How arbitrary is an Olympic Gold medal?

It's arbitrary that the more tactical races, like the 400, winning olympic gold doesn't mean you are the undisputed best in the world, like it's marketed to be. It means you came out on top in 1 track meet. Although that 1 meet is the most important meet in almost everyone's eyes

Letsrun is stupid wrote:

The only thing that makes the Olympics special is the marketing hype that surrounds them.

^ meanwhile, the thing makes this post special is your uniquely inane viewpoint.

Totally agree with the OP. Too much emphasis is placed on the Olympics as an indicator of who is the best. Is it the biggest single meet in the sport? Yes. But at the end of the day, it is just one meet. Think of the many things that can go wrong that are beyond the realistic control of the athlete. An untimely viral infection, an unexpected injury, living in a country with unpredictable selection criteria, etc. Hell, even a loud noise in the middle of the night that jolts the athlete out of deep sleep two nights before the race could be the difference between feeling great on race day, and feeling sluggish. True that all the athletes are trying to peak for the OG, but that doesn't mean that one race (or set of races including the semis) can really determine who is the best runner. For example, would anyone deny that Asbel Kiprop is the best miler in the world? Yet his WC/OG record really doesn't reflect the reality that he is the most talented and dominant miler of the last 2 Olympic cycles. A slightly different example is Mo Farah. I will concede that he is the most dominant 5/10K runner since 2011. But, what if Mo lived in Kenya or Ethiopia and had to contend with a dozen other runners every year just to make it to WC/OG. In that setting (without the convenience of only needing to peak once a year), would he really have won the 9 golds that he has won since 2011. I'm sure he would have won some golds, but I doubt he would have the perfect WC/OG record that he has had since the 2011 WC 5K.

I think a much better format for determining the best runner would be a diamond league type of series where the diamond league final is considered as prestigious as the world championship meet. I wish this type of "season" approach could become the greater focus with athletes instead of the "one-off" approach of the current WC, OG system. A "season" emphasis would give enough chances to race for all the random variables to be balanced out.

The "season" approach is undeniable the best approach to determine the best athlete (assuming the "season" is recognized as the preeminent competitive event). What if MLB, NBA, or NFL decided to have one big single elimination tournament every 4 years to determine the best team? Would anyone really think that was a reliable way to find the best? Yet we let the OG hijack our sport every four years and rob us of building any real momentum or growth in the sport of T&F. All the sports that are self sufficient have a season type of approach. Tennis and Golf don't need the Olympics because they have enough big competitions every year to give them an almost year round criteria for ranking the best athlete. The WMM has done a similar thing with the 7 (or 8) yearly Marathons that are all recognized as part of the continual competitive process. Many of the smaller sports (wrestling, gymnastic, T&F, etc) think the OG keeps them alive, but I think that without the OG, the governing bodies of each sport would be forced to design a real season/championship type format to maintain public interest/revenue. In reality, I think the OG are leeching of the many sports that could build themselves into something much better without it. I know it is unrealistic to wish the OG would go away, but we all have our dreams, don't we?

So lets put less emphasis on the super bowl by your flawed logic. If someone is undefeated but loses in the final game, they should still be rewarded with the championship if they have a great record? No, its doesn't work that way.

Sports competition wasn't created to foster such negative sentiments and it seems that's what a lot of it has become.

Fewer people care about DL wins but it's still nice for the athletes, plus the prize money is greater. Ask a starving gold medalist if $40,000 isn't nice.

Obviously the Olympics aren't completely random. You won't pick the winner of the 1500 out of a hat. They are what the consensus has agreed is the most important competition there is, but it isn't the ultimate and end-all of everything. The Danish/Kenyan guy who held the world record before Rudisha in the 800 never won an Olympic gold, but no one would say he's not the greatest 800 meter runner.

It's not a matter of absolutes is my point.

The reason why the world championships matter less than the Olympics, as some poeple pointed out, is because the Olympics are marketed better and has more fan enthusiasm, but as track fans we can changed that. I try to get my friends riled up for the WC

Best runners make the final. Hottest runner wins the final.

WTF is wrong with you to type THAT much word salad????

I think it depends on the sport. In judged events, it can be very arbitrary, combining whether or not the athlete had a good day, and the personal biases of the judge.

Then in events like the sprints, for example, barring catastophe like a false start, the best typically win.

And then you have the marathon, where there are so many variables in play, including luck, that it is hard to reckon just what it means if you win it.

You look at the history of marathon gold medalists, and by and large they are not standouts in the field. Does anyone remember Josiah Thugwane, or Hwang Young-cho? And for every legit great who won gold (Bikila, Kipchoge) there are three times as many oustanding marathoners who didn't win gold, or even a medal despite being the best of their generation. Derek Clayton, Ron Hill, Rob DeCastella, Bill Rodgers, Alberto Salazar. All were dominant on the road circuit. None won an Olympic medal. Poor DeCastella has no less than three top ten finishes at the games. Just just had the misfortune of not having all the variables in place on that particular day, or they did and they made a mistake, or were just plain unlucky.

OntheStromphhh wrote:

Just look at the DL Women's 1500m today and how the medalists did vs. non-medalists. It really seems that getting a medal on the day is mostly luck, tactics and peaking well vs. really being the best of the best in the World.

When you are looking at the bronze, it can be 'arbitrary' but I think you are putting way too much in yestereday's results.

Part of the thing you need to realize is the medallists have Olympic fatigue whereas the non-medallists have Olympic rage. The pyschology of it is big.

If they run the Olympic final 50 times, I think Kipyegon and Dibaba would finish 1-2 almost all of the time in some order. I think Muir should have definitely been third but she blew it. SImpson ran smart.

There is a big difference between racing for gold and sitting in 4th or 5th and hoping to get top 3 and maybe win if the top 2 blow up. The problem yesterday was Kipyegon needlessly made a big move around Muir. She should have just sat there and let it come down to the last 200.

I actually agree with Rojo for once. There is a big difference in racing for the gold and ending up with a bronze medal vs ceding the gold and picking off a bronze because others who went for the gold fell short.

I think it is fair to say that in the Olympic final, Muir was racing for the gold whereas Simpson and Rowbury were racing for Bronze.

I'm not knocking Simpson's race strategy, she obviously was being practical about her chances and decided that higher odds for a bronze beat out the risker and less likely chance at gold.

But there are some medal fan boys on here that act like any Olympic medal trumps anything else a runner can accomplish in a year or even in a career.

To me, it is pretty obvious that Muir has had the much better season than Simpson overall but I'm sure some on this board would say Simpson's bronze means she had a better 2016 than Muir. And I find that crazy. Had it been gold, we'd have a real debate. But it's bronze.

Absolutely not. Most DL events are not races. They are strategically planned rocket shots. You have 2-5 rabbits each running a pre-set pace (more or less) for a pre-set distance (more or less) and if anyone if the field follows, then everyone else will as well (most of the time).

That's not racing.

Racing is getting 10 (or more people) together all lined with each doing their best to win the race or place as high as possible. Tactics are determined by the group, not by a committee. If you want a fast pace, you better be willing to set it. If you want to sit and kick, you better be able to withstand any one else who runs fast from further out that you want to or surge or is just a better kicker than you.

There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about that. You need to be your best on a date that everyone knows years ahead of time. You need to earn your way to the starting line, and you need to impose your will on everyone else.

Races after the olympics are practically meaningless. Sure with prize money some may still want to win, but they certainly don't need to prove anything any more...unlike those who finished 4th, or 5th, 6th, or worse at the olympics (or worse still did not make it out of the races or even into the rounds to begin with).

In short, the losers come for bear. The winners either don't come, or don't really care (as much).

This poster has it right. Many years ago, I read a great quote from Lee Evans, who won the 400 meters at the 1968 Olys with a WR 43.86. He was asked what it meant to win an Olympic gold medal. I heard his reply decades ago, but I think my recall is sufficiently accurate that I'll put quotes around it:

"It means that on one day, you were the best in the World. If you don't know what that means, you don't understand what burns in an athlete's soul."

Wayde Van N knows exactly what Evans meant, and so do the fine athletes he defeated in Rio. The rest of us, including the OP, have no idea.

Bekekelele wrote:

The sport has agreed that the assessment of "the best" is to measure their ability to train and compete in one race, the Olympic Final. By setting one aingle competition, you garuntee that every other athlete is also brining their best effort, training and plan perform in that event.

Performing well outside of the Final isn't a measuring stick for "the best", because even if you chose to peak for something else, no one else did; you are not comparing yourself to their best.

The flaw with this is that injuries can occur. So according to you someone who breaks the WR 3 years in a row and gets injured in the Olympic year would not be the best.

I remember one of the americans in the women's marathon saying it's much easier to medal in the Olympics than a major marathon because she's competing against only 3 Kenyans and 3 Ethiopians. Presumably, some of them will have a bad race and fall behind or drop out. She only has to compete against a couple of the best instead of an entire feild

my three cents to ponder.. wrote:

Letsrun is stupid wrote:

The only thing that makes the Olympics special is the marketing hype that surrounds them.

Well, yes, that and the fact that every athlete in the race thinks it's special... they probably think that because of 'marketing hype' but if you put it that way, what is really special???

The money that comes in AFTER winning a medal. That's special.

Letsrun is stupid wrote:

my three cents to ponder.. wrote:

Well, yes, that and the fact that every athlete in the race thinks it's special... they probably think that because of 'marketing hype' but if you put it that way, what is really special???

Thinking something is special doesn't make it special. The only thing that makes the Olynpics significant is that they're the only track competition that the general public pays attention to. If the same spectacle can turn a douche like Michael Phelps into household name it doesn't mean anything. It's all a political/cultural spectacle, not genuine appreciation for the sport.

Ummm... so I'll ask you again then, what is really special?

Letsrun is stupid wrote:

my three cents to ponder.. wrote:

Well, yes, that and the fact that every athlete in the race thinks it's special... they probably think that because of 'marketing hype' but if you put it that way, what is really special???

Thinking something is special doesn't make it special. The only thing that makes the Olynpics significant is that they're the only track competition that the general public pays attention to. If the same spectacle can turn a douche like Michael Phelps into household name it doesn't mean anything. It's all a political/cultural spectacle, not genuine appreciation for the sport.

Come to think of it... you are wrong here, if the folks in the race think it's special then it actually is for them. not only that, I'd bet they don't really care if you think it's special or not. that is all.

The olympics is a joke. Track is a dead sport because it is enslaved to those greedy pigs in the IOC.

If you think you can judge an athlete's quality by a once-in-four-years snapshot, you are brain dead. The event is for the general public who know nothing about track, and it is more than likely rigged by bribes and anti-doping blackmail.

There is randomness in racing, just as in ball sports. Lots of factors come into play - position, timing, type of race, tripping up, psychology, random hour-by-hour fluctuations in body state, etc.

At least in ball sports champions are determined by many bouts of play (for example the points, games and sets in a tennis match). In running you make one bad move or eat the wrong breakfast and you're done.

Want to really determine the best? Have the field run 4 individual time trials over a 1 month period and average the results. But that would be boring.