Arete wrote:
Does a champion ALWAYS have the most impressive performance (by definition)?
So, the state champ in the slowest winning time since 1932 wins the mile in 4:50 is more impressive than a freshman who runs 4:06 and takes 6th in another year?
An Olympic champion ALWAYS has the most impressive performance, yes.
Winning the 1500m in 8:41 would still be better than 6th in 3:29.
Which is why this is an obvious troll.
"An Olympic champion ALWAYS has the most impressive performance, yes.
Winning the 1500m in 8:41 would still be better than 6th in 3:29.
Which is why this is an obvious troll."
WRONG: it's true that a gold is always more "preferable" but an 8:41 1500 is not a more "impressive performance" (the original question) than running 3:29 ... rolls eyes.
remember 84? wrote:
fujimaster wrote:
Rai Benjamin's silver is more impressive than almost any previous gold to me.
This is an acceptable thing. Hockers time and competition is better than Centro. It was more impressive.
Is my high school 4:38 dual meet win more impressive than the guy that get 5th at state in a loaded field with a time of 4:12? Absolutely not.
Your problem here is that you're comparing a dual meet to the state meet.
I'd rather be state champ in 4:14 than 4th in 4:12 in the same field.
College coaches would prefer that too.
Agreed.
Honest question:
Do the people posting here that think Hocker's 6th lave 3:31 is more impressive than Centro's gold run track/XC in high school and college?
Because if not, it may be that you've only ever raced on the roads or all-comers track meets, and not experienced the excitement and thrill of racing for points to help your team win a meet?! I'm trying to understand.
Racing is the reason i got into track and field. Sure, every now and then a coach would tell us to try to run a certain time, but not in meets that had any importance. you raced to win, and that usually meant you ran fast times.
I'm amazed at how many are obsessed with times and are seemingly poor competitors. I wouldn't want you on my team.
My senior yr of high school we had this little freshman fight like hell to get 8th place in the 3200m at our conference meet. That 1 point he scored was the difference between 1st and 2nd place team standings in the meet. The kid he raced to the line was on the rival team and would have won it for them. His time was only like 10:51 and I remember my teammate and I both split under 50 for the first time in the 4x400m that meet, but that 3200m runner's race was, by far, the best part of the meet for everyone and what it was all about. It's how I remember the meet actually.
Arete wrote:
"An Olympic champion ALWAYS has the most impressive performance, yes.
Winning the 1500m in 8:41 would still be better than 6th in 3:29.
Which is why this is an obvious troll."
WRONG: it's true that a gold is always more "preferable" but an 8:41 1500 is not a more "impressive performance" (the original question) than running 3:29 ... rolls eyes.
It most certainly is if it wins Olympic gold.
Nice try, but not even close! Even John Walker said it years ago, a 'world record, (even), can be beat, but a Gold Medal, unless you cheat, can NEVER be taken away. End of story. Again, great run by Hocker, still NOT a Gold Medal.
Arete wrote:
"No one remembers a fast time. That medal will last forever."
Really?
Name the gold medalist in 1972 Olympic 1500?
Name the man who broke the 4 minute mile.
Pekka Vasala
Someone who invented that handrail which stops you falling off the stairs.... This probably saved millions of lives so maybe more impressive than a gold medal.
Few (if any) remember Vasala; many, many folks know the name of R. Bannister.
Vasala will fade into obscurity; Bannister will continue to be remembered.
Arete wrote:
"No one remembers a fast time. That medal will last forever."
Really?
Name the gold medalist in 1972 Olympic 1500?
Name the man who broke the 4 minute mile.
You are changing the point entirely. The 4 minute mile was a significant barrier which defeated something which people thought was impossible. Like climbing Everest, it transcended the sport.
I don't know the gold medallist in the 1500 in 1972, that is a deliberate curve ball, but I do know 1968, 1976, 1980, 84 despite not being born, and I know the winner of every Olympics till today. No idea who held the world record when however.
Who first ran under 3:32 for 1500? Or 3:29? It's meaningless. Olympic gold is forever and that's just a fact.
A gold medal means that you were the fastest on a single day in a single year.
A WR means that you were faster than all of human kind for thousands of years. You can actually claim that you were the fastest human at one point, which is not usually true for a gold medal.
Both have their plusses.
Arete wrote:
A gold medal means that you were the fastest on a single day in a single year.
A WR means that you were faster than all of human kind for thousands of years. You can actually claim that you were the fastest human at one point, which is not usually true for a gold medal.
Both have their plusses.
Okay but the aim of the sport is not to record the fastest time ever for a small period of time. Some world records have been held for no more than a few days. World records are a piece of trivia.
The aim of the sport is to beat everyone else in the world, in competition, on the day which matters and which everyone has been preparing for. The Olympics are not a random open meeting which half the top athletes are training through or choose to skip. It is the agreed pinnacle of the sport, and everyone who calls themselves a professional athlete has the date marked in the calendar and works towards that goal. That was evidenced by the times in the final, most of the field ran their best efforts ever, even after tough rounds.
Beating everyone else, at the Olympics, is the ultimate goal.
A vast majority of people here are answering this question with 6 > 1 and smaller numbers in a race win, so 1 (Centro) takes it.
I’m NOT ARGUING that first is better than 6th. I’m not saying 1 is less than 6. I’m not saying I would rather be sixth than first in any given race.
What I am saying is that, under these incredibly unique set of circumstances, Hockers 6th place finish is MORE IMPRESSIVE than Centros win in 2016. My reasoning has been outlined previously, and no amount of fingers-in-ears, foot-stomping, temper-tantrum-screaming “THE POINT OF THE RACE IS TO WIN” will change my mind.
Apologies, meant to say “not arguing 6 is less than 1” above.
Olympics is every 4 years. This has become a marketing event to get people that normally don’t watch to watch once every 4 years. World Championships results should not be diminished compared to Olympics. An athletes biological clock to give best performance may not line up on an Olympic year.
Arete wrote:
A gold medal means that you were the fastest on a single day in a single year.
A WR means that you were faster than all of human kind for thousands of years. You can actually claim that you were the fastest human at one point, which is not usually true for a gold medal.
Both have their plusses.
The point you are making here is mute. Cole Hocker doesn’t have a gold medal or a world record.
I have a counter question to your 1972 gold question. Who got 6th in 1972, 1976, 1980…? Which 6th place finish was the fastest in those years? You shouldn’t have to look it up. Those 6th place finishes are the most memorable Olympic performances, right?
Arete wrote:
Few (if any) remember Vasala; many, many folks know the name of R. Bannister.
Vasala will fade into obscurity; Bannister will continue to be remembered.
This is a ridiculous comparison. Your are using this simply because Bannister ran below an arbitrary number. No one is even remotely impressed by a sub 4 hour mile or a 2:10 marathon.
Bannister will absolutely fade into obscurity when the next generation dies off because 4 minutes is no longer remarkable. No one will care at all about sub 4 when the record is 3:43. And the 1500 is by far more of the focus on top of that.
missBS wrote:
A vast majority of people here are answering this question with 6 > 1 and smaller numbers in a race win, so 1 (Centro) takes it.
I’m NOT ARGUING that first is better than 6th. I’m not saying 1 is less than 6. I’m not saying I would rather be sixth than first in any given race.
What I am saying is that, under these incredibly unique set of circumstances, Hockers 6th place finish is MORE IMPRESSIVE than Centros win in 2016. My reasoning has been outlined previously, and no amount of fingers-in-ears, foot-stomping, temper-tantrum-screaming “THE POINT OF THE RACE IS TO WIN” will change my mind.
Yes, you keep saying that and we keep telling you it's absurd...because it's absurd. Being outside or nearly outside of the camera shot for half that race wasn't particularly impressive despite him running a little faster than people expected.
Unbelievable the crap the low life's post on this site!
A Gold medal in the Olympics is the Number one thing that every school boy runner dreams of!
All that matters!
disgusting wrote:
Arete wrote:
A gold medal means that you were the fastest on a single day in a single year.
A WR means that you were faster than all of human kind for thousands of years. You can actually claim that you were the fastest human at one point, which is not usually true for a gold medal.
Both have their plusses.
The point you are making here is mute. Cole Hocker doesn’t have a gold medal or a world record.
I have a counter question to your 1972 gold question. Who got 6th in 1972, 1976, 1980…? Which 6th place finish was the fastest in those years? You shouldn’t have to look it up. Those 6th place finishes are the most memorable Olympic performances, right?
* moot. But, you get it.
AP5000 wrote:
Bannister will absolutely fade into obscurity when the next generation dies off because 4 minutes is no longer remarkable. No one will care at all about sub 4 when the record is 3:43. And the 1500 is by far more of the focus on top of that.
I disagree. Bannister is the one name that will transcend time. Like Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier and Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay being the first to summit Mt Everest, Bannister will always be remembered when people discuss great milers.
Perch wrote:
AP5000 wrote:
Bannister will absolutely fade into obscurity when the next generation dies off because 4 minutes is no longer remarkable. No one will care at all about sub 4 when the record is 3:43. And the 1500 is by far more of the focus on top of that.
I disagree. Bannister is the one name that will transcend time. Like Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier and Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay being the first to summit Mt Everest, Bannister will always be remembered when people discuss great milers.
No. No one knows who Chuck Yeager is. Same for Norgay and Hillary. You know who they are, but the masses do not. I guarantee you if you ask 10 RANDOM people who each of those people are at best 1 in 10 will know. I bet less than 1 in 100 people have heard of Bannister.