Who has had the better career - Nick Symmonds or Clayton Murphy?

ezby wrote:

People always seem to mention Symmonds WC silver. Being an international, I couldn't care less about his USA titles, but his WC medal is what put him on my radar as a good runner

Yeah against the softest field in years. Symmonds WC is a joke

the German inquisition wrote:

If they never run another step.....

Symmonds, he has RunGum to provide an income outside of running.

Until he get sued for Fraud.

Soprano wrote:

Who has had the better career if neither ever runs another step? Is anyone even seriously debating this question? 100% Symmonds. Murphy had an epic 2016 and you could argue it's better than any one year in Symmonds' career, but one season does not make a CAREER. Almost a decade on top with an impressive streak of US titles and a World silver makes for a better overall career than Murphy's one year in the sun.

A career can certainly be just one season especially if it includes an Olympic Bronze and a 1:42.

"Almost a decade on top" of what? The weak competition in the US? You value quantity, not quality.

US titles are pale compared to Olympic and WC medals especially in the 800. Olympic medals are more valuable than WC medals. An Olympic Bronze is more valuable than a WC Gold.

Murphy's PR is better than Symmonds' granted it's only 0.02 better. It is better.

Murphy > Symmonds

bored on a Sat night wrote:

The question I'm asking isn't about who will have the better career.

The question I'm asking is if they both never ran another step again. If their careers ended today, "Whose career would you rather have - Symmonds or Murphys?"

Tale of the tape :

Olympic medals - 1 for Murphy, zero for Symmonds.

USA titles: 6 for Symmonds, 1 for Murphy.

NCAA titles: Symmonds won a ton but they were D3, Murphy won 800 indoors and 1500 outdoors this year.

PRs: Basically the same (1:42.95 symonds, 1:42.93 Murphy)

Symmonds had the better career if it ended here. However, I'd rather have the real NCAA titles, the Olympic medal and the faster PR. Plus, I hope Murphy doesn't end up as a narcissistic, self-promoting, womanizing douche. That, in and of itself, would elevate him to the top in my opinion.

In my opinion, yes, the Olympic Medal is more prestigious, but the competition is just the same

Everyone, even in off years (2010, 2014, etc) is still training just as hard, all the big names are there, injuries will happen here and there

The odds of you winning a WC medal is literally the EXACT same as winning an Olympic medal, the only difference is doing it in a particular year

I'm not going to say Murphy's Olympic Bronze was better than Symmonds WC silver just because Murphy did it in a different year, I'm giving Symmonds the nudge here

Symmonds hands down has had the better career, multiple US titles, Prefontaine titles and memorable wins, versatility in the 1500m (3:34, won Oxy HP in 3:36 in 2013), making a name for himself, WC silver and his longevity and consistency, and let's not forget about his 2015 comeback where he shocked everyone and grabbed the U.S. title

If he makes the 2017 World Team, I wouldn't be suprised at all

Local burn out wrote:

bored on a Sat night wrote:

The question I'm asking isn't about who will have the better career.

The question I'm asking is if they both never ran another step again. If their careers ended today, "Whose career would you rather have - Symmonds or Murphys?"

Tale of the tape :

Olympic medals - 1 for Murphy, zero for Symmonds.

USA titles: 6 for Symmonds, 1 for Murphy.

NCAA titles: Symmonds won a ton but they were D3, Murphy won 800 indoors and 1500 outdoors this year.

PRs: Basically the same (1:42.95 symonds, 1:42.93 Murphy)

Symmonds had the better career if it ended here. However, I'd rather have the real NCAA titles, the Olympic medal and the faster PR. Plus, I hope Murphy doesn't end up as a narcissistic, self-promoting, womanizing douche. That, in and of itself, would elevate him to the top in my opinion.

So you don't like NS because he uses his first career to promote his second career and make money? Hey paavo nurmi, they kicked you out of the 1932 OG for money but rules are different now.

And to all the people who think somebody's career in hindsight should be judged at all on their character off the track, STFU. Pete Rose deserves to be in the HOF.

Anyways it is a good topic. Consistency IMO is an aspect of career judgement but it all depends how you weight it. And as to the medals debate, that all depends who you ask. Any layperson would say "an Olympic medal" followed up with "I thought track was only big every 4 years?" A serious runner could make a case for the WC silver being better, rudisha's absence notwithstanding. Making it to the line is important, you can't win if you're watching from home.

TL;DR

I think it's edge to Symmonds now but given another WC cycle and he might lose.

Cain shoogur wrote:

why?

murphy is hyper-arrogant in every interview i have seen. symmonds may be bro-ish, but he knows how to conduct himself professionally and is a great representative/voice for USA track & field

Murphy said he wanted to go after the world record after winning his bronze......hahaha

I like them both, and I've never thought Murphy came off as arrogant (although I probably haven't watched all his interviews). That said, if I had run 1:42.xx in college I'd probably think the WR should be in my sights as well, so good for him for not wanting to settle for an Olympic bronze as his crowning achievement.

Murphy had an awesome 2016 that rivals any year Symmonds has had, but Symmonds' longevity and consistency easily puts his career ahead thus far.

The fact that this is even a topic of discussion points to how good Murphy is. Murphy just graduated from university THIS year. He has already faster than Symmonds and did something Symmonds failed to do, win an Olympic medal at 800m. Murphy is a super talent, far more talented than Symmonds. That is just at 800m. At 1500m, Murphy has an even better upside. He beat Centro at 1000m just prior to the Olympics and has an NCAA title at 1500m. Symmonds was nowhere near that level at 800m and 1500m at that stage of his career (college senior).

Ironically, Symmonds, by handing Murphy his 800m spot at World's last year, set Murphy up for his successes this year, sending Symmonds to the old-man scrap heap.

This whole thread is simply crazy, there simply is not a comparison at this point. Murphy would have to have won gold and with a world record for this to even be a debate.

Murphy will have a better career because he will have a Olympic medal in the 1500 before he is done. Symmonds was stubborn and didn't move up to save his career

Bob Schul Country wrote:

Murphy will have a better career because he will have a Olympic medal in the 1500 before he is done. Symmonds was stubborn and didn't move up to save his career

Symmonds could have never, never ran with the likes of Kiprop, Mac Daddy, centro and he knows it.

douglas burke wrote:

Gray also broke 1:44 at age 36 and ran 1:45 at 39 maybe Symmonds will go after age records as 1:42.60 is probably out of reach for him, Murphy SHOULD be able to improve 4/10ths of a second So Murphy has a great shot at the AR as he will probably have 7-10 years of his prime, not a given though.

I don't want to put pressure on the guy but I think Clayton Murphy is an extreme talent like we haven't seen from a white dude from America in recent memory. I think he can go really really fast. Like a mix of seb Coe and David Rudisha/Joaquim Cruz strength.

Exactly, he's a 1500m runner who ran 1:42.9 for 800m and won an 800m Olympic medal as a college senior. You