I'm on the other side of the sport's obsession on Olympic medals. Being incredibly fit/mentally strong/tactical sharp is a necessary but entirely insufficient condition to medal-- a lot needs to go right, not the least of which is a heavy dose of good luck.
To put so much credence on an event someone might get to compete in three times over the course of a decade seems absurd. Ron Clarke on the men's side and Mary Decker on the women's side are great examples of athletes who were at various times up there as the best in the world, but who never took home an Olympic gold.
Give me the WR over an Olympic medal any day of the week
Sifan Hassan and Letesenbet Gidey are like this in the 5,000 and 10,000 in that Hassan has Olympic gold medals and Gidey has the WRs. Hasan ran so many races in the Olympics I lost track though and she also has held WRs. I kind of think of them as equivalent but different because Gidey also has the perfect form and more of a future in the marathon. But if they were American, the Olympic gold medals would stand out more to me.
For the 1500 where the best times are so close to each other and championship races (used to be) tactical often, Oly gold trumps everything.
It differs by era, but I'd say that if someone runs a 3:27, then you could certainly say that they have Olympic Gold Medal talent.
For reference, there's usually 2 (sometimes more) guys that run 3:28 in Monaco (or some other race) each year, so it has to be faster than that.
I agree with another poster though; the purpose of running fast is to beat the competition - there's no bigger competition than the Olympic Games, and so winning Olympic gold is better than any time.
Getting it right on that one day - that comes around every 4 years - just adds to the challenge and bolsters the prestige.
It seems you need 3:28 speed to have a considerable shot at a gold medal, it seems any race faster than 3:40 (most at that level are) seems to cater most to the <3:30 crowd more than those that may not be as strong but have a good tactical bid coming from superior 400m/800m speed.
For men, it would be 3:24 - a time that would put the WR out if sight for decades. The athlete I think of when talking about times vs. medals is Paula Radcliffe. She bombed in both of her Olympic marathons but her 2:15 was so far beyond what anyone woman could achieve that it was probably as valuable as an Olympic gold. That record would still be standing if it wasn't for the supershoes.
I'd be more impressed to meet an olympic gold medalist from 1972 than to meet someone who held the world record for a few years sometime in the 1960's (but didn't win gold).
The first person is forever an olympic gold medalist. The other person will eventually be the 15th fastest person at their event and never a champion.
I'd be more impressed to meet an olympic gold medalist from 1972 than to meet someone who held the world record for a few years sometime in the 1960's (but didn't win gold).
The first person is forever an olympic gold medalist. The other person will eventually be the 15th fastest person at their event and never a champion.
The Olympics is often a watered down field though. Countries are limited to how may athletes they can send, so you often have fields at Monaco, Oslo, or Eugene that have more depth than an Olympic final.
I guarantee you cannot tell me the Olympic medalists from 1988-2012 in the 1500m without looking them up, unless of course they happen to be guys who are in the top-10 all-time in the event. Times trump medals. We know Ngeny, Morecelli, Kiprop, and El G as sub-3:27/3:45 guys first and foremost and Olympic champs second.
Think about your HS and college days as well. If you're trying to tell who the all-time studs are for a program, it's going to be the all-time marks list that you are looking at, not the guys who won titles.
While I agree that olympic gold is more desirable and prestigious than any fast time short of a world record (and Oly Gold vs WR is debatable imo), the point about there being a larger dose of chance for olympic gold is an important one. You have to be in amazing shape on a specific day that happens every 4 years, and avoid any mishaps during the race (getting tripped, boxed in) that have at least a little bit of chance involved. Your ability to win may also depend on the race playing out tactically in a way that favors your racing strength (e.g., if the 2016 olympics was a sub-330 race, Centro likely wouldn't have won). You also have to be fortunate enough that another athlete of equal or greater talent isn't in phenomenal shape (e.g., 2016 Centro doesn't beat 2021 Ingebrigtsen or 2004 El Guerrouj).
If you want to know how good a runner is at their absolute best, their PB is a better indicator of that than a race than happens every 4 years. Everyone has the chance to go after fast times every year of their career, with at least a handful of racing opportunities where a PB could happen each year. So if you've run the 3rd fastest 1500 ever, you've got a running achievement that only two other people have surpassed, despite decades of annual opportunities for people to do better (though I acknowledge that track and shoe improvements make comparisons across decades less clear).
I will say that someone's Olympic and World Champ performances on the whole is probably the best indicator of how greater a runner is, since that gives you a much larger sample size and everyone is gunning for those races each year. But it still isn't a standardized measure of absolute peak achievement like a PB is, which is what i think makes fast times exciting.
To answer the original question though, I'd say 3:27 low or faster pre-super super shoes is equal to Olympic gold. Nowadays it would probably take a world record.
I'd be more impressed to meet an olympic gold medalist from 1972 than to meet someone who held the world record for a few years sometime in the 1960's (but didn't win gold).
The first person is forever an olympic gold medalist. The other person will eventually be the 15th fastest person at their event and never a champion.
The Olympics is often a watered down field though. Countries are limited to how may athletes they can send, so you often have fields at Monaco, Oslo, or Eugene that have more depth than an Olympic final.
I guarantee you cannot tell me the Olympic medalists from 1988-2012 in the 1500m without looking them up, unless of course they happen to be guys who are in the top-10 all-time in the event. Times trump medals. We know Ngeny, Morecelli, Kiprop, and El G as sub-3:27/3:45 guys first and foremost and Olympic champs second.
Think about your HS and college days as well. If you're trying to tell who the all-time studs are for a program, it's going to be the all-time marks list that you are looking at, not the guys who won titles.
I am the school record holder for my high school and college distance events. I was state champion but not first team All-American. There were other all-americans and even an old NCAA champ from my college, I am technically ran faster than them but wasn't top 8 in the NCAA. I would have rather not gotten the records and been top 8 at NCAAs. So my answer still stands, I'm more impressed with the person who ran well when it mattered, and not in some time trial and then couldn't win when it mattered.