I kept thinking manzanos Olympic silver was better but idk anymore because the fastest man kiprop was injured. So centros world silver or manzanos?
I kept thinking manzanos Olympic silver was better but idk anymore because the fastest man kiprop was injured. So centros world silver or manzanos?
If you're going to consider factors other than the importance of the Olympics over the World Championships, consider the men who earned the medals. Leo's Silver was his only high placing in a championship event. Centro's Silver, on the other hand, was a continuation of consistent high place finishes. World Championship Bronze, Olympic 4th place, World Championship Silver. Considering we're talking about men whose careers are still ongoing, I tend to think of their medals with regard to what they mean for their future. Leo's Silver will very likely be the pinnacle of his career. But for the 23 year old Centrowitz, it's only the beginning.
Olympics > WC, end of story. Manzano beat Centro in the Olympic final, which is the biggest race either of them has ever been in. If Kiprop had been in the race, Manzano might have gotten bronze and Centro 5th. Either way there's no reason to think that Manzano wouldn't have placed higher than Centro in the actual race.
Centro is much more consistent than Manzano and gives himself more chances than Manzano, but an Olympic medal is an Olympic medal.
Leo's performance was easily better than any of Centro's two medals.
Leo's kick was so sick, he moved up like a boss the last 350m and then just completely ripped it the last 100m. That kick alone is better than Centrowitz's whole career. So much fury and bossness.
Centro.
Manzano got very very lucky- everyone else blew their loads trying to match Makhloufi's outrageous move at 300 to go.
Not my bag, baby! wrote:
Olympics > WC, end of story. Manzano beat Centro in the Olympic final, which is the biggest race either of them has ever been in. If Kiprop had been in the race, Manzano might have gotten bronze and Centro 5th. Either way there's no reason to think that Manzano wouldn't have placed higher than Centro in the actual race.
Centro is much more consistent than Manzano and gives himself more chances than Manzano, but an Olympic medal is an Olympic medal.
Hard to argue with this...Olympic Silver is better than WC silver. But removing the prestige factor (and the fact that more runners are peaking for the olympic year than the WC year), the two are probably equivalent performances, and the presence of Kiprop certainly adds to the quality of the WC silver for Centro.
Regarding the Olympic race, Centro probably beats Manzano if the probable drug cheat isn't there to screw up the race.
it was a perfect storm for manzano but he does have the silver.
if kiprop didn't get hurt.
if centro didn't miss a month of training in april.
both of them probably beat manzano.
but "if"....
with that said, olympic silver is better than wc silver. but centro's career is already far ahead of manzano's.
if this were a cross country dual meet -- it'd be something like this:
1 manzano
2,3,4,5,6 centrowitz
Not my bag, baby! wrote:
Olympics > WC, end of story.
Why are the Olympics harder to medal at? I know the Olympics are more popular with the public and have more history, but in the end aren't they both world championships?
I say the medals are equal. Both silver's at world championships. Both with one of the top runners not running or injured (Kiprop at Olympics, Makloufi at WC). However, I am more impressed by Centrowitz who seems to position him self really well during big races.
Champions of the World? wrote:
Not my bag, baby! wrote:Olympics > WC, end of story.
Why are the Olympics harder to medal at? I know the Olympics are more popular with the public and have more history, but in the end aren't they both world championships?
I say the medals are equal. Both silver's at world championships. Both with one of the top runners not running or injured (Kiprop at Olympics, Makloufi at WC). However, I am more impressed by Centrowitz who seems to position him self really well during big races.
OG are more important. More people cycle their careers around the OG than the WC. People retire after the OG, but not usually the WC, which mean there are more people at their peak for the olympics.
Leo for sure. That was a crazy race and he ran it brilliantly.
Plus it was the OG.
Hate to sound like Im giving MC short shrift, Im not. His race was great too but not quite on the level of Leo 2012.
I respect both Leo and Centro.
I chased Matt Sr in HS in many races, so I have small rooting interest in his kid.
However, your question reminded me of that silly show, Pawn Stars. There is an Olympic Medal visible on a shelf behind the counter.
If someone came in with both and Olympic silver medal and WC silver from comparable events, for sale, which do think would get a higher bid? And which might be rejected completely as having "not too many buyers out there?"
I realize that opinion may reflect the general public's view of the WC vs. Olympics.
As for the serious fans, sometimes a WC race is something special. Sometimes there's a Bernie Lagat double. But Bernie does not have gold from the Olympics, and that makes all the difference.
There is only one Olympics. And only one Olympic Champ every four years. And you get that title forever (or until you fail a passport analysis.)
Centro, because of his dad and Oregon and Nike.
Here's my take and I could be completely off with the 2nd part of my post. Most (all?) of us would take an OG silver over a WC silver. As many have stated, the "value" of an Olympic medal is much greater. Everyone has a concept of the Olympic Games, WC not so much. Take Michael Phelps, does anyone other than serious swimming fans have any idea how many WC golds he's won?
At the same time, I would guess the actual finalists of an OG or WC 1500 would respect either medal equally or one might rank higher based on the perception of a better field or more impressive performance and not the OG or WC designation.
Although I'm a big fan of Leo, Centro's three year string of championship races surpasses Leo's silver in my opinion.
Team Player wrote:
Centro, because of his dad and Oregon and Nike.
Now how does his dad influence this question...or Oregon?
Kiprop took a flop in the Olympics.
yuiop wrote:
Although I'm a big fan of Leo, Centro's three year string of championship races surpasses Leo's silver in my opinion.
the question was which performance was better, and i think everyone agrees OG silver is better than WC silver. however, the performances themselves have to be compared to answer the question (Centro's prior performances are irrelevant).
Having watched the OG 1500 again, I have to say Manzano's race is more impressive the way he finished, and in a faster time to boot. Centro ran a tactically perfect race and finished as high as possible that day, but Manzano's race was more impressive, and all the more clutch because it was the OG.
true nuf wrote:
Regarding the Olympic race, Centro probably beats Manzano if the probable drug cheat isn't there to screw up the race.
Right. Even leaving the drug speculation out of it, Manzano got his medal because he was smart enough to know that there was no way he could cover that move at 300. The guys who tried died.
Something else to consider: WC has the possibility of 4 athletes from one country, which can add one more serious contender to the race.
800 dude wrote:
true nuf wrote:Regarding the Olympic race, Centro probably beats Manzano if the probable drug cheat isn't there to screw up the race.
Right. Even leaving the drug speculation out of it, Manzano got his medal because he was smart enough to know that there was no way he could cover that move at 300. The guys who tried died.
Something else to consider: WC has the possibility of 4 athletes from one country, which can add one more serious contender to the race.
yes. but having watched the race again, I don't think Centro was one of those guys that tried to cover the move. Centro actually made a nice comeback the last 100m as well, but Manzano's was better.
that wasnt the question wrote:
yuiop wrote:Although I'm a big fan of Leo, Centro's three year string of championship races surpasses Leo's silver in my opinion.
the question was which performance was better, and i think everyone agrees OG silver is better than WC silver. however, the performances themselves have to be compared to answer the question (Centro's prior performances are irrelevant).
Having watched the OG 1500 again, I have to say Manzano's race is more impressive the way he finished, and in a faster time to boot. Centro ran a tactically perfect race and finished as high as possible that day, but Manzano's race was more impressive, and all the more clutch because it was the OG.
Fair enough. But just playing devil's advocate, why is Manzano's better just because his finish was more impressive? Why isn't a "tactically perfect" race more impressive? One could look at Manzano's and think it was more of a fluke and he was simply lucky. The WC race could arguably have been a truer reflection of the best 1500 runners in the World. Nothing out of the ordinary happened and Centro proved he's the real deal.
Again, I'm very, very impressed with both and, personally, find it very difficult to compare. It's certainly interesting to read everyone's opinions.
Manzano certainly benefited by the move of Mahfloufi (sp?), but Centrowitz actually benefited also vis a vis Cheseba and the Ethiopian who clearly pushed it into high gear to chase the Algerian on the back stretch. I think Manzano also ran a tactically perfect race. As for something out of the ordinary happening, I think Manzano has to get credit for getting a curve ball and hitting it out of the park. And, as I said, his time was faster.