Is there any difference between world champ and the Olympics?

Honestly, sometimes I get confused remember races and medals. Through the years they get jumbled in my mind. "Did X when a medal in the Worlds or was that in X Olympic year?"

Kipchoge runs the Olympics. Nuff said.

Actually your statement is not necessarily true. I have seen people having gold medals taken away due to doping, for example.

WR's in the 100 before FAT aren't notable because they were a long list of hand-timed 10.2's and 10.3's. No way to really know who went fastest.

Don't forget this is a distance board. Are you claiming Matt Centrowitz is greater than Jim Ryun? I dare anyone to claim this.

it's also not true that all records will be broken. Komen's never will.

The WC are definitely a huge accomplishment and should be taken seriously but they’re also more common than the olympics are. Puts a unique mental pressure on the athlete to perform which every one can’t do.

Flanders and Roubaix are better too.

But if you win olympics in cycling you go get to wear a golden helmet for 4 years.

One gets you a spot on good morning Americana cereal box and a Home Depot commercial, the other does not

Bruce Jenner was the original Wheaties athlete and look how that turned out. No Wheaties for me.

Maybe if they put Fred Kerley on the Captain Crunch box

No not really, Bob Richards was a pole vaulter long before Jenner

Open image

I own about a dozen football trophies, they are on display in my Fortress of Solitude, yep, each one has a memory. I also once held a school record in junior high in the 660, I have nothing to even prove that happened.

Imagine an Olympic gold medal in your possession, that beats the hell out of ...I once held a world record, really I did.

Olympians will get invited to the white house and world championship won't.

I have a role in the track and field business and I see first hand how much the sport surges during every Olympic year. Shoe companies pour in more money, veteran athletes hang on for one last chance, top college athletes take a redshirt to train for the games, and in every other way the industry pulls out all the stops for the Olympics. The world champs should be the same level of competition but there is an intense focus that produces a greater prestige for the Olympics

Should mean more doesn't equate to does means more. Track and field world championships don't mean as much as the Olympic Games. The Olympics are not competing against other sports. In fact, the Olympics have been around longer than every other sport's championship save the America's Cup. Two-year cycles in track and field means everyone gets to be a winner, whereas the Olympics, only once every fourth year. The men's 100m final in Doha was viewed by 11,300 paid attendees plus guests, pitiful for a draw of Coleman-Gatlin-De Grasse.

Doha 2019, and to a slightly lesser extent, Eugene 2022, were the result of a disastrous IAAF policy in 2014 and 2015 to hold World Championships outside Europe and Asia. By contrast, London 2017 had 705,000 attendees in total with an average 47,000 per session with 56,000 for the 100m final. It's noticeable that World Athletics has gone for 'safe' venues in Tokyo 2025 and Bejing 2027 and also Budapest for the 2026 World Ultimate Championships.

I see them as pretty much the same thing. Instead of Olympics every fours years, and worlds every two, it's global championship three out of every four years. The current champion is the winner of the last one. When someone talks about someone defending their world or Olympic title, it's meaningless to me if they've lost the global title. They're not defending - they're trying to regain the global title!

Also there are sports where the Olympics is the biggest event, and others where it's not. I think track and field hits that sweet spot in the middle quite well.

Old thread, but it’s not just the fact that there are Olympics less often, but also the fact that competition is of longer standing - was approaching 100 years old by the time we had our first WC. But I do think it’s fair to say that the extra prestige for medaling or winning at the Olympics, or just making the team instead of a WC team for the B-level athletes, is often just down to a bit of luck and the happenstance of timing. Especially for those who were only in shape to medal (or to make a team) once in their careers: some get luckier and it happens in an Oly year, others not quite so lucky and their (medal/making a team) comes in a WC instead. Is Solinsky a lesser runner because it just never worked out for him in an Oly season? I don’t know!

the olympics happen only once every 4 years, are universally taken seriously and prepared for full tilt.

worlds happen twice a cycle and are taken incrementally less seriously. some athletes will not bother trying to make their teams. some athletes will be dabbling in some other event that year. some athletes if they pick up so much as a hangnail will bail on pursuing worlds. i exaggerate a little, but not a ton.

don't get me wrong, winning either cements you as a top athlete, within the profession. but the casual fan probably won't see it -- though they likely will get wind of the olympics -- and for serious athletes it's a career capper in the pantheon.

to me it's olympics and WR up here, worlds a notch down behind them. but to be real, any of us would give our pinky toe for any of those titles.