Bill Rogers....was he good enought to finish in the 5 or 10 in todays marathons?

Rodgers

Why don't you look that the yearly results of Boston and decide for yourself?

# 1975 Boston (2:09:55) 1st American Record (AR)

# 1975 Enschede Marathon, Holland (DNF)

# 1975 Fukuoka Marathon (2:11:26) 3rd

# 1976 Olympic Trials (2:11:58) 2nd

# 1976 Montreal Olympics (2:25:14) 40th

# 1976 NYC (2:10:10) 1st CR

# 1976 Sedo Island, Japan (2:08:23) 1st CR (200 meters short)

# 1976 Maryland (2:14:28) 1st CR

# 1977 Kyoto, Japan (2:14:25) 1st

# 1977 Boston (DNF)

# 1977 Amsterdam, Holland (2:12:46) 1st CR

# 1977 Waynesboro (2:25:12) 1st

# 1977 NYC (2:11:28) 1st

# 1977 Fukuoka (2:10:55) 1st

# 1978 Boston (2:10:13) 1st

# 1978 NYC (2:12:12) 1st

# 1978 Fukuoka (2:12:53) 6th

# 1979 Boston (2:09:27) 1st AR

# 1979 Montreal (2:22:12) 15th

# 1979 NYC (2:11:42) 1st

# 1980 Boston (2:12:11) 1st

# 1980 Toronto (2:14:47) 1st

# 1980 NYC (2:13:20) 5th

# 1981 Houston-Tennaco (2:12:10) 1st CR

# 1981 Boston (2:10:34) 3rd

# 1981 Atlantica-Boavista, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2:14:13) 1st CR

# 1981 Stockholm, Sweden (2:13:28) 1st

# 1981 Bank One, Columbus, OH (2:17:34) 7th

# 1982 Houston (2:14:51) 5th

# 1982 Tokyo (2:24) 301st

# 1982 Boston (2:12:38) 4th

# 1982 Atlantica-Boavista, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (DNF)

# 1982 Big M, Melbourne, Australia (2:11:08) 1st

# 1983 Orange Bowl, FL (2:15:08) 1st

# 1983 Boston (2:11:58) 10th

# 1983 Beijing, China (DNF)

# 1983 Chicago (2:21:40)

# 1984 U.S. Olympic Trials (2:13:31) 8th

# 1985 New Jersey Waterfront (2:14:46) 2nd

# 1985 NYC (2:15:31) 7th

# 1986 Boston (2:13:35) 4th

# 1986 Chicago (2:15:31) 11th

The 5 or 10 what??

MAYBE top 10.

and that is a big maybe

What do you mean MAYBE Top Ten? Rodgers broke 2:10 on the course twice, on tougher days than this. He'd have been good for fifth or sixth.

NO .HE WOULD KICK RYAN'S ASS ANYTIME!!! RYAN HAS A LONG WAY TO GO....TO BE EVEN... CLOSE TO RODGERS.

If he had the race of his career then yes. Of course, if every runner had the race of his career he would have finished out of the top twenty. So chances are no.

heytheredelilah wrote:

MAYBE top 10.

and that is a big maybe

You only have to look at what Boston Billy actually did to know what he would be capable of today.

# 1975 Boston (2:09:55) 1st American Record (AR)

# 1977 Boston (DNF)

# 1978 Boston (2:10:13) 1st

# 1979 Boston (2:09:27) 1st AR

# 1980 Boston (2:12:11) 1st

# 1981 Boston (2:10:34) 3rd

# 1982 Boston (2:12:38) 4th

# 1983 Boston (2:11:58) 10th

# 1986 Boston (2:13:35) 4th

Bill Rogers could run about a 30:30 10 and a 15:00 5.

If you meant Bill Rodgers, he would have been running 2:02 or 2:03 with all the new barefoot technology available today.

Mr Mountain wrote:

Bill Rogers could run about a 30:30 10 and a 15:00 5.

If you meant Bill Rodgers, he would have been running 2:02 or 2:03 with all the new barefoot technology available today.

Agree . For 800 meters.

hall, if you want to talk pure time.

the difference between rodgers and hall is rodgers is/was a great competitor, hall runs against his watch.

rodgers loved to race.

Just take a look at results other than this year's outlier.

He was consistently 2:10-12 without rabbits and with fewer guys running with him.

Alan

Also worth noting-

Rodgers usually let up alot at the end of races because his lead was so big-I remember reading that at 79 Boston after he pulled away from Seko he was running 5:30's and waving to the crowd.

Also realize that he would often be running major races shortly after Major marathons- no major peaking-

Although I dont think that he couldve beaten geb, in todays world, with competition, better knowledge of training and better use of periodization, his times wouldve been MUCH faster. At his peak, he was already the best in the world, so he ran to win, not for times.

We'll never know, but fun to think about...

Here's to you, Bill

Rodgers raced often because that was the only way to make money back then. Hall runs maybe three or four races per year, he trains to run well in one or two races per year.

If Rodgers had that luxury, not that he would have wanted to, because he loved to race, he would easily beat Hall, it would never have been close.

Man, you traditionalists are hilarious. I grew up watching Bill Rodgers (when the Boston and New York Marathons actually meant something to regular Americans), and I was awed by him, and he was one of my original running heroes. He is one of the greats of the sport, and his place in history is in stone, and rightfully so...

...BUT, times have changed. He was the best then for several years. Competition has increased tremendously all over the world though, and we now have a home grown guy (Ryan Hall) who is a better marathoner than Rodgers.

Ryan Hall likely will never win as often or maybe not as big, but he's better. 2:06 is better than 2:09. Hall's 2:08 on Boston's course is better than Rodgers.

More people on the planet than then (including more Americans) and way more people competing in marathons in general...makes for a more competitive environment. The former greats eventually get swallowed up by the new crop.

Hall is better than Rogers. Hall is better than Frank Shorter, and Shorter has two Olympic medals (both of which should be GOLD).

But I don't think there is any question that past greats would also have been better just because the level is higher now. You're only as good as you need to be.

Rodgers and Shorter could have tweaked their training a bit and certainly been faster.

Both Shorter and Rodgers ran races where they undoubtedly had a bit more in them.

Rodgers has that 2:08 on a short course against a relay team and many think Shorter had a 2:07 effort in him but for conditions on the day.

Since Rodgers' time my guess is that there have been non-trivial advancements in the state of the art of training, equipment and nutrition.

Just a hunch.

Rodgers' didn't have the advantages of rabbits and late race co-leaders when he was at this best.

Rodgers raced very frequently rather than trying to peak for two races per year (a la Hall).

And you are trying to compare Hall and Rodgers based on best time?!?!?

Sorry, but you have been tried and found guilty of intellectual vacuousness.

Next.

Flagpole, you are wrong, Rodgers was at the front of the pack, he ran to win, not to have a nice time and time trial, ala Hall.

He didn't go to courses like London, Berlin, and Rotterdam to run a fast time, he went to races to run against the best, and he beat them.

Hall let the race go yesterday at Boston, he wanted to run a time and finish well, Rodgers would have gone after the win, take Rodgers every time over Hall.

Also, running 5 marathons a year (which Rodgers did several years) all in the 2:10-2:13 range wasn't exactly conducive to blasting a fast time, especially when you throw in all the other road races Rodgers would run.

I'm only 20, so I've got no false nostalgia of watching Rodgers dominate races and wishing for that to come back. I just honestly believe that with the competition and training available today, Rodgers would have been a 2:06-7 marathoner and a consistent top 5-er at Boston and New York. I'm not saying he still would have won all the titles he won in his day, but top 10? Not a problem.