--Personally, that's your opinion. I'm in the Rodgers camp as well. This is not coulda, shoulda, woulda, just only in your world.
---Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows what he would have done in Montreal if he was healthy. The poster is right, he beat Shorter by about 3 minutes less than 3 months later.
---To judge the best based on one race is biased and moronic at best.
---Shorter's race in Munich is the only thing that he did better than Rodgers at in the Marathon distance, he won the Gold Medal (even though Bill wasn't there).
---Shorter's medal in Montreal is not tainted, but a healthy Rodgers would have beat him that day and Waldemar as well...that's called common sense and using your brain. Bill beat Frank marathon after marathon after Montreal, so you just have too much tunnel vision on one race to determine who was better at the distance.
---Get a brain dummy!
it aint me wrote:
But...Rodgers had a serious foot injury at Montreal and Moscow was boycotted.
But...Rodgers ran 2:10:10 less than 3 months after Montreal which included weaving in and out of people and traffic, Shorter was 3 minutes behind him and he won the silver behind a known doper.
But...There was no WC back then in his "prime".
But...Rodgers won 4 NYC marathons in a row and 3 Bostons in a row.
Alan, learn your facts. You can talk about competition back then versus now and then we can get into the fact that Rodgers would be even faster if he....?
Me knows stuff:)
broken arrow wrote:
It is always hard to rank marathon runners on their time versus medals in the WC or OG. A medal in the OG carries a lot of weight, so I would have to put Meb and Rupp ahead of Salazar and Hall. Shorter and Rodgers are 1 and 2.
But Rodgers never won a WC or OG medal....
This is all shoulda-woulda-coulda.
Fact is Rogers never won an olympic medal. He finished 40th in 1976, and did not make the team in 1980. Even if the boycott had been adverted, he was not on the olympic team (he might not have run the trials because of the boycott, but, again, fact is he was not on the olympic team).
He had many fast times for the day. He won all the big non-olympic marathons. He was ranked #1 several times. He was considered the best several years in a row.
Still facts are facts, and shoulda-woulda-couldas are not facts.
Whether you rank times and Boston, NYC wins ahead of Olympic wins is opinion. Everyone has one, and there are two camps which will never agree.
If you consider Olympic medals to carry more weight, then Rogers loses out.
Personally, I do. I'd rank Rogers behind Shorter. After that, it's debatable. Boston, NYC, and Fukuoka were considered the elite marathons of those times, and he won them all. NYC and Boston multiple times. I'd probably put him ahead of Meb.
My list would be:
After that it gets fuzzy for me. Off the top of my head....