That's the silliest argument anyone has made here yet. And you think all of those courses were equivalent? You did watch the uphill finish in the heat of Barcelona or the exceptionally hot, hilly Atlanta and Athens marathons right? Funny thing is, I never said Shorter's accomplishments weren't fantastic given his era, only that I would argue Virgin was the best US runner. That's all this is, an argument after all. Who the fukk knows who the best is? It's a useless, if not entertaining debate, because there's no way to compare apples and oranges. All I am saying is that runners from all distances descend upon world cross, steeple, 5k, 10k, road whore, and marathon specialists alike. Who runs the Olympic marathon? Marathoners, that's right. It's not like Shorter medaled over 10k, which Virgin very probably would hav done in 1980 were it not for the boycott. It's not like Shorter had a faster 10k PR, despite the eras being "not all that different."
The irony about trying to compare a bunch of Olympic marathon times is that Virgin had a faster marathon PR in one of the only efforts (only?) he made at the distance than Shorter. Therefore, by this wonderful deductic reasoning, Virgin would have beat Frank in the 72 and 76 marathons had he run them. You'd think I had insulted someone's mother by posting a rather trivial opinion. Perhaps we should just let Shorter and Virgin have this debate.