Leo Manzano's Silver Is Worth More Than Galen Rupp's

The 1500 used to be the most deepest, competitive race from 1980 to 2004. Its not now. The 100 meters is easily the quality. The 5000 a few years ago I considered the hardest of all the track event based on depth. Something wierd has happened. A few years ago 10 Africans would be under 13:00 and 5 under 12:55.

Draw your own conclusions.

* wrote:

The 1500 is a bigger event than the 10,000 so, yes a Silver in the 1500 is worth more than a Silver in the 10,000.

The 100 is #1 followed by the 1500.

On the track, the steeple is the least valuable.

The 400 and 10,000 are about equal for #3 and 4.

Then the high hurdles

The 200, 800 and 5000 are lumped together before the 400 hurdles.

Ha, dude you are crazy....

The 100m, 200m, and 400m are all much bigger than any distant event.

And more competitive because there are no tactics....its as fast as you can. The other races have tactics...although this means more people can win, with the 100m the fastest athlete will always win.

Plus, more people sprint. sprinting is a cool sport. Usually only the nerds or other sport rejects end up running distance. IF distance has the "cool" kids involved in grade school and high school, than , maybe itd be different.

* wrote:

The 1500 is a bigger event than the 10,000 so, yes a Silver in the 1500 is worth more than a Silver in the 10,000.

The 100 is #1 followed by the 1500.

On the track, the steeple is the least valuable.

The 400 and 10,000 are about equal for #3 and 4.

Then the high hurdles

The 200, 800 and 5000 are lumped together before the 400 hurdles.

Ha, dude you are crazy....

The 100m, 200m, and 400m are all much bigger than any distant event.

And more competitive because there are no tactics....its as fast as you can. The other races have tactics...although this means more people can win, with the 100m the fastest athlete will always win.

Plus, more people sprint. sprinting is a cool sport. Usually only the nerds or other sport rejects end up running distance. IF distance has the "cool" kids involved in grade school and high school, than , maybe itd be different.

* wrote:

The 1500 is a bigger event than the 10,000 so, yes a Silver in the 1500 is worth more than a Silver in the 10,000.

The 100 is #1 followed by the 1500.

On the track, the steeple is the least valuable.

The 400 and 10,000 are about equal for #3 and 4.

Then the high hurdles

The 200, 800 and 5000 are lumped together before the 400 hurdles.

Ha, dude you are crazy....

The 100m, 200m, and 400m are all much bigger than any distant event.

And more competitive because there are no tactics....its as fast as you can. The other races have tactics...although this means more people can win, with the 100m the fastest athlete will always win.

Plus, more people sprint. sprinting is a cool sport. Usually only the nerds or other sport rejects end up running distance. IF distance has the "cool" kids involved in grade school and high school, than , maybe itd be different.

the 100, 200 and 400 are more popular because nbc decided a long time ago to hype and feature them. nbc just as easily could have decided to hype and feature the 800 or 5k and they would be just as popular. do you think beach volleyball would be as popular as it is today if nbc showed it as much as it has shown archery during the past few olympics?

Didn't you say you'd stop posting?

I guess I could back up and go with that. Recent history has shown the 100 meters, the 5000, and 10,000 has having the most dramatic depth and improvement in records. And the marathon but that doesn't matter as much in the Olympics in that race in imperfect conditions.

They're both Silver medals, so effectively they're worth the same amount.

o.O wrote:

They're both Silver medals, so effectively they're worth the same amount.

And we'll tax them the same!

More people sprint? what are you a cell phone advertiser? And a "distant" event? Get this middle schooler out of here. Those are school yard thoughts. The 100 is all about tactics and skills. If that was the case then the NFL players would be in track and field. The hundred requires more skill and technique, the drive phase, steps and what not. The 1500m is less tactical and more of a physical event. And actually the 1500m is because so many people consider that the mile. It would be the 100, the 1500m, the marathon, the hurdles and then so on. The marathon, because any unknown can win, the 100 and 1500 are usually predictable.

I agree that Leo's silver is a bigger deal than Galen's this week, but Galen's performance is a kickstart to a medal haul continuing into the '13 and '15 WCs and Rio. Leo will be lucky to medal again.

soon to be gold wrote:

Manzano's silver is worth more than Rupp's because Manzano's silver will soon be traded in for a gold one Jihad McTaliban's blood sample comes back and his gold is stripped.

coach bigfoot wrote:

I usually hate when people find any excuse to call racist on this board, but this is about the most blatantly racist sentence I've seen here.

There have been several threads and dozens of posts saying that the gold medalist is likely a doper. One of these threads was even started by one of the Brojos. How is it racist to call him out?

Not sure if you are just going by track events or what, but I think the marathon is #2 behind the 100.[/quote]

Do you actually think that the marathon is #2? Or are you just referencing the same article that all of us read last night?

http://www.letsrun.com/2012/friendfamily-0806.php

galen rupps medal is worth more. on the back of rupps, it says "10,000", on the back of manzanos, it says "1500"

obviously "10,000" takes up more silver material than "1500"

They are both huge accomplishments: Manzano's in the 1500 m. and Rupp's in the 10,000 m. Can't we just leave it at that and celebrate how well they did in London 2012?

The difference is you need to be a 26:50 guy to have a chance at a medal in 10k and a 3:50 guy to do it in the 1500. The 1500 is soft and times from 30 years ago would win today....not so much for 10k. Point(s) Rupp.

[/quote]

I have been, according to this crowd, one of the harshest critics of Galen Rupp, and I remain adamant that his lifetime personal bests will not be faster than 12:55 and 26:48, but when the man rises to the occasion when it matters most, well, you have got to hand it to him. Sure, the field was not the strongest, but with the medals on the line, the man showed some character, and that is what brings respect.[/quote]

Would you shut up. Listen to yourself. You just admitted in your first post that you didnt think galen had it in him and he surprised you. Now after that why would you go ahead and say you "remain adamant" that he will not break 1255 or 2648. Now we all know Galen might not have the greatest personality in the world (you obviously dont either) but the dude is raw. He just won us our first distance medal in 28 years and you are still hating on him. You make yourself sound like a moron. You obviously dont have talent (or you do and you are just lazy) so you have to make yourself sound like the man by hating on rupp. There are others here that have the same problem. Show the dude some respect or get your ass out there and beat him then talk shlt

The 1500m is not bigger than the 10,000m.... the 10k is over SIX TIMES bigger!!!!

Both Silver medals are made out of the exact same material... they are worth the EXACT same.