Virgin vs Rogers?

It's not that he was bad at running track, he didn't focus on it due to his dominance at Road racing, not to mention that he was making a pretty good living at it.

Rodgers was not bad at track. He just didn't do much of it and USATF has sanctioned national road championships for a long time. That said, I agree with you that Craig Virgin should in their hall of fame as well.

First of all learn to spell Bill Rodgers name correctly before you comment on him. If you do not understand, road racing and the marathon have come under the auspices of USA track and field. As far as track is concerned, with all of his road running Rodgers still managed to run 28:04 I believe in 1976, which put him in the top 10 Americans all-time at the time. I do agree that Virgin deserves to be there, just for his 2 American records in the 10k and being a 3-time Olympian at 10k.After all his 27:29 from 1980 still makes him 5th American all-time still.

Rodgers...sorry for the SP

back to track and field, when running that oval, in my opinoin is for purest form of running and exposes the weakiness of the not so fast runners! Rodgers gets a lot of credit for starting the running boom, winning marathons, and road races but the track is where the fastest distance runners test their mettle! Road racing is fun but as pure as the track...in my opinion!

TO think that convicted doper Mary Slaney is in the Hall of Fame.

woops...road racing is fun but NOT as pure as the track

To further support your argument, Virgin won the World Cross Country Championships in 1980 and 1981.

Track fans and runners like to refer to the "purity" of track. Cross country fans and runners like to refer to the "purity" of running through nature. But how, exactly, do you measure "purity" in an activity?

Rodgers was great at what he did and mostly what he did was run marathons. The marathon is contested in the Olympics and World Championships as part of Track and Field. Rodgers was much more dominant in his event, the marathon, than Virgin was in his event, the 10,000. Again, I think Virgin is overlooked and absolutely should be in any hall of fame that inclides distance runners. But why does this have to an issue with "vs" in it? It seems like you'd be as happy to have Rodgers excluded as to have Virgin included.

BR won the bronze in World XC and also set 15K and 20K ARs on the track.

Sure, it is great that Rodgers made it but I think Virgin was the better track runner by far! To me as I understand it is the USATF should have a higher priority for the track runners.

Maybe you understand incorrectly.

realXCrunning wrote:

woops...road racing is fun but NOT as pure as the track

On the contrary, it is track which is not as pure as road racing

Virgin > Porter

Shorter > Rodgers

Olympic medals, world championship titles, and faster PRs at most every distance = superior athletes.

realXCrunning wrote:

Since when is a road race or fun run part of the USATF?

I agree that Virgin should also be in the USATF HOF however your understanding of USATF is completely wrong based on this statement alone.

You said that Virgin was a better track runner by far. The one time I know they raced each other on the track, the 1976 10k Olympic Trials Virgin was 2nd in 27:59 and Rodgers was 4th in 28:04. I would not consider that by far.

Maybe I should not of of pick...Virgin vs Rodgers thread

but when looking at USATF Hall of Fame and seeing Rodgers listed and not Virgin it made sense at the time to compare, maybe not I am so not sure? I thought and still believe Virgin was the better runner overall.

anyway, here is the way I remember the past:

Virgin was better in

XC

Track

high school

college

bettr PR's in 5k and 10k

Road races...Won every Major Road of his time at least once...it would be interesting how many times they where in the same race and who won?

Raced Bill in his especiality the Marathon once...Virgin beat him in 2:10:30

at the time most of Virgin PR's were World leading times and close to world records

Virgin's track times were better than Rodgers' were. But that's not much of a comparison because Rodgers rarely raced seriously on the track. Nor does the comparison about the marathon where Virgin fnished ahead of Rodgers because that came after Rodgers best years had passed.

Rodgers was a marathoner and won every major race of the era except for the Olympics where he had only one chance.

That's why he's in the hall of fame and honestly, probably because he's more, well, famous for having done it.

Again, I think Virgin belongs there, mostly for his cross country running. But I don't think very many people at all would question Rodgers' presence.

relax, everybody. Virgin will get into the HOF. It's like alot of HOFs; the order they get in, really means nothing; as long as you get in. btw, Rodgers got 3rd at the World X-C Championships in the mid 70s and ran a 28 minute 10k on the track; so he proved his chops other places besides the roads; but the 'roads' paid the bills in those days!

First, I agree Craig Virgin belings in the hall of fame.

Second, you're a moron! Why the comparisons? Sure, Virgin beat Rodgers in the marathon. Rodgers was coming off of five incredible years of road racing and marathon performances. FYI, he won 4 Boston and 4 NYC Marathons. He was almost unbeatable at any distance on the roads during the second half of the 70's.

Virgin was outstanding but primarily a 10000 meter and X-C runner. "Not that there is anything wrong with that."

Stop these ridiculous comparisons.