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

racer, not pacer wrote:

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.

Rodgers would have never "easily beat Hall." Rodgers was a damn fine runner, but lets face it, he would have been demolished by the Africans. Playing catch-up to the insane, grinding pace the Africans lay down nearly each and every marathon they run is in stark contrast to the way marathon running was done 30 years ago. Imagine it: Rodgers, at his very best, maybe 2 or 2 1/2 minutes behind the leaders at the 22 mile mark. It's suddenly an entirely different story when you're not the hero out in front with a minute lead.

THANK YOU!!

and the temperature was the same in both olympics?

Doesn't matter about temp. Wanjiru ran fast, no reason for Hall to run way off his best.

Shorter hated the Montreal weather, still ran close to his PB.

1) The competition was different. Measuring TIME was the same.2) So Bill Rodgers raced more, so what. Some runners believe they benefit from more frequent racing. It's not a given that if Bill raced less often than he'd run as fast as Ryan Hall or that if Ryan Hall raced more often that he'd crash and burn. Rodgers did what he did, and Ryan Hall does what he does. When it comes down to it, they both are marathoners, and you can only look at the times they ran, and Hall is faster. You know, it's not like Bill never lost. He had enough competition to drive the times down even further if he had the ability to.3) Just not fair to say Bill was the better racer. He won a lot more yes, but the competition was nothing compared to today. I won a lot of races in high school. Was I a better racer than some poor schmuck who was faster than me but stuck in a tougher region of the country? No. To suggest that Bill Rodgers JUST raced to win and didn't care about his time is bogus.4) Ok. You take Bill. He'll run 2:11 or MAYBE just dip under 2:10 while Hall runs 2:08 and everyone says he sucks and can't go for the win. It's BS. Hall deserves WAY more credit than he's being given on this thread. Nostalgia has too many of you in the head.

racer, not pacer wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Nope. Bill Rodgers didn't have anywhere near the competition of today. A marathoner today doesn't need to come anywhere close to doing what you've suggested to prove he's better. The 21-year-old RKC who just won Boston is better. Merga is better. Hall is better.

Bill raced against the comp that was available, can't do much about that. He raced aginst them any time at any distance. Hall races a few chosen races, usually for place, rarely does he run to win.

If Hall were to attempt the racing schedule that Bill ran, Hall would not last one year.

Bill was a better racer, Hall run's some nice time trials.

Would take Bill any time.

Flagpole, do you realize how much Bill raced? He often raced both Sat. and Sunday of the same weekend. I ran against him in a 10k the day after the Virginia 10 miler. I also ran a race he ran in one week after the Montreal Olympic marathon, he ran poorly at Montreal, but sometimes the crappy races take mor eout of you tham the good ones.

He raced almost every single weekend of the year and some mid-week races as well.

you can't compare the times that easily, most of the big races these days are on the flatest fastest courses available with pacesetters and rabbits etc. They are set up to be fast, did London have rabbits? Is it a faster course than Boston?

Yes, Hall beat Rodgers best at Boston, on a perfect day while chasing (for a while) others, fell so far back he was out of it late. Bill ran 45 sec. slower winning, without the tailwind they had yesterday. I think Bill's Boston pr is a better performnace than Hall's slightly faster time.

Nice quote and proof to me (among other things) that Rodgers got the most out of his talent that he could. A different era wouldn't have made him suddenly lop 3+ minutes off his marathon time.

Eh. Ok. Guess we disagree then. Hall has proven enough to me already to be the best American-born distance runner ever, and he's not done yet. This of course can be trumped at any time by any other runner...Ritzenhein for example, if he can stay uninjured long enough to train properly for a good marathon, he may eclipse Hall, or some kid down the line that we've not yet heard of. Probably a three-year-old in Towner, North Dakota who will run 2:02 one day.

Flagpole wrote:

Hall has proven enough to me already to be the best American-born distance runner ever, and he's not done yet.

Do you really think Hall is the best American-born "distance runner" or did you mean "marathoner", because it's arguable whether he's even the best of his generation with Ritz and Webb in the mix. If I'm not mistaken, you've argued the other sides of that comparison.

I'm a huge Ryan Hall fan - even ran in Big Bear just because I was within 2 hours of the city, but don't crap on the history of the sport.

"In his first victory here, running for the Greater Boston Track Club, he broke both the course and American records with his time of 2:09:55, despite stopping four times for a drink of water and once to tie his shoelace."

He's once been quoted as saying that one of his problems as an endurance athlete was that he didn't drink enough water after his training runs and hence would become dehydrated for races.

------------

"...This was a typed letter hand-signed by Pre. Bill would wear the shoes sent by Pre the following week in the Boston Marathon. His brother Charlie said that they were better than anything Bill had at the time and he wore them even though they were a little too large for him.

Boston Billy, "King of the Roads" was born during that 1975 Boston Marathon as Bill Rodgers had his breakthrough performance, running to a new American and Course Record time of 2:09:55. Because the shoes were a bit big for him Bill had to stop twice in the final miles to tighten them, to the surprise and shock of the spectators and the press."

http://www.runningpast.com/pre.htm

Youngster: How do you think Emil Zatopek would have done at Boston this year, if he were alive?

Old timer: Maybe 2:20

Youngster: 2:20? He ran that in the 1950s!

Old timer: Yeah, but he would be 88 years old if he were alive and running Boston this year.

In today's market, Rodgers would entirely revamp his approach. He would not need to run 40 races per year. He would, as has Hall, taken a more selective approach.

As a consequence, 2.08 would have become his "norm" and on an off day he'd run 2.10 and on a great day probably something 2.07 and on a flying course 2.06.

That means he would not be able to chock up the wins as he did back in the day - the competition is too fierce nowadays. Yet, he would be able to win a New York here and a Boston there on some given year. He would tend to place in the top 3 to 5 wherever he went.

At least, that's how I would see it.

I think that Hall might be able to move into the same realm of performance. He's already done a 2.06 and placed well in several major marathons (twice at Boston, once at London).

Kastor has won majors and is higher on the all time list. I'll take her as the greatest American-born distance runner of this generation. She's also accomplished more on the track and in cross.

Among the current generation of males, Hall is in the discussion, but 4 Boston's and 4 NY's trumps a good time. I'd rather have Joe DiMaggio than Carlos Beltran, though Beltran is a superior athlete.

Back to the prior page, you're an idiot for bringing up Shorter's loss in Montreal and not at least giving lip service to the obvious doping that Frank didn't practice.

Better training, oxygen tent, better nutrition, you bet he would.

This is actually pretty funny. I mean, if you can't appreciate running humor what can you appreciate?Oh and FP, you are way off on this one brother...

Old Ultra Guy wrote:

Youngster: How do you think Emil Zatopek would have done at Boston this year, if he were alive?

Old timer: Maybe 2:20

Youngster: 2:20? He ran that in the 1950s!

Old timer: Yeah, but he would be 88 years old if he were alive and running Boston this year.

1. You can NEVER compare between eras.

2. There is nothing wrong with running at the front if you are prepared to DNF if the pace is too much.

3. There is nothing wrong with running your own SMART race if you KNOW the pace up front is going to be too fast.

4. While you can BLOW a race by going too fast, you can never just run faster by trying harder without doing all the prep BEFORE race day.

Red Glare wrote:

Still no substance rattling around inside that thick skull of yours? Stop believing what you think, because it's wrong!

Who says that shoes were much crappier? Minimalists and old runners say they were as good or better than today's overbuilt crap shoes, especially the marathon racing shoes. If Shorter used defizzed Coke then Rodgers probably wasn't using "just water" unless that was his preference.

Rodgers was great, an outstanding runner, but you fools who are delusional enough to prop him up artificially with mistruths only do a disservice to his true legacy and to Hall's legacy. Stop crapping on our sport. Thank you.

So, you are suggesting that:

In the last 30 years the human species has learned nothing about how to better prepare for running very fast marathons

AND

There have been no improvements in equipment, training and otherwise, during those years

AND

Runners (such as Hall) are quite capable of running just as fast even if they race 30 - 40 times a year rather than just twice (with two warmup/training type races).

That would seem to imply that:

a) Humans are incapable of learning

or

b) Just the folks who are dedicated to running (coaches, athletes, scientists and researchers) are incapable of learning

or

c) We had perfect knowledge and equipment for training/racing 30 years ago (although this would seem to imply that all efforts in this area for the last 30 years were fools' errands - back to a) or b) pretty much)

AND

d) Hall really just races seriously twice a year out of laziness or stupidity since he could just as well race thirty times and still manage the same level of performance in races

I don't know about you but this is looking a tad bit unlikely to me.

You have been tried.

You have been found very, very wanting.

You are banished to an existence devoid of intelligent thought. I'm sorry.

Coach Jerk wrote:

Back to the prior page, you're an idiot for bringing up Shorter's loss in Montreal and not at least giving lip service to the obvious doping that Frank didn't practice.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT FRANK DIDNT DOPE???????

Citizen Runner wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Hall has proven enough to me already to be the best American-born distance runner ever, and he's not done yet.

Do you really think Hall is the best American-born "distance runner" or did you mean "marathoner", because it's arguable whether he's even the best of his generation with Ritz and Webb in the mix. If I'm not mistaken, you've argued the other sides of that comparison.

You are correct. I meant "marathoner"; my mistake. I do think that Ritzenhein and Webb are better currently when considering all distance runners in the US, and I think Ritzenhein has the potential to be the clear frontrunner in that discussion when his career is over.