If the clock really says what Bill Rodgers is, then he would have been the third American today. That is objectivity.
A time FROM 1979!!!! should NOT be close!!
That is my point! Not top 3 not top 10.. American marathoners have failed to make significant improvement on what was being done in 19 freakin 79!
43 years ago. However maybe the case could be made that without drugs or exceptional training/living conditions (at high altitude, etc.), a 2:08 marathon starts knocking on the plateau of human performance?
Scott Faunble in his post race interview on NBC that his focus was on being top American. That’s your problem right there. Want to go for it and be the best you can? Or just play it safe and be the best of the locals when you already are.
This hasn’t aged well. :-) I’m not trolling the poster…. the blame is entirely on the broadcast. They don’t show a chase pack, they never once showed a list of the runners/paces/and how far behind they were. They gave no indication of who the top Americans were. They didn’t even show the winning times when the winners crossed the finish. The only time I saw Fauble was the last 200 meters of the race. They never mentioned him until then. Same for Edna Kiplagat. She ran her own race and almost made the podium.
Totally didn't age well--I seriously thought he had dropped out. 100% eating crow now. The broadcast does leave a lot to be desired. Helluva run by Scott. Ruined my first try at letsrun trolling lol :)
This hasn’t aged well. :-) I’m not trolling the poster…. the blame is entirely on the broadcast. They don’t show a chase pack, they never once showed a list of the runners/paces/and how far behind they were. They gave no indication of who the top Americans were. They didn’t even show the winning times when the winners crossed the finish. The only time I saw Fauble was the last 200 meters of the race. They never mentioned him until then. Same for Edna Kiplagat. She ran her own race and almost made the podium.
Broadcast coverage was BAD! Graphics were worse. Resolution of the video was SKETCHY.
Totally didn't age well--I seriously thought he had dropped out. 100% eating crow now. The broadcast does leave a lot to be desired. Helluva run by Scott. Ruined my first try at letsrun trolling lol :)
You and me both… he has a history of really hammering late and catching people in the last 5K but they never showed him so I thought he dropped (and was too lazy to check the online trackers, so that one’s on me). But shouldn't they have used their mosaic split screen to show the top Americans? I get that the state of American marathoning leaves a lot to be desired, but the producers should at least cater to their audience.
Earlier in the women's race I was surprised to see Aisling Cuffe (past Footlocker champ) in the pack. 2:37 finish. I think this was her first marathon.
No offence and educate me, but does anyone really care about wheelchair racing or does it attract sponsors?
Not really but I think it's still part of the race so not covering it would be bad from a journalistic/media perspective. Also there is so much dead time in marathons showing 5 or 10 mins of the guys in the chair is good.
There's no dead time in the marathon. I'd rather watch 6 hour marathoners gallowalk or line up for portapotties then wheelies.
NASCAR fans have no problem watching cars go around in a circle for 4 hours but your ADD ass can't pay attention for half that time? What a joke.
Not really but I think it's still part of the race so not covering it would be bad from a journalistic/media perspective. Also there is so much dead time in marathons showing 5 or 10 mins of the guys in the chair is good.
There's no dead time in the marathon. I'd rather watch 6 hour marathoners gallowalk or line up for portapotties then wheelies.
NASCAR fans have no problem watching cars go around in a circle for 4 hours but your ADD ass can't pay attention for half that time? What a joke.
It takes a certain form of commentary to cover an event like a marathon. Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen were masters of this when they did the Tour de France and other cycling events. Just telling stories for hours every day about all of the various cyclists and their backstories, by the end of the stage you'd just about want to cry no matter who the winner was or what kind of finish the stage had.
Seeing as half this board thinks runners from that era were tougher, trained harder, and are so much better than today's runners - I would think its a shock to many that we have any runners close to what Rodgers ran in '79 - must be the shoes.
Apparently at least one of them (Rodgers) was just flat out better. Better racer, better competitor, faster, more durable. Better.
BR was laying down times that our current super shod pros cannot. Not saying he was tougher, or whatever, but he out performed them.
Running is an extremely objective sport. It's not like football or whatever, you are what clock says you are, and our current guys struggle to match what BR and Salazer where throwing down. Deal with it.