In the '70s, Prefontaine was within 5 seconds of the WR in the 1500, 3.5 sec of the mile, 5 sec of the 3000, 6.2 sec in the 5000 and 12.8sec for the 10,000 m.
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.
Grant did have really bad coaching at Stanford, so that has to be taken into account.
Grant did have really bad coaching at Stanford, so that has to be taken into account.
I would say he was trying too hard to be a top student as well. He has talked about that in interviews before. Academics at Stanford are not like Oregon or NAU.
In the '70s, Prefontaine was within 5 seconds of the WR in the 1500, 3.5 sec of the mile, 5 sec of the 3000, 6.2 sec in the 5000 and 12.8sec for the 10,000 m.
Fisher is much further away from the current WRs.
Consider this too:
Salazar was 5 sec off of Rono's 5,000 WR and 3 sec off Rono's 10,000 WR. He also kind of held the Marathon WR.
In the '70s, Prefontaine was within 5 seconds of the WR in the 1500, 3.5 sec of the mile, 5 sec of the 3000, 6.2 sec in the 5000 and 12.8sec for the 10,000 m.
Fisher is much further away from the current WRs.
Consider this too:
Salazar was 5 sec off of Rono's 5,000 WR and 3 sec off Rono's 10,000 WR. He also kind of held the Marathon WR.
In the '70s, Prefontaine was within 5 seconds of the WR in the 1500, 3.5 sec of the mile, 5 sec of the 3000, 6.2 sec in the 5000 and 12.8sec for the 10,000 m.
Fisher is much further away from the current WRs.
Good point. Of course it’s a lot easier to be close to 13:16 and 27:30 than it is to 12:35 and 26:11.
In the '70s, Prefontaine was within 5 seconds of the WR in the 1500, 3.5 sec of the mile, 5 sec of the 3000, 6.2 sec in the 5000 and 12.8sec for the 10,000 m.
Fisher is much further away from the current WRs.
The merit of this argument depends on how you interpret the question, but watching the brojos’ video the question seems to be, specifically, “If you magically transported Steve Prefontaine to this day and age, could he contend with Grant Fisher?” If that’s the question, I think your comparing them against the world records doesn’t hold up that well. I mean, Lauri Lehtinen (14:17) and Ilmari Salminen (30:05) were world record holders at a time closer to Pre’s heyday than Pre’s era is to now. Do I believe those guys would be running 12:46 (faster than anyone not native to East Africa) if they were competing today? To quote Bowerman’s character from one of the Prefontaine movies, “Doubtful rube, highly doubtful.”
So in my opinion, Pre has a strong argument for ranking higher on a list of “U.S. distance greats” until further notice, but he would NOT beat or seriously challenge 12:46/26:33 Grant Fisher. I think Kellogg’s estimates of 2:07 and 13:00 for Shorter and Pre today were very measured and reasonable given the impossibility of the question.
An innocent aside regarding Fisher’s distinction as the fastest ever non-African 5k runner. For many years, that title belonged to Dieter Baumann (busted, nandrolone). On the women’s side, it’s Liliya Shobukhova (busted) closely followed by Shelby Houlihan (busted, nandrolone).
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.
I think you will in a roundabout way. Because runners/athletes are having babies with runners now whereas 100 years ago they weren't. From today's athletes, how often do you hear that both their parents were gifted sports people. It's very common. It will fast-track the process. Like if you want to get a small dog, you breed the two smallest dogs together. We have done that very quickly, okay dogs were domesticated to some extent a few thousand years ago, but in only a few hundred years we've taken normal sized dogs and managed to reduce it into a handbag rat thing.
The merit of this argument depends on how you interpret the question, but watching the brojos’ video the question seems to be, specifically, “If you magically transported Steve Prefontaine to this day and age, could he contend with Grant Fisher?” If that’s the question, I think your comparing them against the world records doesn’t hold up that well. I mean, Lauri Lehtinen (14:17) and Ilmari Salminen (30:05) were world record holders at a time closer to Pre’s heyday than Pre’s era is to now. Do I believe those guys would be running 12:46 (faster than anyone not native to East Africa) if they were competing today? To quote Bowerman’s character from one of the Prefontaine movies, “Doubtful rube, highly doubtful.”
So in my opinion, Pre has a strong argument for ranking higher on a list of “U.S. distance greats” until further notice, but he would NOT beat or seriously challenge 12:46/26:33 Grant Fisher. I think Kellogg’s estimates of 2:07 and 13:00 for Shorter and Pre today were very measured and reasonable given the impossibility of the question.
An innocent aside regarding Fisher’s distinction as the fastest ever non-African 5k runner. For many years, that title belonged to Dieter Baumann (busted, nandrolone). On the women’s side, it’s Liliya Shobukhova (busted) closely followed by Shelby Houlihan (busted, nandrolone).
Well said. I did think the Frank Shorter estimate was probably a bit too conservative unless he means 2:07:00 I suppose. He did run 2:10:30 to win at Fukuoka without pacemakers. The race also was not an even effort as he made a big surge at 15 miles by his recollection. To me, I'm not a crazy "supershoes" believer thinking they're worth 3-4 minutes plus, but I think it is fair to say 2 minutes-2:30 from 1970s-era shoes feels completely legitimate.
So you put Shorter on a lightning fast course with pacemakers, supershoes, and a time trial mindset as opposed to running purely to win...I tend to think he is at least a 2:06 guy.
The merit of this argument depends on how you interpret the question, but watching the brojos’ video the question seems to be, specifically, “If you magically transported Steve Prefontaine to this day and age, could he contend with Grant Fisher?” If that’s the question, I think your comparing them against the world records doesn’t hold up that well. I mean, Lauri Lehtinen (14:17) and Ilmari Salminen (30:05) were world record holders at a time closer to Pre’s heyday than Pre’s era is to now. Do I believe those guys would be running 12:46 (faster than anyone not native to East Africa) if they were competing today? To quote Bowerman’s character from one of the Prefontaine movies, “Doubtful rube, highly doubtful.”
So in my opinion, Pre has a strong argument for ranking higher on a list of “U.S. distance greats” until further notice, but he would NOT beat or seriously challenge 12:46/26:33 Grant Fisher. I think Kellogg’s estimates of 2:07 and 13:00 for Shorter and Pre today were very measured and reasonable given the impossibility of the question.
An innocent aside regarding Fisher’s distinction as the fastest ever non-African 5k runner. For many years, that title belonged to Dieter Baumann (busted, nandrolone). On the women’s side, it’s Liliya Shobukhova (busted) closely followed by Shelby Houlihan (busted, nandrolone).
Humans haven’t evolved physiologically in the last 50 years. I think we all agree on this. So why are times so much faster? Well, part of it is a growing talent pool (number of potential and real participants) globally, the notion of what’s possible keeps changing (the Bannister effect) and improved training and technology. Pre would certainly benefit from the latter two elements, just like Fisher. As for the first, well the US real talent pool is no larger I think. In fact T&F is less popular than ever, so maybe the effective talent pool is less. If Pre was the best 5/10 runner in the US back in his day, there is no good reason he would not be the best or among the best today. Being the best now means running 12:40s and 26:30s. The counter argument is that Fisher is an outlier, a talent beyond simply his era. Based on Lagat and Rupp and others, that seems wrong. Fisher is right on track and is doing what should be expected of the absolute top US runner of his time. I would expect no less from Pre.
In the '70s, Prefontaine was within 5 seconds of the WR in the 1500, 3.5 sec of the mile, 5 sec of the 3000, 6.2 sec in the 5000 and 12.8sec for the 10,000 m.
Fisher is much further away from the current WRs.
The merit of this argument depends on how you interpret the question, but watching the brojos’ video the question seems to be, specifically, “If you magically transported Steve Prefontaine to this day and age, could he contend with Grant Fisher?” If that’s the question, I think your comparing them against the world records doesn’t hold up that well. I mean, Lauri Lehtinen (14:17) and Ilmari Salminen (30:05) were world record holders at a time closer to Pre’s heyday than Pre’s era is to now. Do I believe those guys would be running 12:46 (faster than anyone not native to East Africa) if they were competing today? To quote Bowerman’s character from one of the Prefontaine movies, “Doubtful rube, highly doubtful.”
So in my opinion, Pre has a strong argument for ranking higher on a list of “U.S. distance greats” until further notice, but he would NOT beat or seriously challenge 12:46/26:33 Grant Fisher. I think Kellogg’s estimates of 2:07 and 13:00 for Shorter and Pre today were very measured and reasonable given the impossibility of the question.
An innocent aside regarding Fisher’s distinction as the fastest ever non-African 5k runner. For many years, that title belonged to Dieter Baumann (busted, nandrolone). On the women’s side, it’s Liliya Shobukhova (busted) closely followed by Shelby Houlihan (busted, nandrolone).
But what if you ask the question the opposite way? Do you get the same answer? So instead of transporting Pre to the present let's transport Fisher to the past. Fisher's big improvements came after he joined BTC. What if there was no BTC? Pre and Fisher showed similar levels of talent in HS and college.
If you don't think Pre could come close to Grant's times when transported to the future, does that mean that Grant would have been even faster than Viren if transported to the past?
What did they do? Pre's record at Hayward... Every Amer Rec from 2K to 10K.. Never missed a workout in 4+ yrs at Oregon... Fighting the AAU... Taking on competitors like Hailu in Corvallis, or Wottle in the restoration meet... Taking the fight to Viren on Munich... All in a time without the money/support/EPO of today... I love watching Fisher, but Pre was simply a Star.