I think we'd have to ask former WR holders and Olympic champions this question. Donovan Bailey himself said in a documentary that he'd prefer an Olympic gold over WR. He said a world record can come and go, because somone will take it from you. The Olympic gold medal stays with you forever assuming no failed drugs tests. Even after you're gone. You won't forever be a WR holder. You'll eventually become a former WR holder. But with an Olympic Gold or any medal for that matter. You'll hold the title of having that tell the end of time itself.
I keep remembering FLO JO BECAUSE OF HER WORLD RECORDS IN THE 100 AND 200. they literally have to mention her name for almost EVERY 100M OR 200M race. Cause that's the mark that everyone has to run and catch. I don't know who won gold in the woman olympics b4 1988 or the olympics after 1988
In the 100m dash, the question comes down to "Do you prefer being the fastest in history, or being the best competitor in the greatest, most prestigious track and field event, which occurs only every four years?". For me personally, the former sounds more attractive.
@@TheFinalLeg Yes indeed, thank you very much. Nobody can take away a medal, but nobody can take away the title "former WR holder" either. In the 100m dash, that's something!
@@TheFinalLegI honestly don't care about the medals but the performance. Take this years 100m final i. Olympics. It was so close with Thompson and Lyles it basically was a tie. When Bolt did it in his second Olympics at 9.63 he was the clear winner against the best the world has ever seen. I'd take 9.58 once in a regular meet over 3 golds because it means I'm the to ever do it. Wayde van Niekerk did a 43.03 in 400m and that record will possibly never be broken in our life time currently reading this and Micheal Johnson is second best. We will remember those two athletes because people research records in track and field because people want to know who the GOATs are. Jacobs from france won the Olympics at 9.8. We saw 9.6 from 3 men and he may matter to his country but not the world and world history
@@distanceman8147that's because their records were broken. I've never seen either of them but kniw there names and times. I want immortality and to be on that all time list. Take Christian Coleman and Fred Kerley for example. They both run 9.7. They are way faster than Jessie Ownes right? Time and measurements can't be argued because Jessie Ownens best bums and he was a bum himself track time wise compared to today's times. You have kids in high school running faster than Jessie Ownens. We live in an area of the internet and can't be told who is great by someone else anymore. We can see who is great. Asafa Powel has no world championship gold or Olympics gold but he as that 9.72 and a former world record title that has to be respected. I respect Sydney McLaughlin over Jessie Ownes. She blows her competition out and breaks er world records. Ownes was only faster than who competed against him and that is how he won medals simply because he was racing against no-one
There's no blanket answer, depends on the record and the circumstances of the medal. 9.57 +2.0 at 2000m altitude wouldn't be better than winning London 2012, but if someone ran 9.50 with no wind at sea level in a Diamond League I would consider that way more impressive than winning the Olympics in 9.90. "World records don't last forever" is overly simplistic, as long as the athlete doesn't literally disappear at championships everyone will remember someone running 9.50 for a long time, even after it gets broken. Asafa is more known than many gold medalists even! *disclaimer I'm not saying anyone is going to run 9.50
I generally see your point and think its fair. I should have reiterated there is more nuance since its not a clear one over the other. And its very much preference for sure depending on the circumstances...As I always not just my opinion. But I'm not sure the idea of "world records dont last forever" is as simplistic as it seems. Thats why I noted Jim Hines who held the WR for 14 years+ . At the time, potentially seen as unbreakable, but it was taken down. I would still argue most current fans do not know Jim Hines despite breaking the 10 second barrier (9.50 is a current time we look at as crazy, but thats a factor of our current time period and can be adjusted at any point, slower in the past, faster in the future). But thats why I brought up the record since 1990 when it was more of the norm to be broken multiple times every 2 years or so. Really throughout history, going back to the 1930s, only 6 guys (Bolt, Lewis, C. Smith, Hines, H. Jerome, H. Davis) held the world record for more than 4 years. But I think I have to do a better job of historical education since, like I noted in the USA mens 100m video, we tend to have recency bias and overlook historical context (i.e. Powell being more known or popular - well deserving - is a factor of the present). Ralph Metcalf by almost every measure was equal to or better than Asafa but not known (and yes recognizing this is almost 100 years ago, the sport was different, he's no longer alive etc.). But then even someone like Donovan who broke the world record and has all the other medals, yes not 4 world records, but Olympic and world gold, I think gets push down because he did it a longer time ago, and 9.84 isnt looked at as highly as a 9.74 is today. Same with Leroy Burrell. But I hear the argument on both sides for sure. In general, just a personal take!
A feel the same too. This question kinda seems to lean more to a preference thing. I feel like breaking a WR is more impressive than getting a gold PERIOD!! Winning an Olympic gold or any major Champs gold is very impressive, but a WR is the best performance for that discipline in the entire history of the recorded Earth. To be the best to EVER do anything at any point in time is insanely impressive. I do think people would remember a 9.50 more than a couple Olympic Champs. Especially looking at what's currently true. I feel ANYONE who truly surpasses Usain Bolt will be come very popular just for that fact that they are faster.
@@khumokwezimashapa2245 To your point of Usain Bolt, I think that only works because of Usain Bolt having not only broken the world record, but also winning the medals and being the GOAT. I again go back to Jim Hines and his first ever sub 10 and holding the world record for 14+ years, like Bolt has. Not many people today remember or recognize Calvin Smith for taking down that legendary record because Jim Hines was not a Bolt like figure (he had the world record and olympic Gold) and Calvin Smith didnt have the biggest accolades (only world silver and Olympic Bronze). And to be clear, I mean most current fans, many of us know Calvin is a legend, but just because he broke that world record, his name hasn't lived on or transcended in a way that would parallel your scenario.
@@TheFinalLegThis made me think. I think the line is drawn on how long the record can be held and how absurd the record was/is. For example Beamon is ONLY known to non track people due to his record, not his medal win. Same with Sotomayor and even Mike Powell. Bolt will be the same although he's obviously got all the absurd wins as well. So I'd say I'd rather the world record IF I hold it for more than 20 years. Essentially all record holders longer than that are far better known than one off Olympic Champions. But tbh I'd take either 😅
@@duncanharvey2209 Ok this is actually a point that I can get around to agreeing with. Most people dont know that Marita Koch won Olympic gold in 1980, but no other 400m medals at Worlds/Olympics. But people know her 400m world record. But there are a few exceptions to the rule. I'm not sure many people are as familiar with JJK for her hep world record as they are for her pure dominance and stardom in the 80s/90s. But I think that comes with athletes who won alot of medals. Flo Jo, Bob Beamon, Mike Powell they didn't win so many gold medals over the years so their record achievements stand out. (Sotomayor has 3 golds so I guess he wont fit my rule). But in general. I actually agree with you for the most part
Is 9.58 a forever? Is 43.03 for ever? Olympics is just another track meet. Times are forever. When one thinks of the Olympic or world championship, they'll research those people but at some point they ultimately want to see who is the best and they'll automatically research and find the times. When then finnd the times and look at the medals of say Jessie Ownens, they'll eventually come to the conclusion that Jessie Ownens isn't great at all. He is just greater than who he ran against 😂
@noah_256. yes they are! You think I'm lying. Flo Jo is dead and no matter who gets gold they are all chasing 10.49. Times and measurements tells us who is better even if the athletes don't compete with each other
Putting it into contextt I can relate to. When I graduated high school I had to school record for 5,000 m. And won a few titles. Over 10 years later I no longer have the 5K record but I still have the titles technically so the record has to be considered harder to obtain.
Being remembered ≠ ability to run/skill. I feel as though a large part of this argument is asking ' do fans know this person? But is that even answering the actual question?
Shelly-ann Fraser is considered the best women sprinter because of her entire career, not because of the Olympic Medal, she's been consistently on top for a very long period of time, that's why she's the best, but even then she's not considered the fastest ever, that goes to Florence Griffith Joyner, and everyone acknowledge it despite being called a cheater. In other words the world record if it holds for a long period of time, is more valuable than a gold medal.
Your correct, like I noted, Shelly has won all her medals and golds throughout her career at Olympics and worlds despite not breaking the World record, which brings her to be considered one of if not the best ever. I never mentioned fastest ever, simply greatest of all time. Flo Jo has the record for sure. But notice on the mens side I brought up Jim Hines who held the 100m world record for 14+ years (only Bolt has held it longer by a few months at this point) and has Olympic gold and broke the WR on 2 occasions, but most people still see his career as less than other names like a Tyson Gay or Noah Lyles. I do think there is nuance for sure as you lay it out. So just an opinion that will vary based on the circumstances
I wouldn't compare Bolt and Flo. Bolt is way younger and from a different era with a lot of controversy. Nevertheless we should respect both records. Otherwise we end up not trusting any record @thegreatdel9679
@@thegreatdel9679 Flo Jo's 100m world record was wind aided to say the least.. and in terms of career overall no woman comes close to shelly ann, she has more individual golds from 1 event (100m) than Felix and Flo Jo have over multiple events and has run super fast times on so many occasions. One doesn't need to be Jamaican to appreciate her talent
Medals over records. You can have mulitple medals for one event. However, you can only have one record for one event at a time. Bolt said he loves his WRs, but prefers his medals. In 2008, he stated the gold was the focus, not the record. Winning/titles is always the goal, ask the shoe kit sponsors who pay the athletes. Records are just a bonus.
Also, good ranking Emerole. Pretty much the order I have. I think people forget Donovan's accomplishments from 1995-1997 so he tends to be overlooked. Ironically he's on the new episode of Asafa Powell's podcast.
Me personally , I would rather be proud to be the world record holder in the 100m dash ,then being a gold medallist at the olympic games for simple reasons. Being yhe WR holder, People will literally view you as the fastest person of all time over 100 , faster then any human being in existance on this planet basically. If you know me , I watch more basketball and soccer than track and field. But If you told me what impresses me the most about Usain bolt , it would most likely be his WR of 9.58 then his olympic medals.The medals are just there to back up your achievements over other athletes, but no one will remember them. People will always remember Usain bolt's 9.58 WR achieving the fastest speed ever recorded by a human being 44.72km /h of 27.80 mph , so please sir think about it for a sec 👌🏾. Guys like Asafa powell and Yohan blake are more popular then many gold medallist , lol 🤦🏿♂️.
A great comparison for this problem of records vs gold medals is Mo Farah vs Paul Tergat. Tergat has 10,000m, half marathon and marathon world records and Mo has no major distance records. Tergat is also faster at every distance from 3000m all the way up to the marathon. But Farah has 4 Olympic golds to Tergat's 2 silvers. And Farah has 6 world championship golds and 2 silvers to Tergat's 2 silvers and a bronze. Although Farah is more recent and slower it's hard to argue he isn't the greater athlete of the two.
For me it depends. For example Powell has a best of 9.72, Gatlin has a best of 9.74. Powell ran multiple 9.77s & a 9.74 that at the time were considered world records, sure, but I feel like Powell & Gatlin both ran in the 9.7s roughly the same amount of times. So time wise they're pretty equal (4th & 5th ever in the event). Gatlin however produced better performances when it counts so his overall resume a lot of people (including myself) consider better than Powell's. As a separate example what if we compared Tyson Gay to Lamont Marcell Jacobs or to Andre De Grasse. Andre has a 9.89 PB, LMJ 9.80, Tyson Gay 9.69. Not only that, but Tyson has multiple sub-9.8 performances vs 0 (not including wind aided) sub-9.8s by Andre & LMJ. LMJ Jacobs 9.80 2021 1st place is equally as impressive as Tyson Gay's 9.80 2012 4th place. They're both at an Olympic final, neither of them buckled under the pressure, they both ran a very fast 9.80, but got different results. Both 9.80s were more impressive than Andre's 9.89 Bronze medal (I think it was Bronze?) in 2016. I'm Canadian so I love Andre De Grasse, one of the few top level sprinters I've had the chance to see compete live, but if we're talking purely the 100m he's nowhere near Tyson Gay's caliber. I add some status to repeating something, like multiple medals in a row even if not the fastest is impressive. Though I'd say overall fast times for many years is equally or more impressive than multiple medals. Especially if times are calculated to 0 wind/0 elevation. Looking at an athlete's say top 3~5 performances in a year calculated to fair comparisons for me is the gold standard for who is better than who. TLDR: I guess my opinion is that overall times matter more than either WRs or medals. I see Powell's 9.74 & Gatlin's 9.74 as equally impressive (maybe Powell's a bit more as he slowed down a tad at the end) even though 1 was a WR & 1 was not. Similarly Tyson Gay's 9.80 4th place & London & LMJ's 1st place in Tokyo are equally impressive, both an Olympic final, both 9.80.
The argument of medals over performances is legitimate and everyone has there own perspective. Mine is best understood from the following example. The Dodgers just won the World Series, an event equivalent to the Olympics in that the worlds greatest baseball players are competing. Freddy Freeman turned in one of the greatest performances in World Series history and was named series MVP, while Ohtani, and Judge, two of the games greatest players, played rather poorly. Most people would not put Freeman ahead of Ohtani or Judge when rating their greatest, just because he was amazing in the World Series. I think over all performances based on times are more important than medals.
Thats a fair take and appreciate that comparison. The slight issue I have with Track to Baseball (which I dont follow to please do educate me) is the team sport to individual sport comparison. I think because track is an individual sport, its easier to criticize an athlete for not not performing at the Olympics, worlds, or biggest stage, because its 100% up to you. In team sports, there is an element of an athlete carrying a team, but they cannot win the game on their own. In general there is nuance and of course preference, but because of the nature of our sport I think medals holds more weight. But again, very much understand the nuance!
I wonder why people say "no one can take the medal from you", you're litterally sure to lose the title on the following events, on the other hand you never know when a WR is gonna be beaten
With a world record your name will forever be mentioned b4 every race that u hold the world record in. Marita kotch , flo jo, usain bolt. Wayne van niekerk and we also remember Michael johnson bcuz he was once a world record holder
I always enjoy your videos. Records will continue to be broken as humanity evolves. Records are temporary... Titles are forever. Keep up the great content! #TeamUSA
A gold medal is being the fastest in an individual race compared to 4 years of sprinters. A world record is being faster than anyone that has ever existed in tens of thousands of races. For me it's not even vaguely close, if we're just comparing those two, the WR is significantly more impressive. If someone were to beat Bolt's 9.58, I'd consider than more impressive than a 100m/200m gold double for 3 Olympics in a row tbh. Edit: I could agree pre-Bolt Olympic Gold > WR in the 100m. There are exceptions, ben Johnson breaking 9.8 before anyone else broke 9.9 is way more impressive than any of Carl Lewis' golds. Aside from that example though generally Gold > WR sure. If we're talking Bolt though, even winning 4 Olympics in a row in say 9.8x wouldn't compare to running a 9.57 one time. That record is inhuman & it'll last 50 years.
It's tough cause fast times and medals should compliment each other, medals alone do not make you great. If you lack consistency, longevity and fast times, you are seen as a one time thing, you had a cool moment but yeah. If you have very fast times but can't translate them into medals, you are seen as a choker and a dissapointment. I think if you win a gold medal and don't do anything else you are more remembered than someone that broke a world record once and didn't do anything else, but these aren't great scenarios. If a world record is legendary and stands for a very long time that is 100% more remembered than any gold medal. Case in point, people revering Flojo because of her wind aided world record, in truth her still extraordinary 10.61 stood until Elaine's 10.54 for over 30 years. She had only one good season (it was arguably the greatest in history but it was ONE), yet people put her in greatest female sprinter of all time conversations and will forever remember her name It depends on the era, the level of the event, the competition you faced. In 2024 for example there was a lot of competition, many people were around 9.80 which is solid, many in the Olympic final broke 9.90, but we have been around 9.80 since 2016, and the top 3 of 2012 was faster. If you exclude the extraordinary Bolt generation with himself, Gatlin, Gay, Blake, Powell and others such as Carter, even Lemaitre, you had a french white dude winning international medals and going 19.80. We haven't really advanced much since Maurice Green, that's over 20 years. The world record would be just 0.03 faster, set in 2019 and tied several times these last 5 years. That matters, is it worth more to win in a weaker era than to break a world record in a very fast era? Noah Lyles isn't even a 100 meter guy, he was extremely clutch there, but he is the 11th fastest guy over the last 15 years, that's our Olympic champion
After 50 years, if someone told me they won the Olympics in 2000, I’d say well done, what did you run? But if you say that you ran the fastest in history, it carries more weight.
Its best to have both which is why Most world records are set at major championships cz it has more impact that way.. if you set a WR at some random meet and then lose in major championships it kinda taints your legacy eg Asafa Powell has lots of fast times and had the WR at some point but he's also known as somewhat of a choker under pressure due to his lack of gold medals in major championships.. IMO Medals mean more cz they are forever (unless you get busted for doping 😂) and it's not like gold medals are won in pedestrian time, you have to run a fast time to get one..I'd rather have a season with 9.6 performances and a gold medal than a single world record performance at some random meet
I will admit, there is more nuance than I noted in the video. But in general yes, I lean medals over time. Especially how our sport is structured with the Olympics (and Worlds) being the pinnacle of the sport. I dont think certain athletes (Leroy Burrell, Calvin Smith etc.) get as much recognition they deserve because they didn't win gold. Also Asafa Powell, though gets a lot of recognition for what he did, especially being the driver for the resurgence of Jamaican sprinting, but gets a lot of criticism for not winning when it counted the most. But yea understanding there is nuance, I lean towards medals holding more weight over world records.
Both matter but the Olympic is the best of the best. You’re written in history once you get that. Those names live on forever, Jesse Owens. You become apart of history
@ in No sport in the world not 1 does an athlete get a trophy, medal, championship, or anything for a WR. Track is the only sport that puts so much emphasis on WRs & that exactly why outside of the Olympics track gets forgotten. Medals & championships should be focused. With fans like you guys I see why the sport is stagnant
@ Lmao what a load of horse shit. Fans like you put so much emphasis on Olympics, nothing else can live up to the Olympic hype. That’s why competitions outside of olympics don’t mean shit. A WR can make a regular meet legendary. Athletics is about as pure as it gets. It’s pure performance and records go into record books and into all time lists.
Athletes always want to produce their best performances. Sometimes, their best is enough to win an Olympic gold medal or break a world record - or both at the same time.
This is very true. The goal is your best performance, which can mean different things. Best performance can be your best execution on a single day but maybe not your fastest time. Best performance can be your fastest time, but not the best execution. Best performance can be fastest time and best execution on a single day and the biggest moment. Tons of nuance for sure.
Out of the guys you have mentioned. YOHAN BLAKE even in the shadow of Bolt had better careers than them and it's sad that he gets look past in these articles. Also you guys never make it clear that Tyson is joint with Blake for 2nd fastest all time. Blake has 4 olympic gold medals, 2 of which is individual, 2 silvers so that's a total of 6 olympic medals and 2 world champion gold not to mention the youngest ever to.win gold there. He is second only to bolt in the short distance all time. I hope you left him out because u also like myself consider him like Bolt in a league of their own.
The best scenario would be to win. Olympic medal and set a world record but if I have to pick one I would say olympic gold medal over world record. Even though people don't know who Jim Hines, is, he did both.
1 WR outweighs 1 Olympic medal. The WR tells me you were at the pinnacle of the sport. Whereas with the Olympics, it’s every 4 years… the best rivals could have been ageing out when you won. People could have b n injured etc. we just don’t know. The only way medals outweigh world records is when you kept winning at the top of your sport for 5 to 10 years. Do that, and it means you saw and defeated everyone you could have. No. Excuses as you back up the wins. And to win over a decade means more than likely you were close to historical times even if you didn’t break the WR. 1 to 1, if I was told I could either have a WR or an Olympics gold, I’d take the WR. But if the choice is between lowering the WR 3 times and 3 Olympics golds… I’m taking the Olympic medals
90% of all gold medalist arent remembered, the fans will remember a triple double medalist forever, an athlete who consistently won races all over the world for a decade are never forgotten even if they dont win a medal, i am dissappointed you didnt mention asafas 97 sub 10 clockings, thats an achievement fans remember, some things are much simpler, and really the fans perspective really not a science quiz, outside of americans nobody cares about gatlins gold medal, or even montgomerys world records.
I'll make this very simple. The record of any event is way more prestigious than any medal. To me that put you on God status because their is no doubt you are the best ever. That also gives you more publicity after your career is over. If you look at Micheal Phelps and Usain Bolt for example. They've been stop competing but still get endorsements deals and appearances. Sydney McGloflin is another example. When advertisers pay her it is the best when she advertises thier products
I hear you but I'm not sure your point on endorsements and appearances holds up. Phelps, Bolt, Sydney are all gold medalists. A better example is does Leroy Burrell get more endorsements than Justin Gatlin?
@TheFinalLeg I understand what you are saying. So do you remember Tim Montgomery? [Yes I understand he was juicing] but who do you think about more? You think more about times. I believe back in their times of the names you mentioned we didn't have the internet. This is why now I may be young and never watched Jessie Ownens but 10.3 is pathetic. I ran 10.5 in high school and 10.5 was my max. He has gokd medals at times where I did it in the 11th grade. Leroy Burrel ran a 9.85 personal best in 100m. But wen I see bult semi finals if him letting up at 9.87 makes him irrelevant. Times are much better than gold. Flojo is dead and 10.49 keeps her alive. Times give you immortality. Medals only matter to people before the internet because the mainstrean media controlled the narrative. Again, Asafa Powel never got an Olympic gold or world championship gold but that 9 72 world record is better than Jessie Ownes 10.3 personal best that I ran 2 tenths of a second slower in the 11th grade
@@pound4pound380 I hear you, but I think your actually highlighting why medals may be more important. As you said, 9.85 now is a semi final time so it doesn't seem fast. 10.3 by Jesse Owens is a high school time so its very slow. But why is Jesse Owens remembered? Because of the medals he won back in 1936 in Berlin. Carl Lewis held multiple world records but all of them are "slow" by todays standards. Why is he remembered? He won so many medals and dominated in his era. Flo Jo being remember for the world record of 10.49 is actually a perfect example of why a record does not mean as much. One day someone will break that record and FloJo's name will fade as time goes on. This is exactly what happened to Jim Hines. He broke the 10 second barrier with 9.95 and held that record for almost 15 years! but guess what, By todays standards, that time is extremely "slow" and most don't remember that record. Like you said, we were not alive to see Jesse Owens run 10.3, but back in the 1930s, people thought that was literally the fastest a human could run and it was this magical time. We are biased to the present day (even myself) and its tough to recognize how amazing a performance is in the past. People 100 years from now will think of Usain Bolt's record as "slow" if they are running 8.9s by that point. But the Olympic Gold medal is an accolade that transcends time. Jesse Owens, Carl Lewis, Usain Bolt, etc. They all won gold regardless of the time they ran. But I can understand both sides to be honest. There is a lot of nuance and preference for sure!
@TheFinalLeg Jessie Ownens is remembered but like why? If he ran a 10.3 with all those medals and I did two tenths slower than him at 17, its kinda hard to respect that. Bolt, Gay, Blake Powell, Gatlin and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, many more in the 9.7 club makes Ownens with all his medals look childish. This is why I love times over medals because they are immortal. Wayde van Niekerk broke a 30 year record of Michael freaking Johnson and guess what we now have to respect him as the 400 God regardless if he's from South Africa and we can't speak their language. Medals only represent who you beat. Times and wold records represent actually and factually how you compare to another sprinter you've never raced. Again my max never got higher than 10.5 in the 11th grade and I'm sorry if an Olympics multi medalist only did 2 tenths of a second faster than me his medals are now a fraud. Are you telling me if I went in a time machine in his race I'd place bronze or silver? That is a complete joke right? I have no business claiming that. Thus is why Micheal Johnson say Bolt is his idol. It's nit about age a medals it's about an athlete understanding another athlete is simply more superior. Blake ran 19.26. Guess what? He got no medal for it but are you telling me some how 2024 Olympic champion has more glory than a 19.26? No! Measurements and time is what makes track and field show you who the GOAT is
@TheFinalLeg think about for a second. Hypothetically you run a 9.57 and broke Bolts record but you did it one time on some random freak of nature shit but a guy is claiming he has golds but never race you ever but is claiming he is the GOAT at 10.3. You see how silly that is in track and field. Same timhing goes for field events. It just doesn't make sense to ignore measurements and times
Of that 4 asafa would be the top athlete every time, none of those compare to asafa. Why also then compare asafa with bolt having named those 4. Your brain is getting twisted bro. But for the record bolt with anyone will be the top athlete. Bolt , asafa maurice green they would be the top athletes, its about the performances and long career span that what fans see and renenber .
After 50 years, if someone told me they won the Olympics in 2000, I’d say well done, what did you run? But if you say that you ran the fastest in history, it carries more weight.
At this point, breaking 9.58 is way more impressive than a olympic gold medal.
Fax
I think we'd have to ask former WR holders and Olympic champions this question.
Donovan Bailey himself said in a documentary that he'd prefer an Olympic gold over WR.
He said a world record can come and go, because somone will take it from you. The Olympic gold medal stays with you forever assuming no failed drugs tests.
Even after you're gone. You won't forever be a WR holder. You'll eventually become a former WR holder. But with an Olympic Gold or any medal for that matter.
You'll hold the title of having that tell the end of time itself.
I keep remembering FLO JO BECAUSE OF HER WORLD RECORDS IN THE 100 AND 200. they literally have to mention her name for almost EVERY 100M OR 200M race. Cause that's the mark that everyone has to run and catch. I don't know who won gold in the woman olympics b4 1988 or the olympics after 1988
@@krisannthompson After her records go down, you'll no longer hear her name as often.
@@ndokwanwoko8019 it won't b broken in this lifetime
In the 100m dash, the question comes down to "Do you prefer being the fastest in history, or being the best competitor in the greatest, most prestigious track and field event, which occurs only every four years?". For me personally, the former sounds more attractive.
So you would prefer to be Leroy Burrell or Calvin Smith rather than Justin Gatlin or Noah Lyles?
@@TheFinalLeg Yes indeed, thank you very much. Nobody can take away a medal, but nobody can take away the title "former WR holder" either. In the 100m dash, that's something!
@@TheFinalLegGatlin/Lyes! Outside of the track niche nobody knows Leroy or Calvin let alone their records.
@@TheFinalLegI honestly don't care about the medals but the performance. Take this years 100m final i. Olympics. It was so close with Thompson and Lyles it basically was a tie. When Bolt did it in his second Olympics at 9.63 he was the clear winner against the best the world has ever seen. I'd take 9.58 once in a regular meet over 3 golds because it means I'm the to ever do it. Wayde van Niekerk did a 43.03 in 400m and that record will possibly never be broken in our life time currently reading this and Micheal Johnson is second best. We will remember those two athletes because people research records in track and field because people want to know who the GOATs are. Jacobs from france won the Olympics at 9.8. We saw 9.6 from 3 men and he may matter to his country but not the world and world history
@@distanceman8147that's because their records were broken. I've never seen either of them but kniw there names and times. I want immortality and to be on that all time list. Take Christian Coleman and Fred Kerley for example. They both run 9.7. They are way faster than Jessie Ownes right? Time and measurements can't be argued because Jessie Ownens best bums and he was a bum himself track time wise compared to today's times. You have kids in high school running faster than Jessie Ownens. We live in an area of the internet and can't be told who is great by someone else anymore. We can see who is great. Asafa Powel has no world championship gold or Olympics gold but he as that 9.72 and a former world record title that has to be respected. I respect Sydney McLaughlin over Jessie Ownes. She blows her competition out and breaks er world records. Ownes was only faster than who competed against him and that is how he won medals simply because he was racing against no-one
It’s easier to name every 100m WR holder than to name every 100m Olympic winner.
WR holders are remembered.
There's no blanket answer, depends on the record and the circumstances of the medal. 9.57 +2.0 at 2000m altitude wouldn't be better than winning London 2012, but if someone ran 9.50 with no wind at sea level in a Diamond League I would consider that way more impressive than winning the Olympics in 9.90. "World records don't last forever" is overly simplistic, as long as the athlete doesn't literally disappear at championships everyone will remember someone running 9.50 for a long time, even after it gets broken. Asafa is more known than many gold medalists even!
*disclaimer I'm not saying anyone is going to run 9.50
I generally see your point and think its fair. I should have reiterated there is more nuance since its not a clear one over the other. And its very much preference for sure depending on the circumstances...As I always not just my opinion.
But I'm not sure the idea of "world records dont last forever" is as simplistic as it seems. Thats why I noted Jim Hines who held the WR for 14 years+ . At the time, potentially seen as unbreakable, but it was taken down. I would still argue most current fans do not know Jim Hines despite breaking the 10 second barrier (9.50 is a current time we look at as crazy, but thats a factor of our current time period and can be adjusted at any point, slower in the past, faster in the future). But thats why I brought up the record since 1990 when it was more of the norm to be broken multiple times every 2 years or so. Really throughout history, going back to the 1930s, only 6 guys (Bolt, Lewis, C. Smith, Hines, H. Jerome, H. Davis) held the world record for more than 4 years.
But I think I have to do a better job of historical education since, like I noted in the USA mens 100m video, we tend to have recency bias and overlook historical context (i.e. Powell being more known or popular - well deserving - is a factor of the present). Ralph Metcalf by almost every measure was equal to or better than Asafa but not known (and yes recognizing this is almost 100 years ago, the sport was different, he's no longer alive etc.). But then even someone like Donovan who broke the world record and has all the other medals, yes not 4 world records, but Olympic and world gold, I think gets push down because he did it a longer time ago, and 9.84 isnt looked at as highly as a 9.74 is today. Same with Leroy Burrell.
But I hear the argument on both sides for sure. In general, just a personal take!
A feel the same too. This question kinda seems to lean more to a preference thing. I feel like breaking a WR is more impressive than getting a gold PERIOD!!
Winning an Olympic gold or any major Champs gold is very impressive, but a WR is the best performance for that discipline in the entire history of the recorded Earth.
To be the best to EVER do anything at any point in time is insanely impressive. I do think people would remember a 9.50 more than a couple Olympic Champs.
Especially looking at what's currently true. I feel ANYONE who truly surpasses Usain Bolt will be come very popular just for that fact that they are faster.
@@khumokwezimashapa2245 To your point of Usain Bolt, I think that only works because of Usain Bolt having not only broken the world record, but also winning the medals and being the GOAT. I again go back to Jim Hines and his first ever sub 10 and holding the world record for 14+ years, like Bolt has. Not many people today remember or recognize Calvin Smith for taking down that legendary record because Jim Hines was not a Bolt like figure (he had the world record and olympic Gold) and Calvin Smith didnt have the biggest accolades (only world silver and Olympic Bronze). And to be clear, I mean most current fans, many of us know Calvin is a legend, but just because he broke that world record, his name hasn't lived on or transcended in a way that would parallel your scenario.
@@TheFinalLegThis made me think. I think the line is drawn on how long the record can be held and how absurd the record was/is. For example Beamon is ONLY known to non track people due to his record, not his medal win. Same with Sotomayor and even Mike Powell. Bolt will be the same although he's obviously got all the absurd wins as well. So I'd say I'd rather the world record IF I hold it for more than 20 years. Essentially all record holders longer than that are far better known than one off Olympic Champions. But tbh I'd take either 😅
@@duncanharvey2209 Ok this is actually a point that I can get around to agreeing with. Most people dont know that Marita Koch won Olympic gold in 1980, but no other 400m medals at Worlds/Olympics. But people know her 400m world record.
But there are a few exceptions to the rule. I'm not sure many people are as familiar with JJK for her hep world record as they are for her pure dominance and stardom in the 80s/90s. But I think that comes with athletes who won alot of medals.
Flo Jo, Bob Beamon, Mike Powell they didn't win so many gold medals over the years so their record achievements stand out. (Sotomayor has 3 golds so I guess he wont fit my rule). But in general. I actually agree with you for the most part
Medals > World Records.
Medals are forever. World + Olympic Champions are always remembered.
Is 9.58 a forever? Is 43.03 for ever? Olympics is just another track meet. Times are forever. When one thinks of the Olympic or world championship, they'll research those people but at some point they ultimately want to see who is the best and they'll automatically research and find the times. When then finnd the times and look at the medals of say Jessie Ownens, they'll eventually come to the conclusion that Jessie Ownens isn't great at all. He is just greater than who he ran against 😂
@@pound4pound380no those times aren’t forever
@noah_256. yes they are! You think I'm lying. Flo Jo is dead and no matter who gets gold they are all chasing 10.49. Times and measurements tells us who is better even if the athletes don't compete with each other
@noah_256. again Jessie Ownens has 4 Olympic gold medals and Asafa Powel has none. Do you want 10.3 or 9.72?
@ Shelly Ann is WAY BETTER than Flojo
Putting it into contextt I can relate to. When I graduated high school I had to school record for 5,000 m. And won a few titles. Over 10 years later I no longer have the 5K record but I still have the titles technically so the record has to be considered harder to obtain.
Elaine Thompson is so overlooked man her resume is fantastic
World records over Olympic gold medals all day.
Every one can win gold , not everyone can run WR
@chris-x2v2f exactly my point people only care about gold medals and trophies but nothing else.
Being remembered ≠ ability to run/skill. I feel as though a large part of this argument is asking ' do fans know this person? But is that even answering the actual question?
Shelly-ann Fraser is considered the best women sprinter because of her entire career, not because of the Olympic Medal, she's been consistently on top for a very long period of time, that's why she's the best, but even then she's not considered the fastest ever, that goes to Florence Griffith Joyner, and everyone acknowledge it despite being called a cheater.
In other words the world record if it holds for a long period of time, is more valuable than a gold medal.
Your correct, like I noted, Shelly has won all her medals and golds throughout her career at Olympics and worlds despite not breaking the World record, which brings her to be considered one of if not the best ever. I never mentioned fastest ever, simply greatest of all time. Flo Jo has the record for sure.
But notice on the mens side I brought up Jim Hines who held the 100m world record for 14+ years (only Bolt has held it longer by a few months at this point) and has Olympic gold and broke the WR on 2 occasions, but most people still see his career as less than other names like a Tyson Gay or Noah Lyles.
I do think there is nuance for sure as you lay it out. So just an opinion that will vary based on the circumstances
No one considers Shelly the greatest, (expect Jamaicans) I’d take Felix or Flo Jo 1st. And if you call Flo Jo a cheater i could call Bolt a cheater.
@@thegreatdel9679flo joe world record is wind aided and allyson felix has mostly relay medal, so shut the hell up.
I wouldn't compare Bolt and Flo. Bolt is way younger and from a different era with a lot of controversy. Nevertheless we should respect both records. Otherwise we end up not trusting any record @thegreatdel9679
@@thegreatdel9679 Flo Jo's 100m world record was wind aided to say the least.. and in terms of career overall no woman comes close to shelly ann, she has more individual golds from 1 event (100m) than Felix and Flo Jo have over multiple events and has run super fast times on so many occasions. One doesn't need to be Jamaican to appreciate her talent
Medals over records. You can have mulitple medals for one event. However, you can only have one record for one event at a time. Bolt said he loves his WRs, but prefers his medals. In 2008, he stated the gold was the focus, not the record. Winning/titles is always the goal, ask the shoe kit sponsors who pay the athletes. Records are just a bonus.
Also, good ranking Emerole. Pretty much the order I have. I think people forget Donovan's accomplishments from 1995-1997 so he tends to be overlooked. Ironically he's on the new episode of Asafa Powell's podcast.
Medals all day no debate
Me personally , I would rather be proud to be the world record holder in the 100m dash ,then being a gold medallist at the olympic games for simple reasons. Being yhe WR holder, People will literally view you as the fastest person of all time over 100 , faster then any human being in existance on this planet basically. If you know me , I watch more basketball and soccer than track and field. But If you told me what impresses me the most about Usain bolt , it would most likely be his WR of 9.58 then his olympic medals.The medals are just there to back up your achievements over other athletes, but no one will remember them. People will always remember Usain bolt's 9.58 WR achieving the fastest speed ever recorded by a human being 44.72km /h of 27.80 mph , so please sir think about it for a sec 👌🏾. Guys like Asafa powell and Yohan blake are more popular then many gold medallist , lol 🤦🏿♂️.
I believe Olympics medals are more important than records. Justin Gatlin is by far the most decorated of the group.
A great comparison for this problem of records vs gold medals is Mo Farah vs Paul Tergat. Tergat has 10,000m, half marathon and marathon world records and Mo has no major distance records. Tergat is also faster at every distance from 3000m all the way up to the marathon. But Farah has 4 Olympic golds to Tergat's 2 silvers. And Farah has 6 world championship golds and 2 silvers to Tergat's 2 silvers and a bronze. Although Farah is more recent and slower it's hard to argue he isn't the greater athlete of the two.
For me it depends. For example Powell has a best of 9.72, Gatlin has a best of 9.74. Powell ran multiple 9.77s & a 9.74 that at the time were considered world records, sure, but I feel like Powell & Gatlin both ran in the 9.7s roughly the same amount of times. So time wise they're pretty equal (4th & 5th ever in the event). Gatlin however produced better performances when it counts so his overall resume a lot of people (including myself) consider better than Powell's.
As a separate example what if we compared Tyson Gay to Lamont Marcell Jacobs or to Andre De Grasse. Andre has a 9.89 PB, LMJ 9.80, Tyson Gay 9.69. Not only that, but Tyson has multiple sub-9.8 performances vs 0 (not including wind aided) sub-9.8s by Andre & LMJ. LMJ Jacobs 9.80 2021 1st place is equally as impressive as Tyson Gay's 9.80 2012 4th place. They're both at an Olympic final, neither of them buckled under the pressure, they both ran a very fast 9.80, but got different results. Both 9.80s were more impressive than Andre's 9.89 Bronze medal (I think it was Bronze?) in 2016. I'm Canadian so I love Andre De Grasse, one of the few top level sprinters I've had the chance to see compete live, but if we're talking purely the 100m he's nowhere near Tyson Gay's caliber.
I add some status to repeating something, like multiple medals in a row even if not the fastest is impressive. Though I'd say overall fast times for many years is equally or more impressive than multiple medals. Especially if times are calculated to 0 wind/0 elevation. Looking at an athlete's say top 3~5 performances in a year calculated to fair comparisons for me is the gold standard for who is better than who.
TLDR: I guess my opinion is that overall times matter more than either WRs or medals. I see Powell's 9.74 & Gatlin's 9.74 as equally impressive (maybe Powell's a bit more as he slowed down a tad at the end) even though 1 was a WR & 1 was not. Similarly Tyson Gay's 9.80 4th place & London & LMJ's 1st place in Tokyo are equally impressive, both an Olympic final, both 9.80.
The argument of medals over performances is legitimate and everyone has there own perspective. Mine is best understood from the following example. The Dodgers just won the World Series, an event equivalent to the Olympics in that the worlds greatest baseball players are competing. Freddy Freeman turned in one of the greatest performances in World Series history and was named series MVP, while Ohtani, and Judge, two of the games greatest players, played rather poorly. Most people would not put Freeman ahead of Ohtani or Judge when rating their greatest, just because he was amazing in the World Series. I think over all performances based on times are more important than medals.
Thats a fair take and appreciate that comparison. The slight issue I have with Track to Baseball (which I dont follow to please do educate me) is the team sport to individual sport comparison. I think because track is an individual sport, its easier to criticize an athlete for not not performing at the Olympics, worlds, or biggest stage, because its 100% up to you. In team sports, there is an element of an athlete carrying a team, but they cannot win the game on their own.
In general there is nuance and of course preference, but because of the nature of our sport I think medals holds more weight. But again, very much understand the nuance!
I wonder why people say "no one can take the medal from you", you're litterally sure to lose the title on the following events, on the other hand you never know when a WR is gonna be beaten
With a world record your name will forever be mentioned b4 every race that u hold the world record in. Marita kotch , flo jo, usain bolt. Wayne van niekerk and we also remember Michael johnson bcuz he was once a world record holder
as Linford Christie said 'records are made to be brroken, medals last forever'
I always enjoy your videos. Records will continue to be broken as humanity evolves. Records are temporary... Titles are forever. Keep up the great content! #TeamUSA
Evelyn Ashford is the greatest woman 100m runner. She set the WR twice, and she was clean!
A gold medal is being the fastest in an individual race compared to 4 years of sprinters. A world record is being faster than anyone that has ever existed in tens of thousands of races. For me it's not even vaguely close, if we're just comparing those two, the WR is significantly more impressive. If someone were to beat Bolt's 9.58, I'd consider than more impressive than a 100m/200m gold double for 3 Olympics in a row tbh.
Edit: I could agree pre-Bolt Olympic Gold > WR in the 100m. There are exceptions, ben Johnson breaking 9.8 before anyone else broke 9.9 is way more impressive than any of Carl Lewis' golds. Aside from that example though generally Gold > WR sure. If we're talking Bolt though, even winning 4 Olympics in a row in say 9.8x wouldn't compare to running a 9.57 one time. That record is inhuman & it'll last 50 years.
Even if the world record last forerver it still not match winning a Olympic gold medal.
It's tough cause fast times and medals should compliment each other, medals alone do not make you great. If you lack consistency, longevity and fast times, you are seen as a one time thing, you had a cool moment but yeah. If you have very fast times but can't translate them into medals, you are seen as a choker and a dissapointment. I think if you win a gold medal and don't do anything else you are more remembered than someone that broke a world record once and didn't do anything else, but these aren't great scenarios. If a world record is legendary and stands for a very long time that is 100% more remembered than any gold medal. Case in point, people revering Flojo because of her wind aided world record, in truth her still extraordinary 10.61 stood until Elaine's 10.54 for over 30 years. She had only one good season (it was arguably the greatest in history but it was ONE), yet people put her in greatest female sprinter of all time conversations and will forever remember her name
It depends on the era, the level of the event, the competition you faced. In 2024 for example there was a lot of competition, many people were around 9.80 which is solid, many in the Olympic final broke 9.90, but we have been around 9.80 since 2016, and the top 3 of 2012 was faster. If you exclude the extraordinary Bolt generation with himself, Gatlin, Gay, Blake, Powell and others such as Carter, even Lemaitre, you had a french white dude winning international medals and going 19.80. We haven't really advanced much since Maurice Green, that's over 20 years. The world record would be just 0.03 faster, set in 2019 and tied several times these last 5 years. That matters, is it worth more to win in a weaker era than to break a world record in a very fast era? Noah Lyles isn't even a 100 meter guy, he was extremely clutch there, but he is the 11th fastest guy over the last 15 years, that's our Olympic champion
After 50 years, if someone told me they won the Olympics in 2000, I’d say well done, what did you run?
But if you say that you ran the fastest in history, it carries more weight.
Jim Hines ran his time at altitude. That's 2250 m asl... That's why it stood for so long.
The only way you know if you were great is if you beat everyone in history.
You can win a medal just by being the best on the day
Its best to have both which is why Most world records are set at major championships cz it has more impact that way.. if you set a WR at some random meet and then lose in major championships it kinda taints your legacy eg Asafa Powell has lots of fast times and had the WR at some point but he's also known as somewhat of a choker under pressure due to his lack of gold medals in major championships..
IMO Medals mean more cz they are forever (unless you get busted for doping 😂) and it's not like gold medals are won in pedestrian time, you have to run a fast time to get one..I'd rather have a season with 9.6 performances and a gold medal than a single world record performance at some random meet
You make some great points, its always medals over time
Running is about time
Ultimately it’s about winning otherwise they would just have time trials and not race each other.
I will admit, there is more nuance than I noted in the video. But in general yes, I lean medals over time. Especially how our sport is structured with the Olympics (and Worlds) being the pinnacle of the sport. I dont think certain athletes (Leroy Burrell, Calvin Smith etc.) get as much recognition they deserve because they didn't win gold. Also Asafa Powell, though gets a lot of recognition for what he did, especially being the driver for the resurgence of Jamaican sprinting, but gets a lot of criticism for not winning when it counted the most. But yea understanding there is nuance, I lean towards medals holding more weight over world records.
Medals all day! Get the job done, they’ll remember you for that. You run to win.
Both matter but the Olympic is the best of the best. You’re written in history once you get that. Those names live on forever, Jesse Owens. You become apart of history
People who break world records are also written in history.
@ until it’s broken by someone else than you’re erase
@@thegreatdel9679 Lmao no. It’s easier to name all previous WR holders than to name all previous Olympic champions.
@ in No sport in the world not 1 does an athlete get a trophy, medal, championship, or anything for a WR. Track is the only sport that puts so much emphasis on WRs & that exactly why outside of the Olympics track gets forgotten. Medals & championships should be focused. With fans like you guys I see why the sport is stagnant
@ Lmao what a load of horse shit. Fans like you put so much emphasis on Olympics, nothing else can live up to the Olympic hype. That’s why competitions outside of olympics don’t mean shit. A WR can make a regular meet legendary.
Athletics is about as pure as it gets. It’s pure performance and records go into record books and into all time lists.
Athletes always want to produce their best performances. Sometimes, their best is enough to win an Olympic gold medal or break a world record - or both at the same time.
This is very true. The goal is your best performance, which can mean different things. Best performance can be your best execution on a single day but maybe not your fastest time. Best performance can be your fastest time, but not the best execution. Best performance can be fastest time and best execution on a single day and the biggest moment. Tons of nuance for sure.
Bolt's 100 definitely lasting as long as any of us are alive
Justin! Unless you’re Bolt!
Out of the guys you have mentioned. YOHAN BLAKE even in the shadow of Bolt had better careers than them and it's sad that he gets look past in these articles. Also you guys never make it clear that Tyson is joint with Blake for 2nd fastest all time. Blake has 4 olympic gold medals, 2 of which is individual, 2 silvers so that's a total of 6 olympic medals and 2 world champion gold not to mention the youngest ever to.win gold there. He is second only to bolt in the short distance all time. I hope you left him out because u also like myself consider him like Bolt in a league of their own.
Blake has 4 Olympic medals total; 2 golds, 2 silvers: and he has 2 WC medals total; 2 golds.
it's crazy how people put Powell over Gatlin, in my opinion Gatlin is the fifth greatest 100m sprinter behind Bolt, Lewis, Greene and Linford Christie
U sniffing something bro lol
@ are you, who's your top 5?
The best scenario would be to win. Olympic medal and set a world record but if I have to pick one I would say olympic gold medal over world record. Even though people don't know who Jim Hines, is, he did both.
Also, Donovan Bailey and Usain Bolt.
@kandiekane. i mentioned Jim Hines cause in the video.He said no one knew who he was.
Bolt when asked preferred an Olympic gold medal 🥇 over a world record ⏺️
1 WR outweighs 1 Olympic medal. The WR tells me you were at the pinnacle of the sport. Whereas with the Olympics, it’s every 4 years… the best rivals could have been ageing out when you won. People could have b n injured etc. we just don’t know. The only way medals outweigh world records is when you kept winning at the top of your sport for 5 to 10 years. Do that, and it means you saw and defeated everyone you could have. No. Excuses as you back up the wins. And to win over a decade means more than likely you were close to historical times even if you didn’t break the WR.
1 to 1, if I was told I could either have a WR or an Olympics gold, I’d take the WR.
But if the choice is between lowering the WR 3 times and 3 Olympics golds… I’m taking the Olympic medals
So in summary Usain Bolt is still the greatest. Whether the world record is greater than the gold medal or vice versa
90% of all gold medalist arent remembered, the fans will remember a triple double medalist forever, an athlete who consistently won races all over the world for a decade are never forgotten even if they dont win a medal, i am dissappointed you didnt mention asafas 97 sub 10 clockings, thats an achievement fans remember, some things are much simpler, and really the fans perspective really not a science quiz, outside of americans nobody cares about gatlins gold medal, or even montgomerys world records.
Justin Gatlin, because he preformed at both Olympic and World Championships, eventhou Asafa and Tyson Gay was faster
the greats get both!!!!
Good point!
Just a quick fact. There are way way more American fans than Jamaicans. So don't. Lol. But I agree, olympic gold is a bigger deal.
Flo Jo is still the greatest of all time
I'll make this very simple. The record of any event is way more prestigious than any medal. To me that put you on God status because their is no doubt you are the best ever. That also gives you more publicity after your career is over. If you look at Micheal Phelps and Usain Bolt for example. They've been stop competing but still get endorsements deals and appearances. Sydney McGloflin is another example. When advertisers pay her it is the best when she advertises thier products
I hear you but I'm not sure your point on endorsements and appearances holds up. Phelps, Bolt, Sydney are all gold medalists.
A better example is does Leroy Burrell get more endorsements than Justin Gatlin?
@TheFinalLeg I understand what you are saying. So do you remember Tim Montgomery? [Yes I understand he was juicing] but who do you think about more? You think more about times. I believe back in their times of the names you mentioned we didn't have the internet. This is why now I may be young and never watched Jessie Ownens but 10.3 is pathetic. I ran 10.5 in high school and 10.5 was my max. He has gokd medals at times where I did it in the 11th grade. Leroy Burrel ran a 9.85 personal best in 100m. But wen I see bult semi finals if him letting up at 9.87 makes him irrelevant. Times are much better than gold. Flojo is dead and 10.49 keeps her alive. Times give you immortality. Medals only matter to people before the internet because the mainstrean media controlled the narrative. Again, Asafa Powel never got an Olympic gold or world championship gold but that 9 72 world record is better than Jessie Ownes 10.3 personal best that I ran 2 tenths of a second slower in the 11th grade
@@pound4pound380 I hear you, but I think your actually highlighting why medals may be more important. As you said, 9.85 now is a semi final time so it doesn't seem fast. 10.3 by Jesse Owens is a high school time so its very slow. But why is Jesse Owens remembered? Because of the medals he won back in 1936 in Berlin. Carl Lewis held multiple world records but all of them are "slow" by todays standards. Why is he remembered? He won so many medals and dominated in his era.
Flo Jo being remember for the world record of 10.49 is actually a perfect example of why a record does not mean as much. One day someone will break that record and FloJo's name will fade as time goes on. This is exactly what happened to Jim Hines. He broke the 10 second barrier with 9.95 and held that record for almost 15 years! but guess what, By todays standards, that time is extremely "slow" and most don't remember that record. Like you said, we were not alive to see Jesse Owens run 10.3, but back in the 1930s, people thought that was literally the fastest a human could run and it was this magical time.
We are biased to the present day (even myself) and its tough to recognize how amazing a performance is in the past. People 100 years from now will think of Usain Bolt's record as "slow" if they are running 8.9s by that point. But the Olympic Gold medal is an accolade that transcends time. Jesse Owens, Carl Lewis, Usain Bolt, etc. They all won gold regardless of the time they ran.
But I can understand both sides to be honest. There is a lot of nuance and preference for sure!
@TheFinalLeg Jessie Ownens is remembered but like why? If he ran a 10.3 with all those medals and I did two tenths slower than him at 17, its kinda hard to respect that. Bolt, Gay, Blake Powell, Gatlin and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, many more in the 9.7 club makes Ownens with all his medals look childish. This is why I love times over medals because they are immortal. Wayde van Niekerk broke a 30 year record of Michael freaking Johnson and guess what we now have to respect him as the 400 God regardless if he's from South Africa and we can't speak their language. Medals only represent who you beat. Times and wold records represent actually and factually how you compare to another sprinter you've never raced. Again my max never got higher than 10.5 in the 11th grade and I'm sorry if an Olympics multi medalist only did 2 tenths of a second faster than me his medals are now a fraud. Are you telling me if I went in a time machine in his race I'd place bronze or silver? That is a complete joke right? I have no business claiming that. Thus is why Micheal Johnson say Bolt is his idol. It's nit about age a medals it's about an athlete understanding another athlete is simply more superior. Blake ran 19.26. Guess what? He got no medal for it but are you telling me some how 2024 Olympic champion has more glory than a 19.26? No! Measurements and time is what makes track and field show you who the GOAT is
@TheFinalLeg think about for a second. Hypothetically you run a 9.57 and broke Bolts record but you did it one time on some random freak of nature shit but a guy is claiming he has golds but never race you ever but is claiming he is the GOAT at 10.3. You see how silly that is in track and field. Same timhing goes for field events. It just doesn't make sense to ignore measurements and times
Justin Caitlin name must not call he is a drug runner
Of that 4 asafa would be the top athlete every time, none of those compare to asafa.
Why also then compare asafa with bolt having named those 4. Your brain is getting twisted bro. But for the record bolt with anyone will be the top athlete.
Bolt , asafa maurice green they would be the top athletes, its about the performances and long career span that what fans see and renenber .
Gatlin clears
world record
Nobody going to remember your wr after some one breaks it. Medals and writing your name into history is forever
False.
After 50 years, if someone told me they won the Olympics in 2000, I’d say well done, what did you run?
But if you say that you ran the fastest in history, it carries more weight.
So in summary Usain Bolt is still the greatest. Whether the world record is greater than the gold medal or vice versa