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

1) I never said Rodgers wasn't great, and I certainly am not dismissing his "extraordinary accomplishments".2) Rodgers was the best in the world in a time that the world of running was MUCH smaller than now. Great then of course that he won so often, but the competition was just not there. I've never said he wasn't great, and I certainly didn't call him "pansy ass" or that his resume was weak. Not his fault that the competition of his day wasn't as good as it is now, but the fact is that it wasn't.3) You are making a lot of assumptions regarding late 70s and today, all in favor of Rodgers. Shoes were not made of cardboard then. Gatorade was created in 1965 and commercially available by the time Rodgers was winning Boston Marathons. Rodgers was pretty durable considering his racing schedule; you just can't say that he would have been faster had he raced less.4) Finally, try as you might, you can't impose a bunch of what-ifs. You can only look at what was. Rodgers was a great champion and one of the best of his time. Doesn't mean he will be better than all marathoners who come after him, even if those marathoners never win a race. As the whole lot of them continue to get better, the also rans also get better and eventually swallow up those former champions. Ryan Hall has done that. Rodgers is a champion marathoner. Ryan Hall isn't yet a champion marathoner, but he's better than Rodgers was. 2:06 vs. 2:09, even with the extenuating circumstances, is better.5) The masses always side with the former champ. Time makes them look better and better, and stories about them grow until an almost non-human existence is created for them. I said years ago that Ritzenhein was more talented than Bob Kennedy, and he has finally proven it (though it was proved to me a long time ago). I am also correct about Ryan Hall. He's better than Bill Rodgers.

[quote]Flagpole wrote:

1) I never said Rodgers wasn't great, and I certainly am not dismissing his "extraordinary accomplishments".

2) Rodgers was the best in the world in a time that the world of running was MUCH smaller than now. Great then of course that he won so often, but the competition was just not there. I've never said he wasn't great, and I certainly didn't call him "pansy ass" or that his resume was weak. Not his fault that the competition of his day wasn't as good as it is now, but the fact is that it wasn't.

3) You are making a lot of assumptions regarding late 70s and today, all in favor of Rodgers. Shoes were not made of cardboard then. Gatorade was created in 1965 and commercially available by the time Rodgers was winning Boston Marathons. Rodgers was pretty durable considering his racing schedule; you just can't say that he would have been faster had he raced less.

4) Finally, try as you might, you can't impose a bunch of what-ifs. You can only look at what was. Rodgers was a great champion and one of the best of his time. Doesn't mean he will be better than all marathoners who come after him, even if those marathoners never win a race. As the whole lot of them continue to get better, the also rans also get better and eventually swallow up those former champions. Ryan Hall has done that. Rodgers is a champion marathoner. Ryan Hall isn't yet a champion marathoner, but he's better than Rodgers was. 2:06 vs. 2:09, even with the extenuating circumstances, is better.

5) The masses always side with the former champ. Time makes them look better and better, and stories about them grow until an almost non-human existence is created for them. I said years ago that Ritzenhein was more talented than Bob Kennedy, and he has finally proven it (though it was proved to me a long time ago). I am also correct about Ryan Hall. He's better than Bill Rodgers.

Flagpole, you must know very little about physiology if you don't believe that by racing less Rodgers would not have run faster. It's too obvious, Hall's training proves that fact, because if racing often was beneficial he would do it, there is more science behind today's training than ever before. BTW, Rodgers race as much as 50 times in a year, how well do you think he trained during that period.

Also, how can you compare a 2:06 on a flat fast course with rabbits (getting beat) to a 2:09 at Boston (winning).

Ryan Hall is great, but he will never win anything big because he is a runner, not a racer. (Liquori talks about this in his book Winning Running). Bill was a racer, would have won in any era, forget the times.

OK. Now I fully understand your argument. Your basic tenet is that we've learned nothing in the past 35 years about training, recovery, and performance. That's laughable. Good night.

It was common knowledge that Rodgers raced too frequently for top performance. It drove Squires nuts (not that long a trip, I suppose [only kidding!], but he could not get Rodgers to prepare properly for one ultimate race. Instead, Rodgers would chase the money by running race after race after race. In today's enviroment, Rodgers would undoubtedly have had to change his approach so that instead of running multiple good races he would run fewer but better races.

racer, not pacer wrote:

Ryan Hall is great, but he will never win anything big because he is a runner, not a racer. Bill was a racer, would have won in any era, forget the times.

BS (well, everything except the "Hall is great" part). Pretty easy to be seen as a "racer" when you win in 2:09:55 and the second place guy is two minutes back. Actually his large margin of victory should dispel the "racer" theory anyway. Tell me that Salazar was a "racer" and I'll agree...he beat Beardsley by 2 seconds. Rodgers usually won going away OR he didn't win. Just complete BS to think that he just ran enough to win and didn't care about running as fast as he could.

Both turn 63 this year and have no reasonable chance to finish in the top 10 in one of todays major marathons.

Hotdam wrote:

just askings?....or that matter any of the old timer(Americans) good enough to compete today?

Would Bill or Frank finish higher than Ryan today?

Both turn 63 this year and have no reasonable chance to finish in the top 10 in one of todays major marathons.

Hotdam wrote:

just askings?....or that matter any of the old timer(Americans) good enough to compete today?just askings?....or that matter any of the old timer(Americans) good enough to compete today?

Would Bill or Frank finish higher than Ryan today?

Rodgers beat Wells by 2 seconds in 78.

Rodgers also pushed Henry Rono to the limit in hot conditions when Rono was the best in the world.

You don't seem to find too many disputing that Rono could have contended today.

Rodgers is better than Hall even if Jesus Himself shows up and tries to tell us otherwise.

Oh no, I'm sure flagpole will tell you that Henry Rono, Kip Keino, Lasse Viren, Steve Prefontaine, Paavo Nurmi, Mary Decker couldn't compete. And wait, why stick with just distance runners? I'll bet Wilma Rudolph and Jesse Owen, etc., etc., etc. could never compete, either. Nevermind history, just look at their times. That's all that matters, right?

Time to pull that flagpole out of your ass.

Still no response to the physiology argument, why doesn't Hall race more if it does not have a negative effect on performance?

racer, not pacer wrote:

Time to pull that flagpole out of your ass.

Still no response to the physiology argument, why doesn't Hall race more if it does not have a negative effect on performance?

Hall doesn't need to race more, and yes there IS risk to racing more (risk of injury), but he makes enough money that racing more is too risky to do it...same reason why pitchers in baseball only pitch every 5th day now and have pitch counts rather than pitch a ton of complete games. This wasn't the case with Rodgers...racing more for him was HOW me made money.

lucKY2b wrote:

Oh no, I'm sure flagpole will tell you that Henry Rono, Kip Keino, Lasse Viren, Steve Prefontaine, Paavo Nurmi, Mary Decker couldn't compete. And wait, why stick with just distance runners? I'll bet Wilma Rudolph and Jesse Owen, etc., etc., etc. could never compete, either. Nevermind history, just look at their times. That's all that matters, right?

Well, lets see:

Steve Prefontaine - um nope. His 5,000 PR was 13:21. He did die young, so perhaps he would have improved upon that, but we now have a bevy of runners doing better than 13:21. Would he compete? Sure. Would he win and look over his shoulder to see how far back the second place guy was? Nope.

Mary Decker - Well, she was a doper, so who knows what the more current stuff could have done for her.

Henry Rono - 13:06 5,000 from 1981 is pretty stout. He's close enough to elite now that with all the advancements in the last 30 years he likely could have competed.

Kip Keino - I'll put him a step or two behind Rono which is several steps (SEVERAL STEPS) behind Bekele and even a ton of other guys.

Paavo Nurmi - He might be able to compete...against the women.

Lasse Viren - He'd be about where Keino would be, though he's another rumored doper, so who knows.

Wilma Rudolph - No, she could not compete with today's sprinters.

Jessee Owens - No, he could not compete with today's sprinters.

As the pool of people gets deeper and deeper, there's a greater and greater chance that someone will come along with superior ability to what came before.

[quote]Hotdam wrote:

just askings?....or that matter any of the old timer(Americans) good enough to compete today?

[quote]

Bill certainly would have been good enough to compete in todays world of marathoning.

Here is why (his formative years):

http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/Rodgers/rodgers73log.htm

Flagpole wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:

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.

Guys, come on. It's RitzenheiM!

Hotdam wrote:

just askings?....or that matter any of the old timer(Americans) good enough to compete today?

Would Bill or Frank finish higher than Ryan today?

Both Bill and Frank were a winner. They won back in those days. They would have won today.

Flagpole wrote:

racer, not pacer wrote:

Time to pull that flagpole out of your ass.

Still no response to the physiology argument, why doesn't Hall race more if it does not have a negative effect on performance?

Hall doesn't need to race more, and yes there IS risk to racing more (risk of injury), but he makes enough money that racing more is too risky to do it...same reason why pitchers in baseball only pitch every 5th day now and have pitch counts rather than pitch a ton of complete games. This wasn't the case with Rodgers...racing more for him was HOW me made money.

Flagpole, That's exactly what I said, he raced more because he had to in order to make a living. I also said, if he ahd the luxury of the pro deals that these guys have today he would not have had to do it. he could have trained more effectively and recovered from his racing more completely and thus competed on a much higher level, which would have been pretty good for the #1 ranked marathoner in the world. So, he put making a living ahead of setting records.

Another thing, it's not just a risk of injury you worry about when overracing, it also means you are training less or at a lower level than you would if you have time to recover. Better training would lead to better racing, that's not rocket science.

Webb and Hall are better than Ryun and Rodgers. And I was better than Paavo Nurni.

The logic of comparing times is not real bright.

Rodgers was imo a racer while Ryan is too busy looking at his watch instead of the competition.

Using the logic I have seen here in another 25-30 yrs. Geb will just be relegated to being a so so marathoner as his TIMES won't be very good by the standards set in another 25 years.

Winners from any era would have rose to the level needed to achieve victories. Championships, Olympic medals, etc.. are remembered not times.

racetraining wrote:Winners from any era would have rose to the level needed to achieve victories. Championships, Olympic medals, etc.. are remembered not times.

That's an incredibly ignorant and illogical statement. How do you reconcile the fact that there only can be 1 winner today and there have been many previous eras? If, somehow you got a time machine and brought all of the greats to present, only 1 of them is going to win.

Woulda/Shoulda/Mighthave all sounds nice but comparing marathoners from different eras is about the easiest group of people to compare from different eras. It's not like baseball, which has much smaller parks and much better players via drugs and foreigners or even track and field, which has much faster tracks. You can't say that Rogers would be faster today because shoes are better (debatable), altitude training is used by some (you don't know if he would and even if he did if he would use it correctly), personal fluid bottles are on the course (seriously, how much faster does cytomax on the course make you?) or any other variable that may lead to faster times without also factoring all of bad things factors present today. Who is to say that he wouldn't be a junk food addict (webb), an internet addict or otherwise distracted by the countless other distractions that exist today or, even worse, completely disenchanted by getting his ass kicked in with 2:10 marathons that he quits the sport altogether.