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

People have been saying that winning a gold medal boils down to just being lucky that day. And I don't really agree with that. I think it takes more balls and mental toughness to go into a high pressure situation like the Olympic finals with millions of eyes all over the world focused on you, toe the line with the world's best for an event they have been preparing for for years, and beat them. Pardon the football reference, but do you think Payton Manning gives a damn about setting a NFL season passing yards record if he chokes in the Superbowl that year and his team loses?

Doing a time trial with pacers at a relatively low key meet somewhere and setting a record may be the more impressive physical feat, but it's not the same. If you don't set the record that day, you can always try again at another meet. But the Olympics only happen every four years.

I can't imagine the feeling of coming down the homestretch of that Olympic stadium, massive deafening crowd cheering you home, camera's flashing like the 4th of July, people all over the planet watching you pour your heart out on live TV as you cross that line, the Olympic champion. You may not be the WR holder, but dammit you made it count when it mattered.

Think about who your talking about though. Your missing the beauty of running. 5-hour marathoners ARE STILL running the same damn marathon. Who are you to discredit their performance? Sure, when you get to the olympic level, "bettering oneself" might not seem like the most important thing, but at one time or another, the idea of competition is within yourself, not against someone else.Again, you speak of public entertainment when you talk about Bannister and Landy, but I assure you, bannister was telling stories to his grandkids not of some race against landy, but how at one time, HE DID SOMETHING THAT WAS ONCE THOUGHT TO BE IMPOSSIBLE by a human being.

If you can't see the connection, then my friend we view running entirely differently, but I'm afraid at some point, you have to stop worrying about the "public" or what the "other guy" is doing, and test the limits of yourself.

biggus dickus wrote:

I would not give up my gold for a WR.

and I would give up my WR for a gold - Kipketer, et. al

Aboslutely not, winning gold medals takes guts, talent, luck, and TACTICS. That's my whole point. You saying you made it count when it "mattered" is not necessarily true. You just simply went about the "game-plan" better, then did the other 11 guys. Does it make you a good racer? Yes. Is it still noteworthy and impressive? Abosolutely. Is it indicitive of saying who's the best? No.

Answer this, why could EL G beat Noah Ngeny in the World Record attempt race, however, lose to him in the olympic race? Simply saying because Ngeny made it count when it mattered is a smack in the face, and shows complete disrespect for the other runners. You don't think their all pouring their hearts out? He executed is "plan" better then any other runner, so while he may be the best on that particular day, I think it's a way of fooling onself into believing they are better then they actually are. You didn't win because you were better, you won because of execution. I didn't know we were at War when we ran.

Anbessa

I'm not discrediting the performance of 5 hour marathoners, I'm just saying that there is a difference between running as a sport and running to better oneself. Running to better oneself is all fine and good and I have no problem with that, but that does not make it a sport.

What makes something a sport is competition. Suppose you could watch Usain Bolt run a world record in the 100m just as solo time trial. Sure it would be a fantastic accomplishment, but how interesting would it be to watch? We are drawn to the event to see people going head-to-head. People watch football and basketball games to see who wins. The drama and tension is inherent in the competition, not in personal achievements.

That's why running is in another dimension. It's the only sport where the "competition" is against time. Your telling me, that when GEB was going for the WR in the marathon, people weren't interested? You make a case about the 100, I'm almost positive, that half of Jamaica would fly anywhere to watch their athlete run and break a WR. Running isn't all about competition, and that's such an ignorant way to classify a sport. Yet again, if you must, the competition is WITHIN yourself.

Anbessa wrote:

That's why running is in another dimension. It's the only sport where the "competition" is against time. Your telling me, that when GEB was going for the WR in the marathon, people weren't interested? You make a case about the 100, I'm almost positive, that half of Jamaica would fly anywhere to watch their athlete run and break a WR. Running isn't all about competition, and that's such an ignorant way to classify a sport. Yet again, if you must, the competition is WITHIN yourself.

Who says world records aren't about competition? You break the world record, then someone else tries to break your world record and fails. In a way, you beat them. When you set the world record, you beat every attempt by everyone who has ever run the distance.

So why hold competitions at all? Why not just have a series of time trials where runners could chase a rabbit and achieve a world record or personal best? According to your definition we can just do away with competition entirely and let athletes run against the clock. The competition is only against time, right?

Right, the competition is against the time ran. Your trying to beat a time ran. Not necessarily a person. I mean, clearly someone would have had to run that time, but what are you really thinking about the final 200m in a mile WR attempt? The time? or El G?

It would seem clear to me the reason we hold competitions is just like any other sport. As i've said previously, the idea of championship races and such isn't so much anymore about who can run faster, it's becoming more and more about who can execute their plan better. Im very competitive, in the context of my school. Just as an american would be for his country. Take that all away, your left with yourself and the clock.

Explain this, Bekele has been winning gold medal after gold medal, aren't you getting bored of it? Why not test the self, and go for a time that nobody else has achieved? I understant for entertainment purposes that Bekele pulling away w/ 200m or 400m is appealing. But it's come to the point where you and I know that Bekele will sit, and then kick. Take him out of the equation, and then, you have a hell of a race, regardless of tactics, because most of the guys are within the same time-range. At that point, this is where I'm saying, quit the tactics, and run as fast as you can. You give yourself a better chance at the gold.

We hold competitions in other sports to see who wins.

I'm not even sure what this means. Do you only compete running for your school, but otherwise run against the clock?

But that's my point. What makes the sport compelling is the competition - not knowing what the outcome of a race will be and the anticipation about who will win and how the race plays out.

Now you are contradicting the foundation of your argument - that is, a gold medal and winning the race doesn't matter. It's really all about running a fast time or personal best.

1)We hold competitions to see who wins. Right. However, our sport is one of the few though, unlike the others, where we can solely have a competition with ourself, given TIME.

2) Yes, most people comepete for some type of organization/school/country. Otherwise, your competing for yourself. Likewise, your not "winning" a "gold" for a country, school, whatever it may be. Your winning it for yourself. But that cannot happen, in order to win a gold, you have to represent some type of organized entity. Take that all away, and I bet you'd see alot more races won without the tactics. There's less pressure of letting a "country down" or a school. You follow?

3)That's what makes the sport compelling for the fans, lol. You seem to not get passed that. I agree if we want to popularize our sport, then absolutely continue competitions the way we've seen. My argument is, you don't wake up every morning running every workout for the "fans", you do it for yourself, because you want to get better - but all of a sudden, a piece of "gold" is on the line, and it's all for the "fans" or your country. Non-sense, you didnt start yourself in the sport because of fans, other motive. YOU CHOSE TO, for you. In that sense, you shouldn't occupy yourself with a motive that pertains to entertain someone else's. Sure it makes the race exciting, but then again, I argue that it's not a race, your not completely giving 100%, how could you say that you raced?

4)No, my foundation is right there in black and white. The whole argument focuses on running for personal best. If everyone did so, I guarantee you you'd have just as an exciting of a race as you would with a tactical one. You simply take the standpoint of the fan in that if it's not neck and neck the final 100m, it's not "compelling". Bull, if my fellow countryman, races his heart out, set's a PR, and get's dead last in some olympic final, Im proud of him, because he TRULY put it on the line, as compared to those who chose to not believe in there abilities, and left it to the one with the fastest kick.

You say go for the gold, but what your really saying is, go for the win, even if it means not truly racing to your best ability. Try telling a bunch of middle school kids that, and good luck. Tell them to race their hardest, win or lose, and the satisifaction of knowing you gave everything WILL BE WITH YOU, nobody can take that away. It's almost as if your saying, do just enough to get by, so long as you get what you want (this case the gold/win), and you'll be satisified.

You can take your gold medal, and continue to beat whomever in your tactical races, but I assure you, I'll be the one who looks back on my career not wishing to change a thing, because at every point, I I know I gave everything I had, so I wouldn't need to "change"/or "should have" anything, if in your case, happened to not win a gold medal in a tactical race. Then, there's always that what if? Your setting yourself up for not only failure, but disappointment. Enjoy that career.

I would have to say world record. You are the best that has ever lived at something even if its only for a while. Lots of people have won gold medals very few have set world records. I would also say that where it counts, that is in the running community world record holders are often more famous than Oly gold winners if you don't believe me argue with these two lists.

List 1

Paul Tergat Set a WR in 10,000 and marathon (never won an oly gold)

Henry Rono Set 4 WR's in 81 days (never won an oly gold)

Daniel Komen Set WR's in 3000, 2 mile, 5000 (never won an oly gold)

List 2

Vénuste Niyongabo

Josia Thugwane

Vebjørn Rodal

If anyone on these boards who said Gold medal was better can tell me who all of the guys are on list 2 with out looking it up or asking some one I'll change my tune. I bet that nearly everyone on these boards can spout off list 1 by heart.

=

Off the top of my head, honestly (so correct me if I'm wrong): Venuste Niyongabo was from Burundi and won the 5000 at the Atlanta Olympics, Josiah Thugwane was from South Africa and won the marathon, also at the Atlanta Olympics, and Vebjorn Rodal was from Norway and won the gold medal at the Atlanta Olympics.

And is it fair to count people with multiple world records versus one gold medal?

Yes, but they are pretty "stacked" lists you give to make your point. Someone could easily give another list where the non WR breakers (Olympic gold medallists) are more impressive.

WR holders: - Calvin Smith

Dick Quax

Fernando Mamede

None of whom won Olympic golds.

Olympic Champions : - Linford Christie

Joaquim Cruz

Miruts Yifter

None of whom broke world records.

These names literally came off the top of my head, and I'm sure others can come up with better ones, but the point is, I would think most athletic fans would be more familiar with the 2nd list, and consider them better athletes.

I agree. There are plenty of examples.

Ron Clarke held 17 world records and Lasse Viren held exactly 2. Viren's 5K record lasted less than 1 week before it was broken by the famous Emil Puttemans.

Geb is not considered the GOAT because he holds the marathon record, or even because of all the world records he held. His reputation is based on the fact that he won when it counted.

When Komen set his 3K record he followed a pacer for 4-5 laps (can't remember how many) and essentially maintained his pace for the rest of the distance. Certainly an amazing accomplishment, but to me it would be a bigger deal to line up against the best the world has to offer on a given day and find a way to beat everyone to the finish line.

I don't think there is anyone that would dispute that Jim Ryun's legacy would have been completely different if he had defeated Keino in 1968.

In any competitive sport (and I consider running a sport) athletes are judged by how they perform on the biggest stage against to best competition. This may be harsh or unfair, but it is reality.

powerofreason wrote:

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.

Absolutely false. First of all the Olympics don't have the highest competition; I addressed this in my earlier post. The Olympic marathon for example has less competition that marathons in the world marathons majors. This past NYC marathon had 5 Kenyans; the Olympics can only have three, now and forever. The same goes for even a diamond league 1500m (take for example the race where wheating ran 3:30). Come on it had Nicholas Kemboi, Silas Kiplagat, Augustine Choge, Remmy Ndiwa, and Daniel Kipchirchir Komen. Plus not to mention the runner in the world for that event Bernard Lagat! You cannot tell me any other 1500m in the Olympics had a better field than that. It just didn't; not to mention the race of course was faster than any race in the Olympics. Increasing the amount of good people changes the race both with time and with tactics. If you aren't pressured by a ton of good people and only a few good people it's almost assured that the race will be slower and easier to win.

Secondly, for little or meaningful competition in World Records, that is not true. World record races ensure that the race is fast and it is more exciting. Look at Bekele's 26:17- do you realize SEVEN people ran under 27:05, SIX of them being under 27, and two of them under 27:40? Do you know how crazy that is? I'm sorry no 10000m has ever had that competition in the Olympics. Never. The race was fast so it assured fast results. Not one person just benefits from the rabbit. Geb's WR in 2008 also had Kwambai on his heels for almost 30K.

Oh and if people don't keep up with the rabbits like in Bekele's WR or Geb's WR it's because THEY CAN'T! They physically cannot do it. That's what separates the WR's from Olympic Golds. It shows who is physically better. They could keep up in Bekele's race but can't keep up in other races: plain and simple. Those who set World Records are physically superior. Olympic Gold Medals can be win by people that are physically inferior due to sprint finishes after slow races, less competition, being boxed in etc (no boxing in at World Records). Stefano Baldini is NOT a better runner than Martin Lel because of his Olympic Gold (oh and I think something weird happen in the 2004 olympic marathon race that pretty much handed him that gold medal, not sure if I can remember exactly what it was....)

World Record hands down, I'd prefer to be physically the best at something.

I meant to say "second fastest" runner in the World for that event, Bernard Lagat.

Damn I can't type, I also meant two of them under "26:40"