Would you rather set a world record, or win a gold medal?

dumb people wrote:

A gold medal is great and all but you get more money for breaking the world record and your appearance fees increase more for a meet to have you then if you had gotten the gold medal.

Its not all about money.

To the "general Public" - yes, those folks - the Olympic gold medal is all that matters, if anything does.

OG every time. The only thing that has come close was the 4 min mile and the only WR/WB to come remotely near to that will be the sub 2 marathon. When it happens the guy will be the most famous on the planet if the media choose to champion him.

I would go with the World Record. I remember watching the Olympics as a kid and thinking what a big deal it was and obviously the gold medal was the pinnacle accomplishment but someone's got to win it and hear their national anthem.

The first time my mind was blown from watching a race was seeing Coe break Walker's record on T.V. and thinking, "This is the fastest man to run the mile ever in history". It was to me a bigger and more historical accomplishment.

Saying that however you are universally regarded as a failure and not a great competitor if you are a world record holder that fails to win a gold medal. Think of Alberto Cova vs. Fernando Mamade.

If you set a world record, you are very capable of winning gold. Ironically, many world record holders have failed to win gold, i.e Kipketer, Ryun, Ovett (1500), Salazar. etc.

I think in the eye of the public, OG will distinguish you more, in the world of runners, a world record is arguably a greater feat. I think an OG medal is more prestigious though. I think I would choose a world record. Someone has to win the gold every four years. No one has to break the WR. Not many people can say they are a world record holder at any one time. Many people (comparatively) can claim they have OG.

P.S. I as literally thinking about this this morning, funny to see someone post the same thing.

Gold medal.

The world record can be beaten. Then what?

A gold medal will provide one with a source of endorsements and possible revenues forever.

Look at Joan Samuelson, Frank Shorter.

they get mega bucks to go to races and speak. Another fat fee for going to corporate functions and speaking.

World record holders are not as widely known or held in such high patriotic esteem.

Records can be broken, an Olympic victory can never be taken away...

...unless you're on PEDs.

It is all about the money. Why do you think someone like Asafa Powell switched from Nike to some relatively unknown shoe company? Or Wallace Spearmon switching out to Saucony.

Or the just mentioned headlines of Usain Bolt not going to London because of taxes (even though he's the most paid track and field athlete).

That's the dumbest post of the day.

The Dense Fog wrote:

Gold medal, and it's not even a close call.

+1

gold medal, every time. if you have a world record it can be erased, but you will always have your gold medal. Times dont mean sh*t in my honest opinion, if you want to be the best you have to beat the best, not f*ckin time trial

big bird wrote:

gold medal, every time. if you have a world record it can be erased, but you will always have your gold medal. Times dont mean sh*t in my honest opinion, if you want to be the best you have to beat the best, not f*ckin time trial

Time erases records, but not the memory of it.

People will remember Michael Johnson for how amazing his 200m WR was.

And even though 1 person may erase your world record, it may be decades of waiting for said occurrence to happen. I'd think being #2 on the all-time list for an event is pretty damn amazing.

Time erases records, but so what? There's always a new gold medalist every 4 years. You were the best for that one event. Same for the world record holder. They were the fastest athlete the day they set that world record.

World Record.

The idea that gold medals last "longer" than records is foolish. All of it goes into the history books.

Not since 1980 has anyone broken the WR at a distance of 800 or greater at the Olympics (except for women's 3000m steeplechase, which is still a relatively new event).

World records usually occur in a race with a rabbit or two and little or no meaningful competition for the record setter. Whereas the Olympic gold medal is earned against the highest competition.

So in my mind, Olympic gold is definitely the greater of these two great achievements.

I would go for the Olympic gold. You will be remembered for winning Olympic gold long after people forget about your world record.

Obviously the pinnacle of any athlete's career is to either win Olympic gold or set a World record in the event in which they participate.

Which is more important? As can be seen from the above, it's split pretty much 50/50. I think in terms of pure athletic ability, a world record is a better indicator of someone's place in history. Olympic golds are very important, but clearly the best person doesn't always win it on the day due to injury, illness, an accident, etc. Some people win when the field is weak or depleted. E.g Rono at 1500m in 1988. I think I'm right in saying he never won another race on the circuit after that. Some people have a bit of luck and win against form. Others have only one chance and maybe get a silver, while others have several chances and never get anything.

Kelly Holmes did brilliantly to do the double in Athens, but I wouldn't say she was as great an athlete as Cram or Ryun who never won Olympic gold, but were multi world record breakers. Having said that, there is something very special in planning to get it right and be the best in the world on a given day every 4 years. People who can peak for when it matters most are rare breeds indeed.

You are obviously a great athlete if you achieve either accolade, but for me to be an all time great you need to have achieved both. A world record proves you are the very best there has ever been. Of course someone will one day beat it, but that is invariably due to advances in equipment, track surfaces, pacing, training knowledge, medical back up, etc. The person who breaks your record isn't necessarily a better athlete.

To win an Olympic gold shows that you are a great competitor and can beat everyone else when the pressure is really on, which is after all the nature of the sport.

I would not mind either.

I would not give up my gold for a WR.

Running comes down to, in my opinion, bettering the self. Which translates for me, into PERSONAL BESTS. Everytime you set a personal best, you've achieved a new level of fitness that you previously were uncapable of. Gold medals of course have there merit, but think of it like this, you win the 2012 mile in 4:20, you are the gold medalist. Quite honestly, there are a number of factors that could have led to you being the "best" on that day. A world record however, means that YOU ARE the best, regardless of the situation because nobody else in the world could replicate the performance.

I think the whole idea of gold medals, and "olympic years" certainly does bring about competition in the sport, which is absolutely necessary for the PUBLIC. But, again in running, this is a very selfish sport, and one in which doing things previously thought "impossible" for the self, leads to satisfaction and the idea of building character.

Put it to you this way, everyone, or atleast a competitive athlete has a shot theoretically to win a gold medal given the ABSOLUTE best/luckiest circumstances whereas the world record comes down to ABSOLUTE ability, NOT tactics as is the case with most championship races.

I think running for the "gold" kills more dreams then does reveal them. If you run to run YOUR best, wouldn't that ultimately be a better ways anyhow to win the gold? Rather then leaving it for the final 200m to decide?

Again, every 4 years a NEW OLYMPIC champion is crowned, the same cannot be said for a world record, it is only "imagined" when it will be broken, if ever.

Anbessa