part of the park. The course the first year was a beast.
N.B.:Of those 3 marathons that Shorter won, only one was of good quality.
Back to the main discussion:
I'm going to add my voice to the chorus. If I tippy-toed around it in my earlier post in an effort to pay Porter his due respect, then I'm stopping now: Rodgers. I'm not going to be deferential in respect to all the people on here who should know better, but insist on reserving judgement on any question involving runners faster than they themselves can run.
Rodgers was much, much, much better. Many, many times better. 1000 times better. At the time of his 40th birthday (I don't know that, even today, he is retired) he was ranked number 2 - all time - in his event! This placed him ahead of Shorter, ahead of Bikila, for God's sakes, ahead of Cierpinski (drugs and all...), ahead of Wolde, ahead of everyone except one Finn from the 50's. To compare Porter, with his handful of top ten finishes and lack of medals in world XC with Rodgers is patently ridiculous.
If you want to have a debate in which both sides really have a good case, let's argue about Rodgers/Shorter or Shorter/Ryun or, heck, let's get the Dyestaters involved; Pre/Virgin. If you want a discussion involving Porter, a good debate might be had arguing about the better runner between Porter and Lash or, from his own era, Porter/Cummings or Porter/Spivey. Let's stop comparing those on Mt. Olympus with any mortals, great though they may be, who dwell below; Rodgers is up there, Porter is down with us.
dont correct with incorrect wrote:
yeah, Boston is allegedly aided but only when the wind is in the right direction. just because it goes downhill for a while doesn't mean it doesn't go back up... no more aided than a pancake-flat corse like Chicago. And yes, I do believe its comparable to NY, where Rodgers ran 2:10 flat range anyway which is exactly where Meb ran a few seconds faster so this whole thing is pointless anyway...
Wrong. Boston is a significant net drop. Big difference from Chicago or London. What Rodgers ran in NYC is irrelevant to this point.