I say no. Frank Shorter is by every measure a much more accomplished runner. He's not a mythic figure like Pre.
Shorter is definitely better than Pre. No question about that. An Olympic gold and silver, multiple Marathon Majors winner, and his PRs rivaled Pre’s at every distance.
Now having said that, Prefontaine was still great. American record holder at every distance from 2k to 10k and a high win record with seldom losses (I don’t have the win-loss record in front of me. I’ll check later). Granted his wins were mostly against collegiate and domestic competition, but still it’s pretty impressive. Where does he fit on the list? I’d put him somewhere around 18th in a top twenty male American distance runners list.
Now dying young does normally give someone already famous a kind of elevated mystique about them. I would say if he had lived that he would not have the kind of legendary status he has now from having died so young. I still think either way he is objectively a top 20 guy. Fourth place right outside of the medals and he beat several good guys. There’s also such things as star power and influence and no question he had both.
I say no. Frank Shorter is by every measure a much more accomplished runner. He's not a mythic figure like Pre.
Shorter is definitely better than Pre. No question about that. An Olympic gold and silver, multiple Marathon Majors winner, and his PRs rivaled Pre’s at every distance.
Now having said that, Prefontaine was still great. American record holder at every distance from 2k to 10k and a high win record with seldom losses (I don’t have the win-loss record in front of me. I’ll check later). Granted his wins were mostly against collegiate and domestic competition, but still it’s pretty impressive. Where does he fit on the list? I’d put him somewhere around 18th in a top twenty male American distance runners list.
Now dying young does normally give someone already famous a kind of elevated mystique about them. I would say if he had lived that he would not have the kind of legendary status he has now from having died so young. I still think either way he is objectively a top 20 guy. Fourth place right outside of the medals and he beat several good guys. There’s also such things as star power and influence and no question he had both.
I've said before that Pre's death reminds me of something that The Washington Post critic Tom Shales said about the death of Andy Kaufman: "It was a tragedy, but a good career move." Shorter was obviously vastly more accomplished as a runner, and his accomplishments, unlike Pre's, were largely against international competition.
Shorter is definitely better than Pre. No question about that. An Olympic gold and silver, multiple Marathon Majors winner, and his PRs rivaled Pre’s at every distance.
Now having said that, Prefontaine was still great. American record holder at every distance from 2k to 10k and a high win record with seldom losses (I don’t have the win-loss record in front of me. I’ll check later). Granted his wins were mostly against collegiate and domestic competition, but still it’s pretty impressive. Where does he fit on the list? I’d put him somewhere around 18th in a top twenty male American distance runners list.
Now dying young does normally give someone already famous a kind of elevated mystique about them. I would say if he had lived that he would not have the kind of legendary status he has now from having died so young. I still think either way he is objectively a top 20 guy. Fourth place right outside of the medals and he beat several good guys. There’s also such things as star power and influence and no question he had both.
I've said before that Pre's death reminds me of something that The Washington Post critic Tom Shales said about the death of Andy Kaufman: "It was a tragedy, but a good career move." Shorter was obviously vastly more accomplished as a runner, and his accomplishments, unlike Pre's, were largely against international competition.
How many times did Shorter beat Pre? How many times did Shorter beat me?
I say no. Frank Shorter is by every measure a much more accomplished runner. He's not a mythic figure like Pre.
I would say the same thing about Marty Liquori whose career at least rivals Prefontaine's and might have bettered it. I think you could say the same about Craig Virgin's career. But for the latter two we know how their careers played out so we can't create a fantasy ending.
I've said before that Pre's death reminds me of something that The Washington Post critic Tom Shales said about the death of Andy Kaufman: "It was a tragedy, but a good career move." Shorter was obviously vastly more accomplished as a runner, and his accomplishments, unlike Pre's, were largely against international competition.
To be fair, Shorter was more than 3 years older than Pre. When Pre finished fourth at the 1972 Olympics, he was only 21.
Pre died at 24 years and 4 months of age. To fairly compare him to Shorter, we'd have to look only at what Shorter accomplished by the same age, which for Shorter was March of 1972.
I say no. Frank Shorter is by every measure a much more accomplished runner. He's not a mythic figure like Pre.
I would say the same thing about Marty Liquori whose career at least rivals Prefontaine's and might have bettered it. I think you could say the same about Craig Virgin's career. But for the latter two we know how their careers played out so we can't create a fantasy ending.
Liquori would have been recognized at any airport. You can't say the same about Pre. Shorter, maybe.
He'd have a similar legacy to Rupp. Many would revere him as a great runner, some would say he was very good not great, few would consider him a legend. There's an advantage to dying before the full story is written.
I've said before that Pre's death reminds me of something that The Washington Post critic Tom Shales said about the death of Andy Kaufman: "It was a tragedy, but a good career move." Shorter was obviously vastly more accomplished as a runner, and his accomplishments, unlike Pre's, were largely against international competition.
How many times did Shorter beat Pre? How many times did Shorter beat me?
They were both great in their own way.
Shorter was just an example of an American runner that reached the pinnacle during the same same time as Pre, with his Olympic gold and silver.
I wasn't trying to make it a debate between the 2 for superiority.
I'm just saying that had he not died, he would have been figure more like Shorter and not the running god that he's made out to be.
I think one of the great things about both Pre and Shorter is that they were both clean athletes. Definitely not something everyone from that era can say.
. . . (Shorter's) PRs rivaled Pre’s at every distance.
. . . (Prefontaine was) American record holder at every distance from 2k to 10k . . .
Pedantic point, but maybe someone can help me with the math here.
I mean, Shorter’s PRs could “rival” Pre’s at a range of distances without actually being faster than any of them, sure.
I wouldn’t agree that they did, though. Pre had far better mile speed, running 3:54, whereas Shorter never broke 4 and seems like a guy who even at his best would have maxed out at ~3:59 feeling like he was sprinting the whole time.
This carries over to 3k/2-mile: Pre’s PRs (7:42, 8:18) were meaningfully superior to Shorter’s (7:51, 8:26). The gap narrows at 5k (13:21 to 13:26) and at 10k we’re finally on ~equal terms (27:43.6 for Pre to 27:45.9 for Shorter).
Pre was the better track runner with tools that Shorter lacked, but Shorter’s marathon achievements clearly make him the vastly more accomplished runner. Olympic gold and silver versus a 4th place, come on now.
If Pre won the 5000 gold in Montreal, then he would be a great hero of American distance running. I bet he also would have gone bats**t on Carter over the 1980 Moscow Games boycott and might have had the rock star clout to force a reconsideration of that move.
Pre was on the cover of sports illustrated. That is a more important indicator of his legacy than prs or even medals. Were any of the other runners mentioned cover boys like Pre? To classify Pre in the same category as Rupp is nonsense. Could you imagine Rupp on the cover for SI (lol)?
I've said before that Pre's death reminds me of something that The Washington Post critic Tom Shales said about the death of Andy Kaufman: "It was a tragedy, but a good career move." Shorter was obviously vastly more accomplished as a runner, and his accomplishments, unlike Pre's, were largely against international competition.
To be fair, Shorter was more than 3 years older than Pre. When Pre finished fourth at the 1972 Olympics, he was only 21.
Pre died at 24 years and 4 months of age. To fairly compare him to Shorter, we'd have to look only at what Shorter accomplished by the same age, which for Shorter was March of 1972.
No, I think the more common sense way to compare them in the context of the OP’s question is by comparing what they actually achieved.
And if not that, then first consider what Pre would most likely have achieved had he lived, and then compare that to Shorter’s resume.
It makes no sense contextually for us to be cutting Shorter off in March 1972…
I've said before that Pre's death reminds me of something that The Washington Post critic Tom Shales said about the death of Andy Kaufman: "It was a tragedy, but a good career move." Shorter was obviously vastly more accomplished as a runner, and his accomplishments, unlike Pre's, were largely against international competition.
How many times did Shorter beat Pre? How many times did Shorter beat me?
They were both great in their own way.
You have a point but it’s not an apples and oranges comparison. Shorter is objectively better than Prefontaine. It’s not even debatable. I would refrain from using words like “vastly” better because to be fair Pre did beat Shorter the few times they raced, but they were in unimportant races.
Pedantic point, but maybe someone can help me with the math here.
I mean, Shorter’s PRs could “rival” Pre’s at a range of distances without actually being faster than any of them, sure.
I wouldn’t agree that they did, though. Pre had far better mile speed, running 3:54, whereas Shorter never broke 4 and seems like a guy who even at his best would have maxed out at ~3:59 feeling like he was sprinting the whole time.
This carries over to 3k/2-mile: Pre’s PRs (7:42, 8:18) were meaningfully superior to Shorter’s (7:51, 8:26). The gap narrows at 5k (13:21 to 13:26) and at 10k we’re finally on ~equal terms (27:43.6 for Pre to 27:45.9 for Shorter).
Pre was the better track runner with tools that Shorter lacked, but Shorter’s marathon achievements clearly make him the vastly more accomplished runner. Olympic gold and silver versus a 4th place, come on now.
The short answer to the OP’s question is “No.”
You got my point from my post which the person you are replying to did not quite get.
To be fair, Shorter was more than 3 years older than Pre. When Pre finished fourth at the 1972 Olympics, he was only 21.
Pre died at 24 years and 4 months of age. To fairly compare him to Shorter, we'd have to look only at what Shorter accomplished by the same age, which for Shorter was March of 1972.
No, I think the more common sense way to compare them in the context of the OP’s question is by comparing what they actually achieved.
And if not that, then first consider what Pre would most likely have achieved had he lived, and then compare that to Shorter’s resume.
It makes no sense contextually for us to be cutting Shorter off in March 1972…
I agree with your first sentence but disagree with your second sentence because it’s based on a hypothetical. It only makes sense to compare what actually happened.