Bill Rodgers vs. Frank Shorter

Shorter. Olympic gold and silver (or gold and gold, depending on how you look at it.) Four wins at Fukuoka.

I agree- Frank gets the nod for his Olympic and World Champ performances (back then, Fukuoka was known as the "Marathon Championship of the World"- not official, but still).

If we expand out a little, I think Frank comes out the better runner overall- he had better range than Rodgers and could win national titles on the roads, track, and over xc.

That being said, both of them were unreal. Rodgers' relaxation when he ran was ridiculous. He would just be cruising along at 5 minute pace looking like "oh, are we having a race today? How fun!"

In the recent Bill Rodgers podcast from the Final Sprint he admits that Shorter is much better. Going so far as saying that he thinks that Shorter is one of the best marathoners ever to run the distance.

It's definitely Shorter. He also had a vastly superior overall track and cross country record, though Rodgers' 3rd in World Cross country does stand out.

Comparing by marathon performances, the record between the two men is much closer. Shorter won Olympic medals; Rodgers won some big city marathon races. It depends upon what you consider more important, which is a debate Letsrun posters continue to have everyday.

How about head-to-head from the 76 track and marathon trials through the 84 Olympics. In 76 Shorter beat Rodgers in both the track trials and the marathon trials. After that, I don't know. There was a good article in The Runner after their 10K road race in Middleton, NY (?) which I beleive Frank won. I think part of BR's legend lies in the fact that he raced so frequently and so ferociously. But taking the semi-arbitrary 76-84 parameters, including road races, it would be interesting to see the results.

Agree with consensus that Shorter was better. But if you took Shorter on his best day and Rodgers on his best day, Rodgers would win the day.

I agree with that, except that Rodgers didn't had his best day when it "counted". I guess, though, he was injured for Montreal and then there was the ill advised 80 boycott.

Was Rodgers injured at Montreal? From what I recall, the main reason he ran poorly was from having overemphasized mileage over intensity in the months before the Olympics, and as a result, he wasn't able to sustain a fast pace in the marathon.

If you're going to ignore the Olympics, then Ron Hill was better than both! (maybe!)

mcordi wrote:

I agree with that, except that Rodgers didn't had his best day when it "counted".

That's why Shorter has the medals and wins the "greatest" contest.

Rodgers has mentioned before that he was injured in 76. A shame he got locked out in 1980. But it's a tribute to his humility that he doesn't hesitate for a second to call Frank far greater.

They were on their best day in the 76 OG trials and Shorter came out on top. Given their best day Shorter would have and did come out on top when it counted. As great as Rodgers was and the tough competitior he was, he did not have the talent or killer competitive instinct Shorter possessed. Shorter could run well under any circumstance whereas Rodgers often times had difficulty performing in hot conditions.

Both great careers, but Shorter much better.

48 wrote:

They were on their best day in the 76 OG trials and Shorter came out on top. Given their best day Shorter would have and did come out on top when it counted. As great as Rodgers was and the tough competitior he was, he did not have the talent or killer competitive instinct Shorter possessed. Shorter could run well under any circumstance whereas Rodgers often times had difficulty performing in hot conditions.

Both great careers, but Shorter much better.

Shorter IS much better but neither was having their best day in the 76 trials and both simply wanted to make the team.

Take each on their very best day and Rodgers blows Shorter away by in the marathon. Period.

Shorter is the greater runner. He has the medals and made it happen when it counted. Rodgers is the faster marathoner. It's not a slam on Shorter to acknowledge the obvious.

Living in the Past wrote:

Was Rodgers injured at Montreal? From what I recall, the main reason he ran poorly was from having overemphasized mileage over intensity in the months before the Olympics, and as a result, he wasn't able to sustain a fast pace in the marathon.

It was a bit of both. Due to a foot injury, Rodgers was able to train but not do much speedwork. According to his book " Marathoning" all of his training from the 10km trials onward was around 6:30 pace.

Sorry to disagree with you, competitive records, PRs from 400 on up except for Boston ( which is a downhill course) where Rodgers ran 2:09:27. maybe a better measure is who ran faster at Fukouka. They are close but I would give the nod to Shorter anytime the race counted and even occasions where it didn't.

Examples of each man's tenacity as racers.

Diet Pepsi in Denver Rodgers got spanked by Shorter ( Sinclair's coming out as a road racer)

Rodgers amazing comeback at New York against Kirk Pfeffer. Pfeffer was on world record pace until he hit the park. What people don't know about that race is Pfeffer ran a twenty miler the day before in Boulder and ripped it he dropped all of us going up Dakota ridge. He felt so good he took a red eye to NY and ran that race. Back in Boulder we were stunned to wake up and see him running the race. But Kirk did stuff like that.

48 wrote:

Sorry to disagree with you, competitive records, PRs from 400 on up except for Boston ( which is a downhill course) where Rodgers ran 2:09:27. maybe a better measure is who ran faster at Fukouka. They are close but I would give the nod to Shorter anytime the race counted and even occasions where it didn't.

Examples of each man's tenacity as racers.

Diet Pepsi in Denver Rodgers got spanked by Shorter ( Sinclair's coming out as a road racer)

Rodgers amazing comeback at New York against Kirk Pfeffer.

And so if I were having the two at their best race a 10k or a 5k, I would pick Shorter. But since Rodgers beat Shorters marathon PR not once but FOUR times (including on the NYC course), I'll take Rodgers any day of the week.

Unless you are going to tell me that Shorter did not have his best day at Munich (where he set his PR), Rodgers was a faster marathoner on his best day, period. It is as simple as that. Shorter still is and was the greater runner by far.

Shorter's PR wasn't at Munich but at Fukuoka 72 where he won it easily in 2:10:30, after going at the WR pace and, dropping everybody else by 30k, he simply coasted. I have not doubt Shorter could have run much faster than 2:10--perhaps close to 2:08 even but he didn't have to.

I would however agree with some of you that Rodgers was a better marathon runner--I think he could have been even better. I remember him saying that he ran as hard as he could at 79 Boston and ran "only" 2:09:27 but I'd be interested to see what he could have done on fast courses of today like London or Berlin. Nevertheless, it wouldn't do any justice at all to simply see the times they ran and say "Rodgers ran faster 4 times". That doesn't mean anything at all.

Coach Squires still believe Rodgers could have won Montreal easily had he not been injured. I tend to agree actually; but then again, Shorter was injured too, yet he ran the second fastest time there. And also remember he didn't like to run in the rain either.

Hey Nobby, Hope all is well. Charley Pablo Vigil Frank's training partner at the time has publically stated Frank was ready to run 2:07 for Montreal, weather and a bad foot nixed that effort.

Both men were a thing a beauty to watch running. Frank was very sneaky you could never him coming up on you, Bill was the same way which one reason I think he lasted as long as he did with his mileage and leg length discrepency.

It was a fun era to be a part of and bear witness.

He was injured. I was 16 at the time and wanted him to win. I remember that he had some kind of foot injury.

And, I agree that getting there healthy is part of the preparation.