Olympic Gold or World Record

Olympic Gold. You'll always be a champion, records fall all the time.

that's been asked too many times. This is a better question.

Four gold medals in the event of your choice over a period of 16 years ofcourse, or a world record that is ever-after never broken i.e. 3:10 mile lol, but cripples you after it is set, to never be able to run faster than an 8 minute mile again.

Now that's a question!

can you name a higher percentage of WR holders or a higher percentage of olympians?

people forget WR holders. they always call you an 'olympic champion.' once your WR is broken, no one calls you anything anymore--well, maybe if youre lucky you'll be introduced as 'former WR holder,' but that doesnt sound very flattering.

I would go with the gold medal because its the biggest race everyone trys to peak for that race and you were the best. Where in a world record you ran faster than anyone ever has but there is still some uncertainty that you are the best in the world because the best athletes in the world may not have been in your race. For example Paul Tergat held the world record in the 10k at one time but would you have considered him the best in the world over Geb?

Olympic Gold. Your record will eventually be broken, and you will for the most part be forgotten, but nobody can ever take away the hardware that is your medal.

How bout breaking the world record while winning the gold medal?

I'm going for more of the point you just get to do one or the other. For example Billy Mills did both he won a gold medal and he broke the world record had he only done one of them which one would he have done. Say he only got third in the olympics then broke the world record or he wins the gold medal and comes just shy of the world record.

How bout breaking the world record while winning the gold medal?

I wish you would take this thread more serious. But anyone with half a brain would want the Olympic Gold medal. If you set a world record and don't have an Olympic Gold medal, what are people going to say about you when your career is over? Let's ask Jim Ryun or Ron Clark. Both runners set numerous world records. But whenever their names are brought up all you ever hear is they couldn't win when it counted. So I'm pleading with you. It is your responsibility to make the right decision, and post that the Olympic Gold medal is more important.

The Olympian wrote:

I'm going for more of the point you just get to do one or the other. For example Billy Mills did both he won a gold medal and he broke the world record had he only done one of them which one would he have done. Say he only got third in the olympics then broke the world record or he wins the gold medal and comes just shy of the world record.

I wish you would get your facts straight. Billy Mills won the Olympic Gold medal in the 10,000m, but his world record was in the 6 mile. It should also be pointed out that Billy Mills world record was not solely his the race was a tie between himself and Gerry Lindgren. Which is beside the fact that no one cares about a world record in the 6 mile nearly as much as an Olympic Gold. I'm also trying to think back to the last time Billy Mills had an interview about breaking the 6 mile world record. Owning the world record in the 6 mile is like owning the world record for putting the most paper clips on your face. So next time you post give us the courtesy of using a good example. How about Lasse Viren? in 1972 when he won the Olympic 10,000m he also set the world record in that race.

The Olympian wrote:

I'm going for more of the point you just get to do one or the other. For example Billy Mills did both he won a gold medal and he broke the world record had he only done one of them which one would he have done. Say he only got third in the olympics then broke the world record or he wins the gold medal and comes just shy of the world record.

Last time I watched the Billy Mill's movie I don't remember them showing Billy's world record (in the 6 mile). I also have to say Gold Medal makes a great arguement. I'm going to do the right thing and agree with him that the Olympic Gold medal is more important.

In the 1500m there have been 32 world records from 26 athletes. In the 5000m 35 world records from 23 athletes. In the 800 17 world records from 14 athletes. 34 world records in the marathon from 29 athletes. In the 10000m there have been 37 world records from 24 athletes. These records are since 1912 so if my math is correct that makes 23 gold medals.

bump

I'm going to call "The Olympian" out. He reminds me of every punk rock band who sings about the war in Afganastan. All they ever say is war is bad and people die. The Olympian keeps giving us the facts. But grow some balls and tell us what you think. What is more important? "The Olympian".

Just to add to my last post I actually only care about what the olympian thinks, if he thinks the Olympic Gold is more important. In the case that he thinks the Olympic Gold is more important, I take back what I said about the punk band. In the case that he thinks the world record means more, I purpose that we exile him to the island of elba. Where we'll poison him every day. Like the french did to Napoleon.

Ok Billy Mills is a bad example would Paul Tergat be a better example. He has the world record in the Marathon no Gold medal though, discounting his track races for the sake of arguement, Stefano Baldini won the gold is his accomplishment better than Tergat's world record?

The Marathon world record is a special case. This isn't a track race so it really depends a lot on the course. But I'll make a strong arguement if Baldini and Tergat walk into a club whose going to get the most ass? And I can't wait to see the second date when Tergat takes his date out for a nice steaming bowl of Ugali with a side of cow milk and blood mixed together. While Baldini takes his date out for a gourmet Italian meal. Whose going to hit it more than one time for the boys?

Ok I'm trying not to be bias on this thread so I don't influence peoples decisions. I'm trying to settle an arguement our team is having were about a 50/50 split for which one we would rather have and both ways weve had arguements for which is better. I am for the Olympic Medal I think it takes more skill to race than having a couple rabbits run a pace that is predetermined from the start to set someone up for a fast time.

WR holders vs. Oly gold winners

200: Pietro Mennea - Joe Deloach

400: Butch Reynolds - Steve Lewis, Quincy Watts

800: Seb Coe - Steve Ovett, Joachim Cruz, Paul Ereng, William Tanui, Vebjorn Rodal

800: Wilson Kipketer - Nils Schumann, Yuriy Borzakovskiy

1500: Said Aouita - Peter Rono, Fermin Cacho

5k: Said Aoutia - John Ngugi, Dieter Baumann

5k: Haile Gebreselassie - Million Wolde

10k: Arturo Barrios - Khalid Skah

After reviewing the above exercise, I'm going to have to go with holding the WR, noting that they often have more notoriety than the Oly winner at any given time. Additionally, when results are listed the WR holders name and/or time are often included with the event. No such recognition for the Olympic medalist. And finally, the Oly gold winner was the best on that ONE DAY. The WR holder is the fastest performer in history up to that point.

i agree that id rather have the olympic gold, but when i think of ryun i think of how freakin good he was.