For me, I would say world record, but only if it was in the mile (NOT 1600 or 1500), marathon, or 100m just because of the publicity. Other than those events, I'd say Olympic gold. What about you?
For me, I would say world record, but only if it was in the mile (NOT 1600 or 1500), marathon, or 100m just because of the publicity. Other than those events, I'd say Olympic gold. What about you?
Depends on what year it is. If you set a world record on a non-olypic year, you are king. But, if you set a WR on an olypic year people say o, maybe he'll win the olypics, plus your probually peakin too early if you set a WR in an olympic year
World record, it would be especially great in the mile. Lots of world record milers are remembered, but i barely know any of the other record holders. Plus people only remember olympic champions for a little while, but every time someone tries to take a crack at your record you will get brought up again.
Gold medal. <1% of Americans know who has the World Record in any given distance event. 100% know what a Gold Medal is when they see one.
here is how it goes wrote:
World record, it would be especially great in the mile. Lots of world record milers are remembered, but i barely know any of the other record holders. Plus people only remember olympic champions for a little while, but every time someone tries to take a crack at your record you will get brought up again.
i'd have to disagree. being an olympic gold medalist is something that stays with you for life, yet you'll only be a world record holder until somebody else comes along and beats it.
Gold medal, and it's not even a close call.
I'd be inclined to say gold medal, but it would depend on how big of a world record it was. So if I was going to really SMASH the world record or break a noteworthy barrier, I might be inclined to lean toward world record.
The Dense Fog wrote:
Gold medal, and it's not even a close call.
Who is remembered more, Million Wolde or Daniel Komen?
I say WR, I would just assume I would get an Olympic silver or bronze to go along with it.
Well if you can run a WR then you have a good shot at a medal haha.
But besides that I would lead toward the world record if it was in a common event like 400, 800, 1500, 1 mi, 5k, but not for like the 1k or 3k.
You are the best in the world at something. If you have a medal then it could mean you just lucked out.
World Record.
The olympics aren't the greatest physical test starting with the fact they don't have the most competition. Olympic Beijing Marathon: Only 3 Kenyans. The NYC marathon had 5. People love the Olympics above records because it requires "tactics." Well tactics change the more and more people or the type of people in the race. And we all know in the Olympics, the people running 29+ minutes in the 10000m who get lapped are those who don't matter and are only there to represent the country, but they don't affect you AS AN ATHLETE! Any marathons in the world major marathon series have more competition, plain and simple, again think of this past NYC. For us, we are happy to have 3 people qualify for an event and be semi good at it. Maybe if we are lucky we will send one person in the marathon who has run under 2:10? (For the last Olympics, we only had one who had done so). For the Kenyans, it's who out of 20-30 people who can run under 2:10 can be narrowed down to 3 spots. Luckily for NYC, there's no cap on the amount of people so more can go than just 3 people.
The Olympics don't have the most competition so they are not the hardest physical task. We are even starting to see some debate in the Geb forums. For example, Haile's break in 1997, "what if Tergat hadn't been in bad position?" What if people didn't succumb to team tactics of boxing in? What if a person didn't fall on that one day? So many "what if's" and unknowns with the Olympics. Would Wanjiru still have won the Olympic Marathon if Geb was in it? Oh of course people say, he is invincible...except in this year's past London Marathon? Oh was that just an "off day" but he is still the greatest marathoner? There are PLENTY of off days that aren't fair in the olympics. That's the problem with comparing one time races with record (Plus look at the 800m in Berlin: as nick symmonds pointed out, the rules were broken when 10 people were included in the final)
Haile Gebreselassie has proven that you can set World Records from when you are in your 20s to when you are 35. If it's so easy for everybody, why don't they just do it? They aren't confined to once every 4 years: they have all the time in the world to do it. It's because they can't. Wilson Kipketer and Said Aouita aren't equal 800m runners because they both have a bronze in the Olympics. Both are capable of running third in a tactical race, but only ONE was capable of running a world record, and that's what sets them apart. Likewise, Gold medalists for certain Olympics are not equal: not when you considering the competition or the weird things that happen the day of.
For anyone who disagrees with me, give an example of one current world record and tell me other people that could have that same world record had they been in the same race. Just one. Would it be David Rudisha's 800m? Anyone who hopped in that can do it, but clearly Borzakovskiy is the better runner because of his Olympic Gold? Daniel Komen's 3000m? Oh anyone could of held on to the pacers, but he's not as good as any 5000m gold medalist? Zersenay Tadese's Half Marathon? Do you think anybody could have held on to that blistering pace? (you might say maybe Kitwara who has won tactical races, like against Gebreselassie, and has run a fast time... oh no wait he was in the same race as Tadese and he couldn't). No, world records are only achievable by one person because LACK OF ABILITY is the only thing that gets in the way. For the Olympics, lots of things get in the way, starting by the fact they are 4 years apart so they may be in between the peak of a runner. A runner doesn't have to wait, or worry about qualifying, or other outside things to set a world record. They aren't easier than a gold: they are much better and I'd rather have a world record.
World record easily. It means you are the best there was, from the dawn of time until someone else does it next. A gold medal simply means you beat the people in the race on that day, but you may not necessarily be the best.
Records > Championships
The Waterboy wrote:
World Record.
The olympics aren't the greatest physical test starting with the fact they don't have the most competition. Olympic Beijing Marathon: Only 3 Kenyans. The NYC marathon had 5. People love the Olympics above records because it requires "tactics." Well tactics change the more and more people or the type of people in the race. And we all know in the Olympics, the people running 29+ minutes in the 10000m who get lapped are those who don't matter and are only there to represent the country, but they don't affect you AS AN ATHLETE! Any marathons in the world major marathon series have more competition, plain and simple, again think of this past NYC. For us, we are happy to have 3 people qualify for an event and be semi good at it. Maybe if we are lucky we will send one person in the marathon who has run under 2:10? (For the last Olympics, we only had one who had done so). For the Kenyans, it's who out of 20-30 people who can run under 2:10 can be narrowed down to 3 spots. Luckily for NYC, there's no cap on the amount of people so more can go than just 3 people.
The Olympics don't have the most competition so they are not the hardest physical task. We are even starting to see some debate in the Geb forums. For example, Haile's break in 1997, "what if Tergat hadn't been in bad position?" What if people didn't succumb to team tactics of boxing in? What if a person didn't fall on that one day? So many "what if's" and unknowns with the Olympics. Would Wanjiru still have won the Olympic Marathon if Geb was in it? Oh of course people say, he is invincible...except in this year's past London Marathon? Oh was that just an "off day" but he is still the greatest marathoner? There are PLENTY of off days that aren't fair in the olympics. That's the problem with comparing one time races with record (Plus look at the 800m in Berlin: as nick symmonds pointed out, the rules were broken when 10 people were included in the final)
Haile Gebreselassie has proven that you can set World Records from when you are in your 20s to when you are 35. If it's so easy for everybody, why don't they just do it? They aren't confined to once every 4 years: they have all the time in the world to do it. It's because they can't. Wilson Kipketer and Said Aouita aren't equal 800m runners because they both have a bronze in the Olympics. Both are capable of running third in a tactical race, but only ONE was capable of running a world record, and that's what sets them apart. Likewise, Gold medalists for certain Olympics are not equal: not when you considering the competition or the weird things that happen the day of.
For anyone who disagrees with me, give an example of one current world record and tell me other people that could have that same world record had they been in the same race. Just one. Would it be David Rudisha's 800m? Anyone who hopped in that can do it, but clearly Borzakovskiy is the better runner because of his Olympic Gold? Daniel Komen's 3000m? Oh anyone could of held on to the pacers, but he's not as good as any 5000m gold medalist? Zersenay Tadese's Half Marathon? Do you think anybody could have held on to that blistering pace? (you might say maybe Kitwara who has won tactical races, like against Gebreselassie, and has run a fast time... oh no wait he was in the same race as Tadese and he couldn't). No, world records are only achievable by one person because LACK OF ABILITY is the only thing that gets in the way. For the Olympics, lots of things get in the way, starting by the fact they are 4 years apart so they may be in between the peak of a runner. A runner doesn't have to wait, or worry about qualifying, or other outside things to set a world record. They aren't easier than a gold: they are much better and I'd rather have a world record.
I certainly agree that the world record is the superior accomplishment. However, it would be so cool to win a gold medal and be on a Wheaties box! As a running purist I would likely take the world record, but I can see the allure of the gold medal.
haha YOZA wrote:
Who is remembered more, Million Wolde or Daniel Komen?
Who is remembered more, Ron Clarke or Billy Mills? Clarke set lots of world records.
What is Dave Wottle best remembered for, the fact that he held the 800m world record or his Olympic Gold?
They can never take a gold medal away from you.....well....as long as you don't get caught.
Can we set the world record at the Olympics?
Olympic gold no doubt. Millions of people don't watch you time trial your way to a WR with a couple pacers.
Red Ted wrote:
Can we set the world record at the Olympics?
this isn't swimming, so prob. not
what about an olympic record? those seem to last quite a while and you also get the gold
hands down gold medal. you dont necessarily get to stand on a podium hearing your national anthem playing for a world record. i love the olypmics. i guarantee i would cry haha
Easily world record. Like someone afore mentioned you beat everyone in the past life and present when you set one.
A gold medal is great and all but you get more money for breaking the world record and your appearance fees increase more for a meet to have you then if you had gotten the gold medal.
Also, if you set one then all you need is to stay healthy and mentally prepared and you can win against anyone, unlike if you win gold in the olympics and the fastest runner was injured.