Who is the better runner? Grant Fisher or Steve Prefontaine?

Easy answer. Pre.

No question it is Grant Fisher. Much like Asbel Kiprop was a better runner than Kip Keino. But this is a bit more complicated than that…

You can't compare them. Different eras. Differences in diet and training.

My old coach always said 'well times should get faster because people have evolved'

Probably more saturated fats back then in diets, especially in the 60s.

Someone in the 70s naturally wouldn't run as fast as someone in the 2020s because of evolution.

Evolution is an incredibly gradual process if you are referring to natural selection. You won’t see the results of that in any real perceptible way in 50 years.

evolution of society, better shoe tech, better living conditions are very obvious in a 50 year period.

Who is the best runner? Fisher, obviously, if only because Pre is dead.

In all seriousness, this really can’t be answered. How Pre would have done in today’s environment is anyone’s guess. Training is better. Tracks are faster. Shoes are better. Also, the money is better today. Who knows if the money were then, adjusted to $ from Pre’s time, of course, if it would have been a motivating factor? There are too many “what ifs” to be able to answer this hypothetical. Pre was an outstanding runner and Fisher is an outstanding runner.

Prefontaine was fighting for amateur rights and didn't make money or if he did it was under the table

Fisher didn't have to worry about that, he could kick back and not worry between training sessions

Prefontaine had to fight the politics of the sport while competing at the highest level.

Prefontaine in a way paved the path for people like Fisher.

I didn’t write the money part well.

Money then what it is today *

Better shoe tech sure. Not so sure about society or better living conditions, especially as it relates being conducive to distance running. However, there is better living (or running) through chemistry, but they probably don’t want that discussed here.

Times continually improve, that’s the nature of the sport, so does this mean that every top runner of this era is better than every top runner of era’s past? The greatest runners of all time in every event are the ones competing within the last 10 years? How can this be? Is Warholm really better than Edwin Moses? Is Jakob really better than Coe? Pre’s personal bests in the 5000 and 10000 were closer to the world records of his time than Fisher’s current pb’s are today’s world record’s, at least in terms of absolute times (I didn’t calculate % difference, but suspect it will be close to the same outcome). Maybe this suggests Pre could hold his own against Fisher should he be magically transported to our time.

Not really a Pre fan but he was as fast as Grant in HS and in his early 20s.

2 mile HS school time:
Pre – 8:41.5 (national record)
Grant – 8:43.57

5000M PRs age 22
Pre – 13:22.4
Grant – 13:29

3000M PRs age 22
Pre – 7:44.2
Grant – 7:46.10

Don't these times indicate that Pre had just as much talent, especially considering all the advantages Grant had with training, equipment, pacers, etc. Does anyone really think that if Grant ran in Pre's time and without a pro contract his times would be anywhere close to what he ran this year? I'm not convinced he would have even have been as fast as Pre if he was transported back in time and did the same training.

When Prefontaine won the Olympic trials in 1972 in 1322.8, it was the fourth fastest 5000 in history. Get back to me when Grant Fisher runs the fourth fastest 5000 in history.

I chalk it up to competition and competitiveness so at this point I'd give the nod to Steve Prefontaine and his 4th place in the Olympic 5000m Final. Plus, the kid barely lost in the States. As of today, 1) Pre, 2) Fisher.

Fisher is 25 while Pre died at age 24.

Thru age 24, Pre was clearly the more accomplished runner.

Fisher's huge accomplishments this past year were made at age 25.

This past year has pushed Fisher past Pre

This right here. I ran in the 70's (I was 15 when Pre died). When I think of the differences in shoes, diet, training and recovery. My father smoked 3 packs a day and I lived in a house full of smoke.

I often wonder how much faster I would have been with modern training shoes and spikes, even the clothing- we wore heavy sweats in the winter.

There is no way to know how fast Pre would have been BUT he was among the fastest in the world so maybe he would be if he ran now.

never heard of them.

Great point. My initial thinking was they can be considered equal because they both broke multiple American records from 3k to 10k, and the highest finish either of them have had in a global championship track race is fourth.

After seeing your age 22 comparison, I realized it’s not fair to factor any of Fisher’s accomplishments this year into a comparison between the two because Fisher competed at age 25 this year; Pre died at age 24. Pre’s age 25 season would have coincided with the 1976 Olympics. It’s quite possible he would have medaled at those Games, which would have given him the advantage over Fisher (although of course Fisher supporters can counter that Fisher faced tougher competition). We’ll never know.

If we remove Fisher’s age 25 season from the comparison, we can focus on what they accomplished by/at age 24. Such analysis is also tricky because Pre didn’t get to race much at age 24. Pre died in the spring of 1975, when the outdoor track season had barely gotten started, whereas Fisher had a full outdoor season and got to compete in the Olympics at age 24. So then we can go back to what they did by/at age 23, but that’s not fair to Fisher because his age 23 season was suspended by covid. That takes us back to your age 22 comparison.

Diets were much better in the 60s than today. More raw fruits and vegetables, hardly any saturated fats. The current “must have it now” culture has led us all to bad food intake.

Look at obesity then vs today.