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

Anbessa, i fully support your arguments for the world record over gold.

Asafa Powell is one of the most known runners on the planet even though he fails time and time again on the big stage. In fact, he never even medaled at an olympics which he has gone to twice. So why is he still so popular and known? Because of the world record.

I don't know what all this BS is about comparing running as a sport to football or whatever. Not even close. Running is not a team sport. Team sports are about competing against the best, not breaking records.

Running on the other hand is about being the fastest person in that respective event. And what better way to do it then to break the world record? Are you going to say that Tyson Gay isn't as good as Carl Lewis because Lewis won two olympic golds in the 100 and Tyson has zero?

No, you would say Tyson Gay is better because of his TIME. When people go back in history and list who is better than that other runner they will go off of TIME. Winning the olympic gold against the world record holder is just seen as the holder having a "bad day".

How many times have you lost to someone with a worse PR than you and thought "Man if only i had equaled my personal best i would have beat him"? And that is how the public looks at a situation.

On a side note, look at how dissapointed Tyson Gay was upon beating Usain Bolt. "I won in 9.84 not 9.5" pretty much sums it up. WR Time > Gold Medal

You do realize that competition is subjective? A very ignorant post by you Ukathletics. The competition in this sport is, and CAN be the clock. The thing with the olympics is that people have good days and people have bad days - Are you truly the best? Or did someone trip, lose a shoe, whatever. I don't understand this logic. Your telling me an athlete trains his heart out, 365 days, only to "dog" a race, essentially either winning or losing because of tactics? Think about that, your basing your whole career on 1 day where you didn't even go 100%? A clock however, THE TIME, is consistent, it always is. It's the truest thing this sport knows. You talk about this gold medal, are you merely doing this for the prestige? On the other hand, setting a personal best against yourself and clock, that's real, and only you know what it feels like. You speak out of place when you talk about powell and clarke, you have no idea WHAT they felt at the time, and how they do now. They are seen as a failure IN YOUR EYES, or by the general public.

Again, all this competition chatter makes me wonder, why not race all out then? If it's the gold your looking for, I understand that, but here's my issue, your not running for the sake of reaching new heights (AS THE OLYMPIC MOTTO SUGGESTS), your running to assure oneself a medal, simply by jogging 1300m and kicking the last 200m. Doesn't that sort of go against what the olympics stand for? Tell me, why not make it a 200m race?

It saddens me that people cannot seem to appreciate world records. You do understand that the 2 mile world record is a time in which a human being ran under 4 minutes... TWICE. The same 4 minute mile thought to be impossible, this man did TWICE. He had rabbits? I dont know, I don't care. He was the only one to do it, and to this day still the only one.

Running for prestige, and celebrity status is great, but then I think your missing the point of running.

I'm always impressed with the progression of records, because it shows a distinct correlation to the evolution of humans, or the methods used. Gold medals are just that, gold medals, a symbol of winning a race. For most, setting a personal best is so much more, and then some. A Personal best doesn't need a symbolic piece of medal attached to it, because a runner realizes that the personal best/time is symbolic of more then just 1 thing.

Anbessa

ukathleticscoach wrote:Tell that to Ron Clarke or Asafa Powell

Runners like these who set records without winning championships will always be seen as a comparative failure. Win Olmypic Gold and you will not regret be see as a failure for not setting a record - that will one day be beaten anyway

Peaking for one race on a set day every 4 years when you might not be at your best is extremely difficult and there are no pacemakers etc. The pressure is racked up 10 that of any Golden/Diamond League meet

There's no "right" answer here, but your answer is very far from convincing. "Runners like these" may be seen as "failures" by fools and know-nothings, but so what? Who cares in the slightest what the opinion of a fool is? Is Ron Clarke a greater historical figure than Naftali Temu (who??, most people ask)--of course he is! Is Jim Ryun a greater historical figure than, say, Pekka Vasala--yes again. And so on--and on--for any number of Olympic gold medalists.

You say that "peaking for one race on a set day every 4 years...is extremely difficult". Of course it is, and that's why "favorites" don't always win. It's not at all just a matter of skill or fitness--a good deal of luck is also involved, for better or worse, which makes all championship events something of a horse race.

Any one of us would be quite happy to have either a WR OR a gold medal--no question! However, I still feel that a WR is a more significant achievement.

^^^ This epitomizes what I'm trying to say! Lol.

dumb people wrote:

Running is not a team sport. Team sports are about competing against the best, not breaking records.

Golf or tennis are not team sports either but they are still about competing against other athletes

dumb people wrote:

Running on the other hand is about being the fastest person in that respective event.

Again, if running is just about setting records then why bother to hold competitions at all? Don't you think we would be better off just having time trials instead of races at the Olympics? Then there would be a real chance of actually setting records.

Quit being a moron. Competition is used to bring revenue in and for public entertainment. You fail to amuse me with such idiocy. You also fail to realize the true question this thread asks. Please refer to the threads title. No where did i say running is all about setting records. Feel free to backtrack and look.

I stated that records are better than gold medals. Then someone came in and completely drove the topic off hand by concluding that anyone who says records over gold medals must think we all mean athletes should do "time trials" and not compete.

Of course someone would bring up a sport that falls into neither category.

So to be fair lets just put Athletics in a category by itself. Golf and Tennis are using sport specific equipment to go against others. Running on the other hand is using your god given talent and training. Please don't bring up spikes as equipment because you will only get laughed at.

First off, as a runner, if you are, you should know by now that each "sport" is unique, in that it has different rules, limitations etc. etc. Running can be a sport without "human" competition, because of TIME. Golf, tennis, CANNOT. They don't try to reach for some "time", they HAVE to compete against someone else. THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF RUNNING.

We could hold competitions to drive one another, and thus better one's personal best. But that is not the case in the olympics, we see tactics and games being played. A true competition would involve me vs. you all-out yeah? That's what us "world record" believers are saying. Your taking it to literal. Running is about setting personal bests/records, and I believe competition HELPS FOSTER IT. But a GOLD MEDAL DOES NOT. A gold medal scares people into relying on a "kick", thus taking away from the actual race/competition. I assure you, if you told a bunch of runners, to race all-out, and whoever has the fastest time, wins, you would see a race in which the times across the board indicate PERSONAL BESTS, or something close to it. However, re-word it, and say, the winner of this race wins the gold medal, you would immediately see each runner crawl back to the sit and kick method.

If you don't get it by know, then I dont know how else to explain it. It's not the competitions that are hindering people, its the supposed "reward" (the gold medal), in this case, that does. We "record holders" believe something along the lines that running as fast as possible, or the fasest you've ever run, IS A REWARD IN ITSELF.

Quote from an article about Geb:

"He had been badly injured some months before, had only effected a comeback shortly prior to the Olympics, and would have been in no shape to cope with Tergat, had the Kenyan thought to reproduce the tactics of Atlanta, where he had run the second 5000 metres over half a minute faster than the first half, in an attempt to run the legs off Geb.

But the Ethiopian was in prime form in Atlanta, and swept past to victory. That must have laid the doubts in Tergat’s mind. Never a fast finisher, he worked and worked his speed in 2000, such that he felt he could outsprint the Ethiopian in Sydney. Tergat ran steadily, and shot away with 300 metres to run. Geb clawed it back gradually, and inched past to victory. Again! But he admitted again after his Berlin Marathon victory, “Paul would have won easily if had used the tactics of Atlanta”."

Plain and simple, this shows how an INJURED person was able to win an Olympic Gold. The less physically capable can win Olympic Gold medals.

Ok, that's a fair explanation of your position. I think I just fundamentally disagree. To take a step back, the OP's question is essentially asking about what is the absolute pinnacle, the highest achievement in the sport. Is is winning the most prestigious race and the acclaim that goes with that or running faster than anyone has ever run before at that point in time?

I guess where I disagree with you is that the essence of running is about bettering yourself or competition within yourself. I think it is about competition against other athletes. You say that in the case of the Olympics it is mostly tactics and games. But nothing is preventing a runner from taking it out hard and trying to run faster than everyone else. You mention Bekele just kicking at the end, but go back and watch his 5000 Gold in Bejing. It is a masterful piece of front running where he takes the lead early and just keeps applying the gas as runners drop off one by one. That's what racing is really about to me. It's about being able to win in any situation or condition, regardless of the time.

To win an Olympic Gold a runner has to survive the pressure cooker of the rounds (especially in the 1500) and deal with the enormous expectations and hype. It is a test like no other in a runner's career. On the other hand, some world records seem artificial to me because they are set in ideal conditions - pacing, weather, fast track, etc.

Of course the truly great runners have done both and that's what separates them from everyone else. But if I had to choose I would take the gold.

That's where you lose. Take Asafa Powell once again. Do you really think Richard Thompson, with a PB of 9.89, or walter dix with a measly PB (at that time) of 9.93 was faster than him [Asafa]?

"To survive the rounds" is another great example of why olympic gold is "tactical" as anbessa said.

Take Robby Andrews in the NCAA outdoor at oregon just this year. The kid had to fly down the track in the 800m and run a blistering 1:45 just to make it to the finals while Andrew Wheating cruised in his godawful slow heat and ran a 1:48 to not only make it to finals but WIN his heat.

If you really want to test your limits you WOULD race in ideal conditions, no rounds, pacemaker, good weather etc. That way their would be no excuses for a loss. And these IDEAL conditions is where world records come into play.

To sum it up, Winning Olympic Gold can crown you the Fastest Man/Woman in the World... but only for that one day. On the other hand, Breaking the World Record crowns you the fastest Man/Woman in the World EVER until its broken. Which will take longer than one day.

I'm sorry, but you keep feeding me more reasons as to why world records overshadow gold medals from the olympics.

I'll even do what you did and pick another sport to make an example of. Take weightlifting for instance. Do you honestly think that lifter would be happier winning Olympic gold over bench pressing the most weight a human has ever lifted? Yeah, gimme a break.

Regardless of if he got 2nd or last place in the Olympics, if he broke the world record he will go down in history as the strongest man in the world, not the Olympic medalist.

There's more luck involved in winning gold. You can't luck your way to a world record.

Well, if you don't agree with me that's ok. Different things are important to different people. But here's what some great runners have to say.

“Records don’t mean much. Racing is about people and not clocks.”

-Steve Ovett

And when Geb was asked about the #1 highlight of his career, he didn't talk about world records. It was about winning the gold in Sydney.

Q: Speaking of your rivalry with Paul, one of our colleagues recently listed the highlights of your career in a column and he placed the 10,000 race at the Sydney Olympics, where you outkicked him as No. 1. Do you agree?

HG: I agree with that. The Sydney one was different. I can say it was my best moment or most memorable. I cannot forget that. If you look at the video, Paul really had that race won. I won many races by working hard. But that race came from God. Tergat did everything. If you look at the video, he is already close to the line, I came back somehow by nine-hundredths of a second. It's never been that close between gold and silver.

And El G talking about he finally fulfilled his dream in winning gold.

El Guerrouj: Finishing second in the Sydney Olympics back in 2000 was one of the saddest moments in my life, but it gave me more motivation, more courage and more determination. It took quite a while to recover because I felt I had disappointed Moroccan people, my fans. It was a great disappointment for me personally as well. I finally overcame it and waited impatiently for the next Olympics. In 2004, I won two gold medals to finally fulfill my dream.

I'd rather have a gold record or even platinum.

Thing about records is that they are broken. Gold, it's always yours

The Gold is yours, until the next olympics. And the thing about Records being broken, YOU STILL WERE ONCE THE WORLD RECORD HOLDER. What part of that don't you understand. This "records mean't to be broken" is becoming so cliche.

Gold for me is right, different things means different things for people. This is simply a compelling argument where you see 2 sides to running. There is no right answer essentially, if in the end, you are satisfied, that is all that matters.

Anbessa wrote: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

there is a possibility noah was in wr shape that race & hicham coudn't beat him anyways

noah ran 3'43 the year before & he was young & only been an elite runner for a coupla years - you woud have expected him to improve for a season or 2

it's true hicham beat him ~ 6/52 before, but that was enough time for noah to have whipped himself into shape of his life at training camp ( similar to kelly holmes in '04 - she looked shit mid-season & got beaten in a 1500 by a non-descript pole, but went to her camp & came out in athens in high-1'55 & 3'55 shape ( from amount of extra distance run in lane 2 ) !!!

maybe he was a quicker athlete in sydney than the previous year ?

Popular and well-known are not the same as "great". Watch any televised coverage of athletics where Powell is running and the commentators will always dwell on the fact that he is a failure when it matter most. You can't have pacemaking or tactics in a 100m. It's all about who is the fastest in the world on that day. Powell is great, but the absence of an Olympic or world title will prevent him being an all time great.

Anyone who says Gay is better than Lewis because he's run faster is WRONG!

Lewis broke world records too, won loads of gold medals and did it over a longer period than Gay. From your reasoning, that time is the gauge of an athlete's worth, then all the current WR holders are the greatest of all time!

Is Craig Pickering a greater 100m runner than Jesse Owens because he has a faster pb? Of course not.

There are factors such as improvements in shoes, tracks, medical knowledge, training, (PEDs even) etc, that enable each generation to run faster than the previous one. Winning an Olympic title shows that you are the best in the world, better than all your peers. Of course there will be occasions when some luck is involved or the wrong person wins, but by and large, over a career, the true greats do win gold at the Olympics. And if not the Olympics, they've now got the opportunity to win a World gold every 2 years.

I think ukathleticscoach is far from ignorant. Of course the clock can be competition, and I for one love seeing the greats trying to set them. But at the end of the day you can't replicate the exact same factors for 2 athletes attempting to run a WR. There is the weather, the economy of pacing, the condition of the track all to be taken into consideration. One athlete might have perfect weather, pace and a super fast track one day, and a better athlete may be thwarted in their attempt the following week due to poor conditions. With an Olympic final, everything is the same for everyone. Of course accidents can happen, but they can in a WR attempt too.

You say someone might win or lose due to tactics!? Surely that's the name of the game! If someone doesn't want to be beaten due to poor tactics, then they make sure they change theirs and run a race from the front. Look at the 800m. It's one of the most unforgiving events because there are so many permutations tactically. Coe was easily the best 800m runner in 1980 but ran a disastrous tactical race in Moscow. I don't remember the world's press saying, "Never mind, he should have won, he's still the best 800 runner!" They were rather saying he was a failure and didn't have a tactical brain, because he lost an Olympic final, regardless of the fact he was more than 1.5 sces faster than anyone else in the field.

When was the last time a 1500m at the Olympics only "heated up" with 200m to go?

If someone knows they haven't got a kick to win in a slow race, then they hit the front earlier. If they fail to do so, they only have themselves to blame.

I'd say in the last 9 Olympic 1500m finals the right person (i.e the WR holder or one of the top 2 fastest ever won):- 76, Walker (Mile record holder), 80 - Coe (WR holder) , 84 - Coe (Mile record holder), 96 - Morceli (record holder), 00 - Ngeny (2nd fastest Miler ever & 1k record holder), 04 - EL G (record holder), 08 - Kiprop (consistently the best over last 3 seasons).

Only in 88 & 92 did other factors come into play. So in reality, the record holder usually does win.

And in none of those races was it just down to who had the kick with 200 to go. In Moscow Straub went hard from 700 out, in LA it was less than 2 secs outside the WR, in Sydney the Olympic record was set, in Athens EL G ran the last 800 just under 1:47 to win. EL G didn't have the best kick in a slow race so he made sure it wasn't slow up to 1300m.

The Olympics is not just about tactics or "luking" out on a set day. It's about preparation, mental toughness and putting together a series of races that is as equally impressive or even more so, than a one off race with the luck of getting perfect conditions and pacing. Look at the 4 races Cruz put together in 84 to win the 800m or the 7 races in 9 days Coe ran in the same Olympics. Or the doubles by Viren or Yifter. Those are feats that require a depth of talent and ability that goes beyond what the likes of Foster, Quax, Mamede and other record holders did on one occasion over their entire career.

The time on the clock does not lie. The factors you listed can take off maybe .05 at BEST (in the 100m). This isn't swimming where new speedsuits can allow an average guy to break a once world record.

Tyson Gay is better than Carl Lewis because of the time on the clock (and also consistency) not because of medals. Let me rephrase that. Tyson Gay is FASTER than Carl Lewis and anyone who disputes that is an idiot.

That's the beauty of running-unlike other sports like basketball or football where the great teams of the past CAN'T go against the teams of the present- in running you can compare the times of the past to those in the present and make a decision.

I have no idea how you are comparing Craig Pickering to Jesse owens when Owens ran 100yards not meters. Sorry, not applicable.

Winning an olympic gold may make you better than all your peers but breaking a world record makes you faster than anyone. I don't get your logic there, you've been one upped.

In summation, many people attribute the word "Greatest" to meaning successful. That is where i agree Carl Lewis is more "successful" then Tyson Gay. But when i say "better then" i wholeheartedly mean "Faster than".

So again, when people go back in history and ask who was better than who their not going to ask "Who was more successful than who"? They are going to ask, "Who was faster than who?"

And the time on the clock is the answer to that question.