WHICH IS MORE IMPRESSIVE? Gold medal in Olympic luge or All-American in D1 cross country?

Gold trumps all.

There are lots of All Americans and D1 hoops players. There's only one gold medalist in the luge every four years.

Athletically I would take the D1 All-American.

But more impressive on a general basis? Gold medal, duh.

Running is easy. Basketball is not too tough. Luge is brutal and dangerous. Gold in luge is far more impressive.

While I'd take an Olympic Medal in some obscure sport with low participation rates over being a D1 All American, the original poster is probably correct that the relative difficulty of achieving the latter may be at least as difficult to accomplish.

Olympic Gold

If it's that easy give it a go

A gold medal also carries with it several thousands of $ from one's home country, sponsorship deals, etc. Regardless of talent pool size or depth, I'd say money won from one's sport is also impressive.

Olympic gold ftw. All-american is basically an age-group award in the sport of running. Great athletes, sure, but not best of the best.

People who excel in any competitive field, athletic or otherwise, like to think their accomplishments can be compared to a medal in an "easy" sport. Not true.

Michael Schumacher and Valentino Rossi are hacks.

Maybe saying All-American is taking it a little too far, but I would definitely be more impressed in meeting someone like Chris Solinsky than anyone who has won a gold medal in luge. I just don't think it is as competitive (by its nature of being less inclusive) than running. The winter olympics are not that big of a deal.

Who is Chris Solinsky?

Would you rather be the best hockey player in slovakia (7 000 players) or the german hockey equivalent of an all-American in D1 cross country (Germany has 70 000 players)?

Martina Sablikova owns every dutch speed skater (they have 170 000 skaters) even though speed skating is so small in the Czech republic that they only have one oval in the entire country, and it's outdoors and just 333 m long.

Does Steve Nash, Manu Ginobili and Dirk Nowitzki suck at basketball? Are MLB players far better athletes than NFL players because there are many more baseball players?

Is Landon Donovan > Bekele?

Olympic gold. It's not even close.

As challenging as it is to accomplish, being a D1 all american is just not that interesting. Sure, you're fast, but so what? You're completely unknown to all but a small number hardcore US running fans and your family. Your experience of running with a bunch of college runners in Indiana (or wherever) isn't remotely as interesting or memorable as the experience of someone who participated in the Olympic games. Getting your all american award can't even be compared with the experience of standing on the podium with your medal and hearing your national anthem being played.

Well.... wrote:

Getting your all american award can't even be compared with the experience of standing on the podium with your medal and hearing your national anthem being played.

Well, it is indeed a better experience than being an All American, of course. Winning olympic gold will probably be the top "experience" for anyone who has ever done it. Plus it will get you a lot more $$$ than being an all american will.

however, it doesn't make it more impressive.

i am not impressed by someone getting in a tube and falling down a hill at 80 miles an hour. any idiot can do that.

a 14:00 5k does impress me though.

I suppose any idiot can go down a hill at 80 mph, but not any idiot can survive the experience.

Luge's only claim to more impressive is that the accomplishment is more recognized on an international scale. Maybe it's also more impressive in that it takes lots of money to get into luge in the first place, but however impressed I might be by the size of a person's bank account, that doesn't transfer automatically to the person--at least not for me.

DI cross country is far more competitive than luge--even in any given Olympic year. I would guess reaching the top in DI cross country takes a lot more training, too, but maybe I'm naive about the amount of training that goes into luge.

If cross country was an Olympic sport (and it should be), the commitment it would take to be DI All-American in cross country would grow even greater. Why do they keep adding stranger and stranger sports to the Olympics and cross country doesn't get in? That baffles me. Cross country is more universally contested than probably 80% of all Olympic sports.

As a partly related aside, has anyone else noted the paunches on several of the Olympic sliding events (bobsled, luge, etc.)? Maybe a lot extra girth around the middle helps the old bobsled go faster and squeeze tighter through the turns?

hyperbole gone wild wrote:

Maybe it's also more impressive in that it takes lots of money to get into luge in the first place, but however impressed I might be by the size of a person's bank account, that doesn't transfer automatically to the person--at least not for me.

I don't know why so many people think it takes a lot of money to get into luge and other sliding sports. I've had a few friends on the US Olympic team in bobsled and luge. They were all recruited as adults from other sports backgrounds, and I can assure you they were far from wealthy, as their chosen sport had almost *no* opportunities for sponsorships.

Gravity sports are not athletics, and Cross Country is very small and not large enough to be a major sport.

hyperbole gone wild wrote:

it takes lots of money to get into luge in the first place,

Cross country is more universally contested than probably 80% of all Olympic sports.

Any fact-based references for these claims? No? Didn't think so.

Consider things this way: How competitive are DI XC runners in their own sport? Are they competitive at the world level? No? They are competitive within the university system of one country, right? I don't think anybody would really contend that they could really stand up at the world level. Sure there are more of them than there are people doing luge, but lots of people in a local junior athletics system working hard and getting mediocre results does not make them more impressive than somebody being an Olympic gold medalist, even in a minor sport.

another Canadian wrote:

Any fact-based references for these claims? No? Didn't think so.

Okay, try this on for size:

Q: How much does luge equipment cost?

A: Prices for used luge equipment can vary

depending on condition. A price guideline for new

equipment is as follows:

Sled: $800-$1,000 Racing suit: $100-$350

Luge Shoes: $100-$150 Racing gloves: $25-$50

Spikes: $30-$45 Face shield: $25-35

Helmet with face shield:$250-325

Q: Do I need to buy my own equipment?

A: Generally, it is recommended that beginning

athletes do not buy their own equipment. USA

Luge has a supply of sleds and helmets to use for

athletes that are just getting started in the sport.

Once an athlete determines that they want to

pursue a competitive career in luge, they can

begin to think about purchasing their own

equipment. Before any purchase; however, a

coach should always be consulted first to assure

proper sizing.

This comes from:

That's the equipment. Now let's talk about paying for your time on the course--think ice rink time is expensive? Let's talk about living somewhere where there is a course.

There is a point to be made here, though, in defense of the other side. If you are that "special athlete" that the luge governing body decides to recruit into the program, you probably get most or all expenses covered at least for some probationary period of time until you either wash out or prove mettle.

Luge certainly isn't yachting, but it ain't cheap.