The 2020 Olympic track and field action was supposed to begin this week and we're feeling nostalgic. Football has a Super Bowl MVP. Baseball has a World Series MVP. We need to have an Olympic MVP. Today, we name an Olympic MVP for every Olympics from 1896 to 1960.
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2020/07/the-olympic-track-field-mvps-part-i-1896-1960/
Awesome, haven’t read yet but I love this.
Bruh, at least give us the each respective MVP’s winning marks and 10 yard dash hand time
Fun article. After perusing that, I wonder how Jim Thorpe and Jesse Owens would do under modern training methods. 6565 modern score in the decathlon is still pretty impressive for a guy that probably barely trained and used ancient equipment. And Jesse Owens long jump world record is probably more impressive than the Beamon jump, considering it stood for 25 years and wasn't altitude aided.
Almost every winner of part 1, especially among the women, are 100/200. Clearly it's not very rare and not a special feat.
The 100 200 double is the easiest double in all of track and field, they are the two most similar events. Additionally, sprinters have more opportunities to win more gold medals with the 4x1 and 4x4. Other athletes don't have that opportunity but that doesn't diminish their achievements.
You completed disregarded every single thrower and most field event athletes right from the start. It shows you didn't do any real research in making the list, you just scratched the surface.This list is way too biased.
MA runner11 wrote:
Almost every winner of part 1, especially among the women, are 100/200. Clearly it's not very rare and not a special feat.
The 100 200 double is the easiest double in all of track and field, they are the two most similar events. Additionally, sprinters have more opportunities to win more gold medals with the 4x1 and 4x4. Other athletes don't have that opportunity but that doesn't diminish their achievements.
You completed disregarded every single thrower and most field event athletes right from the start. It shows you didn't do any real research in making the list, you just scratched the surface.This list is way too biased.
Remember, 1960 was the first year that they even had 800 meters for women.
So, all the athletes were sprinters.
MA runner11 wrote:
Almost every winner of part 1, especially among the women, are 100/200. Clearly it's not very rare and not a special feat.
The 100 200 double is the easiest double in all of track and field, they are the two most similar events. Additionally, sprinters have more opportunities to win more gold medals with the 4x1 and 4x4. Other athletes don't have that opportunity but that doesn't diminish their achievements.
You completed disregarded every single thrower and most field event athletes right from the start. It shows you didn't do any real research in making the list, you just scratched the surface.This list is way too biased.
Dude, the problem is that there were not very many events for women until the past few decades. Let alone many countries that encouraged women to train and compete. Perhaps you could go back and look at what events were actually availabe from 1960 and earlier. Just perusing 1960, there were only 10 women's events.
Now maybe the field events could have been taken more into consideration. Some of those Soviet Bloc performances look off the charts, although we can assume what went on behind the Iron Curtain. Worth a 2nd look there.
The 1904 tug of war team was the best one ever.
By criteria 3, no mention of Spiridon Louis for the 1896 games, the obvious mvp, is not an error, it's a shame that makes question all other mvp's.
Completely US-centric.
Yawn ....
Alternate Reality wrote:
Remember, 1960 was the first year that they even had 800 meters for women.
So, all the athletes were sprinters.
Lina Radke says hello to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1928_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_800_metresPart II is now up with the Olympics many of you have watched yourselves - 1964 to 2016.
2004. Seriously?
So El G can't be an MVP because he's probably doping in your opinion, but Carl Lewis can be MVP even though he's actually tested positive? Lol. Clear USA bias
Also, non-Americans view Americans in '96 in Atlanta the same way Americans view East Germany in the 70's. The 90's is arguably the height of doping in track and field.
And let's be honest. Liu Xiang being clean?
Right off the bat Letsrun is wrong on the 1896 MVP
Robert Garrett won 4 medals that Olympics Gold - SP and Disc, Silver - LJ and HJ
Easily the best track and field performer of the Meet.
When's the last time a Thrower or Jumper medaled in those cross disciplines?
Snell beats Bikila in 1964 by a long shot! That was an amazing double and he was just as dominant. Two golds beats one! Give the Kiwi credit!!
The authors are trying to be a little too cute with a few of these.
Also, more credit has to be given to those who win where there is an outstanding silver medal performance as well - ie simply crushing some "easier" competition or a successful double feels less mvp worthy to me compared to barely beating a far superior 2nd place performance.
It's hard not to question some of those performances in the 80's and 90's. They are basically getting a free pass in these ratings.
Also, you're going to discount El G on doping suspicions but not Lasse Viren? Utter nonsense.
Mo Farah probably should've gotten it for 2012. In London, iconic wins, 2x gold. Rudisha's performance was definitely better in a vacuum though.