"This thread seems to be developing into a definition of terms: "significant," "impressive," etc. Even if we agree on the term "significant," it's not a clear standard: there is significant within the framework of the sport, and significant more generally, beyond the sport. For example, stephen Kiprotich
s Olympic victory in the marathon in 2:08 might have been the most significant performance of the year iin the impact it had on millions of people in Uganda. It was the Ugandan's first medal in track and field in 40 years and it was a gold in a widely followed event. Clearly, to take but one example, the late Samuel Wenjaru's performance in Beijing was a far superior performance, but it might be argued Kiprotich's was more significant.
Within the parameters of sporting excellence, I agree with Rudischa, for reasons pointed out quite persuasively by a poster on page one. I would only add that it's unfair to judge him harshly against his own remarkable record. The fact he "only" lowered his own WR in no way diminishes an eye popping Olympic performance. In terms of performance excellence, it's tough to wrap your arms around the decathlon. Many of us tend to take each of the ten events, look at the results and say "so what?" But if you can grasp that Eaton had all ten of those marks, it's mighty significant by any measure.
If I might take a moment, this post is likely to appear on page six or seven.On the off chance he might see this, a fellow called Prarie Dog made a complimentary comment on one of my earlier posts. If you happen to see this, thank you. Glad you appreciated it. You are either a real gentleman or a great kid, take your pick.