World Records are more important when ranking athletes. There's an Olympic Gold medalist every 4 years, world records are much more rare.
World Records are more important when ranking athletes. There's an Olympic Gold medalist every 4 years, world records are much more rare.
That makes Bolt's 100/200 and Rudisha's 800 especially impressive then.
Recordo Montalban wrote:
World Records are more important when ranking athletes. There's an Olympic Gold medalist every 4 years, world records are much more rare.
This is not entirely the case.
World Records are not all equal. Whichever record is the still-standing World Record holds by far the most weight, REGARDLESS of changes in tracks, era, training theory, etc. From there, the more recent the World Record, the more weight it holds. It would be complete nonsense to claim that a World Record set in the early 1900s, when competition was pitiful, holds more weight than a modern Olympic Gold.
I can’t recall Bekele’s records being in remote danger in the past few years.
Radcliffe’s WR certainly has been untouchable, although we will see i think we will see 1 or 2 females come close soon.
Rudisha’s WR was definitely the greatest race I’ve witnessed on live tv. Bolt’s 19.19 is probably 2nd for me.
David rudisha world record for most impressive and centrowitz Olympic win is a close second
World Record. No one can't say you aren't the best if you have the world record. If you win a title its still debatable. Example Coburn not being ranked #1 steepler last year not even number 2 if I am correct.
Another example is Mo Farah winning a 13:40 race by 1 second when he may be in 12:50 shape.
3:43.13.
WR's are always more impressive, as at that moment in time no one was ever better. But Olympic Gold is a great achievement in itself, a small exclusive club. I'd give anything to be within 10% of either.
Not all world records are equal in relative "importance or impressiveness." The same could be applied in a subpar/stacked olympic final field.
An olympic gold medal usually reflects on an athlete's consistency and racing skills (tactics to win races, not necessarily as fast as possible). They are only every 4 or so years, so it is a feat of it's own to plan and execute everything accordingly to peak/maximize health to qualify for the Olympic final and win.
World records reflect on an athlete's ability to push themselves to their limits and take risks. Athletes that break world records have the perfect mix of talent and hard work. There seem to be so many different kinds of World records that they can be watered down, but ones (such as running events) that can be easily compared are exciting to witness and are more impressive imo.
For someone to set a world record and win an olympic gold in the process (like Almaz Ayana's 10000m at Rio 2016) is a true testament to athletic impressiveness in the sport.
However, records are made to be broken. More often than not, more people would be impressed to know that an individual is a past Olympic medalist compared to a previous WR holder. Not everyone can comprehend how "good" a previous world record was, but an Olympic medal is globally known as an incredible achievement, especially a gold one.
World records more impressive in my book but they're not permanent like a gold medal. Eventually someone knocks you off the hill. Is Former World Record Holder less of an achievement than Olympic Gold Medalist in XXXX?
I think time period should be considered as well. but for 80% of the instances a world record run would be worth much more than an olympic/WC title run.
I think Bekele would rather have his track world records over his titles. Which If I am not mistaken he still has the olympic records too.
In my personal life I once won my the mile and 2 mile at county then pr'd a month later in the 2 mile and placed 5th at sectionals. I was way happier with that PR.
There are some truly impressive championship races though for instance Ches winning the indoor mile with that insane last 1000m that one year. Then again He has the NCAA record in that too. It seems that when you hold the record at least one title comes hand in hand in distance running. I can not speak for sprinters.
These posts always remind me of Ron Clarke.
So many WRs, and no OG gold.
And how about Jim Ryun?
Three WRS, but no OG gold.
I wonder if they would have traded a few, or maybe all, the records for that gold medal.
As for me, I've had only school records in HS and College, and would have gladly exchanged them for a gold at state or NCAA. I got some bronze, but no better. I have an age group gold from a USATF 50 mile, but my times are no where near age records. That medal is one of only three I keep in a corner of the living room. I don't know what happened to all the rest after moving so many times. I still remember the euphoria of making All-American and getting those records. The medals mean so much more as time has passed.
Been Here - Done This
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM wrote:
Been Here - Done This
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=8450387
That thread is a would you rather scenario. This thread is which is more important when ranking athletes.
Roger Bannister never won an Olympic medal, but he set a world record.
westsouthrunner wrote:
World Record. No one can't say you aren't the best if you have the world record. If you win a title its still debatable. Example Coburn not being ranked #1 steepler last year not even number 2 if I am correct.
If you are the best all time you should be able to beat the competition at one time.
I think the world record might rank higher if you have both a world record and an Olympic gold.
Would Paul Tergat swap his brief world for a gold defeating Feb?
The Gray Zone wrote:
Roger Bannister never won an Olympic medal, but he set a world record.
This is an excellent point. The special nature of what Dr. Bannister did was breaking a "barrier." It was not just another record. Consider who knows whose record Dr. Bannister broke? And who broke Dr. Bannister's record only a month or so later? As a fan, I know those answers, but go up to some ESPN viewer, ask "Who is Roger Bannister?" and you have a better chance of getting the correct answer than "who was Gunder Hagg or John Landy?" His legacy was more than just the WR.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Would Paul Tergat swap his brief world for a gold defeating Feb?
Good example. Tergat's silver in Sydney is more memorable than his WR in Berlin.
Surely depends on how long the athlete keeps the WR, as to whether it is better.
Jonathan Edwards' WR is probably seen as his greatest achievement? His mark has been relevant to every major meet since. It's been on scoreboards and TV screen for over twenty years. If anybody jumps over 18m, the camera picks him out crowd. If his record was beaten in the summer, his Olympic gold would soon be considered his greatest achievement. He might live another forty years as an Olympic champion.
Former world record holder would be a great thing to be, but an Olympic champion beats thats.
Recordo Montalban wrote:
That thread is a would you rather scenario. This thread is which is more important when ranking athletes.
I think a world record is generally more important when ranking athletes. There have been plenty of athletes that still draw attention to this day that were not very decorated, but the times they ran leave us wondering "what if?"
Both certainly hold value, but I am far less impressed with say an Olympic marathon title than I am with a world record. Many of the majors have stiffer competition than the Olympics, plus tactical wins aren't always that impressive to me. Funny enough, the marathon world record is one that I don't even hold in particularly high regard, mostly because of the high turn over, and I am much more impressed with the mid distance times and know many more of the previous holders but very few one time medalists.
Mo Farah is one of the greatest runners ever, but not running fast times always hampers the discussion when comparing him to others. This guy has truly dominated for years, and we can still argue about whether he or prime time Kenny B was better. We also have guys like Alan Webb who made a name for himself because of his times. Sure he won some races which was important, but the hype around him was always based on time. Sub 4. American record. When people like that run fast, even at low key meets in Belgium, we see the potential. When we look at tactical wins, we wonder if it was true greatness or simply luck meeting opportunity.
For me times edge medals.
kadoo wrote:
Recordo Montalban wrote:
That thread is a would you rather scenario. This thread is which is more important when ranking athletes.
I think a world record is generally more important when ranking athletes. There have been plenty of athletes that still draw attention to this day that were not very decorated, but the times they ran leave us wondering "what if?"
Both certainly hold value, but I am far less impressed with say an Olympic marathon title than I am with a world record. Many of the majors have stiffer competition than the Olympics, plus tactical wins aren't always that impressive to me. Funny enough, the marathon world record is one that I don't even hold in particularly high regard, mostly because of the high turn over, and I am much more impressed with the mid distance times and know many more of the previous holders but very few one time medalists.
Mo Farah is one of the greatest runners ever, but not running fast times always hampers the discussion when comparing him to others. This guy has truly dominated for years, and we can still argue about whether he or prime time Kenny B was better. We also have guys like Alan Webb who made a name for himself because of his times. Sure he won some races which was important, but the hype around him was always based on time. Sub 4. American record. When people like that run fast, even at low key meets in Belgium, we see the potential. When we look at tactical wins, we wonder if it was true greatness or simply luck meeting opportunity.
For me times edge medals.
I agree with this. Also I think prime Bekele would beat Farah 9 times out of ten.