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

Maybe Bill would be kind enough to get on this board and share his opinion...That would be great....

I bet he says that Hall is better! Why, because that is the way that Bill is........Get rid of the couldof, shouldof...

Maximus wrote:

Flagpole, your lack of intelligence just shows up more and more each time you post. You think we are hilarious when you spout off things that make no logical sense. Will we ever know how Rodgers and Shorter would have done today? Unfortunately no, but yes they would have run much faster today. The thing you are completely forgetting is THEY WERE WINNING many of their races. Put them in today's environment and how much faster would they have run.? Considerably faster and anyone that can think logically would understand that.

They MIGHT have, and likely even WOULD have, but neither of them were content JUST to win. I have a video at home (VHS) of Bill Rogers talking about wanting to run faster and faster times...times were important to them too.

Besides, Shorter didn't beat Cierpinski. Why couldn't he go faster on that day? So, what you're saying is that you can always take a champion from a given era and place them in a modern era and they would always compete for the win? That is bogus brother. So many more people are competing at the top in marathons now, and pretty much the whole world is involved...that HAS to make the pool greater.

What if in 30 years the marathon WR gets down to 1:59. Will you say then that if Shorter were running against that competition that he would be able to run that too? Bogus.

Track and field and distance running is easier to determine who is the best over eras than any other sport...look at the stop watch or measure the distance.

Hall is better than Rogers. Rogers had enough time to try to run 2:06. He never did, and he didn't WIN all the time either, so it's not like he just had everything wrapped up and cruised it in. If he could have run 2:06 or 2:07 or even 2:08 (on a non-short course), he would have. He couldn't and didn't.

Hall is better, and Hall's not even done with his career yet. He may dip under 2:05 still...maybe even faster.

That's Rodgers.

Flagpole wrote:

So, what you're saying is that you can always take a champion from a given era and place them in a modern era and they would always compete for the win? That is bogus brother. So many more people are competing at the top in marathons now, and pretty much the whole world is involved...that HAS to make the pool greater.

You're arguing against your own strawman. The two premises of the thread are 1) Would Rodgers finish top 5-10? (not win everything in sight) and 2) Was he better than Ryan Hall? (not Wanjiru)

The first is easily demonstrated by comparing his times with the times that currently take 10th place in major marathons.

The second is harder to quantify, but it's silly to completely disregard the effect of current courses set up for fast times, pacers, running in a pack with runners of equal or greater ability, sponsorship that allowed peaking for fewer races, and current training and nutrition technology. If you're going to do a simple-minded direct comparison of times, at least do it on courses that both have run during their prime.

hey flagpole you f*** face, since when are we basing everything off of time?? So because Hall has run faster than Rodgers he's better? How does that make sense? By your logic I guess that the 20 some collegiate guys that broke 4 this winter are better than Roger Bannister, do you think that to? Times change "brother" (why do u say that? its not funny and you're not black so just don't go there). Oh yeah f*** you.

The Judge wrote:

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

Good thing you guessed, because you obviously don't know!

The winning is important because the tone of most of this thread is that Ryan Hall is no good (compared to Rodgers) because he "doesn't go for the win". That's just BS when he's running times that would have won everything and anything in the 70s.I'm not completely disregarding anything. Hall's best time so far (which I don't think will be his lifetime PR) is about 3 minutes faster than Rodgers' best time, and of course would have been the world record in the 70s. Had the times been a LITTLE closer and Hall not run that amazing 59:43 half to show his marathons haven't been a fluke, then some of what you say could be considered. The difference as it stands is too wide though. Rodgers would win a marathon in 2:11. If Hall runs 2:11 it's considered a major disappointment.Again, I pose the quetion, if in 30 years the WR is down to 1:59, will people then look back at Rodgers and Shorter and say they could have been better than they were if they were in the current times? Maybe some American will be running 2:02 then but not winning a thing. Do Rodgers and Shorter get to always be better than anyone who comes later just because they were champions? I say no.It's like if you take a state champion from a small division school and place him in a large division school where now he finished 10th. Just WAY more people training to be elite marathoners than in the 70s. Do that, and there are bound to be people who are better than those who came before. That's the case now. Rodgers was great. He's a pioneer. He though is not a better marathoner than Ryan Hall. No way. No how. I'd rather meet Bill Rodgers than Ryan Hall any day; it's just that he's not as good as Ryan Hall. Gotta give credit where credit is due, and 2:06 deserves the cred my brother.

SMJO wrote:

...and many think Shorter had a 2:07 effort in him but for conditions on the day.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. DIDN'T.

STOP GUYS ...THIS TOPIC IS TAKING US NOWHERE. LETS WAIT FOR RYAN HALL WIN 4 BOSOTON, 4 NY MATAHONS, 1 FUKUOKA THEN WE CAN RE OPEN THIS TOPIC AGAIN. RIGHT??

Different era in which he competed in so it's a bit unfair to compare. Keep this in mind. When Rodgers was at his best the standard by which one measured a great marathoner was if he could average 5 min miles. For today's standards that's like 4:50 pace. In Rodgers era avg. 4:55 pace is like today's 4:45 pace. Basically we have seen a 15 second per mile increase in the avg. pace of a marathon over the last 30-35 years. To answer your question, it depends on the marathon. Let's look at the major marathons and see where Rodgers would place today based on his PR of 2:09:27.

Boston: Top 10 yes, Top 5 maybe on some years, winning still possible.

London: Top 5, no, Top 10, maybe, winning, NO.

Berlin: Top 5 no, Top 10 yes, winning no.

Chicago: Top 5 maybe, Top 10 yes, winning no unles there was a massive heat wave in which he would most likely DNF as Rodgers never raced well in the heat.

NYC: Top 10, Yes, Top 5 Yes, Winning yes on some years.

Basically rodgers would in most cases be in the top 10 in the majors he just would not be winning a majority of them. In a lot of ways he is like Meb. If Meb were running during rodgers era meb would have a lot more wins than he does now.

His 4 best times all would have put him in 6th today (3rd American). Yes, with much crappier shoes, a busier marathon racing schedule, JUST WATER (if that), and coasting during the end when he had a huge lead... he'd still be competitive. Could he have beaten Ryan? Tough call.

sub2:00runner wrote:

hey flagpole you f*** face, since when are we basing everything off of time?? So because Hall has run faster than Rodgers he's better? How does that make sense? By your logic I guess that the 20 some collegiate guys that broke 4 this winter are better than Roger Bannister, do you think that to? Times change "brother" (why do u say that? its not funny and you're not black so just don't go there). Oh yeah f*** you.

Well, since you asked so nicely...

1) A LITTLE more props have to go to Bannister, because for one thing, that was in 1954 on a track, and not the 1970s on a road that is pretty much like roads today. Tracks in the 1950s were VERY different from today with the greater advantage going to the tracks of today.

2) Saying "brother" isn't limited to black people my brother.

3) Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

dos santos wrote:

STOP GUYS ...THIS TOPIC IS TAKING US NOWHERE. LETS WAIT FOR RYAN HALL WIN 4 BOSOTON, 4 NY MATAHONS, 1 FUKUOKA THEN WE CAN RE OPEN THIS TOPIC AGAIN. RIGHT??

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.

Flagpole wrote:

dos santos wrote:

STOP GUYS ...THIS TOPIC IS TAKING US NOWHERE. LETS WAIT FOR RYAN HALL WIN 4 BOSOTON, 4 NY MATAHONS, 1 FUKUOKA THEN WE CAN RE OPEN THIS TOPIC AGAIN. RIGHT??

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 wrote:

The winning is important because the tone of most of this thread is that Ryan Hall is no good (compared to Rodgers) because he "doesn't go for the win".

Silly me for addressing the question and completely missing the tone of the thread.

I'm not completely disregarding anything. Hall's best time so far (which I don't think will be his lifetime PR) is about 3 minutes faster than Rodgers' best time, and of course would have been the world record in the 70s.

Would it follow that Rodgers is better than Ritz and about as good as Meb?

"Most people wouldn't want to live my life," he continues in a suddenly pensive tone. "People don't want to go through that much hard training, that much boredom. If they did, we'd have a lot more good distance runners. Even a lot of the elite guys don't want to keep at it. I don't do a lot of things that my friends do. Ten years or so ago, Rob de Castella, Greg Meyer, Bruce Bickford and all these characters were always going out golfing and bugging me to go with them. I'd say to them, 'What do you want to go golfing for? Your'll be out in the sun for three hours. You'll get dehydrated. You have to take care of yourself.'"

He adds, unnecessarily,"Most people aren't going to think that way. People think that I'm just really talented and that I've done well mostly because of that. Tom Fleming thinks that he's a runner who didn't have that much talent and that he just worked really hard. I used to tell him, 'Tom, I work pretty hard, too. You can beat me at 400 meters, so you have more leg speed than me.'

"I know lots of athletes who have a lot more talent than me, but their energies are pointed in other directions. People think that I'm scatterbrained. Well, you don't win Boston four times if you're scatterbrained. You have to be like Cosmos Ndeti. You have to say, 'This is it. Nothing can stand in my way.' I've done two-hour runs at JFK Airport. It's not exactly nice running on access roads, but you have to get it in. If you let other things interfere, fine, but you're not going to beat me."

Red Glare wrote:

The Judge wrote:

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

Good thing you guessed, because you obviously don't know!

The Verdict: Dumber than Flagpole. And that is saying quite a bit.

Next.

It may be worth mentioning that Frank not only won medals but ran as fast or faster than Hall in the actual Games. Does that not say something?

More proof of Hall the time trial racer. A guy who runs close to his PB in a championship competition counts for more than a faster time.

If Hall had managed a 2:08 in Beijing I'd give him the edge but so far, no.

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.