Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I do not mean to trivialize a gold medal. A gold medal is the greatest thing one can achieve in the sport of their choice. I am just wondering what all of you think the most important gold medal one can have.

Such as, a water polo medal or a wrestling one?
or a basketball gold or the 100 meters.

grizzaholic wrote:I do not mean to trivialize a gold medal. A gold medal is the greatest thing one can achieve in the sport of their choice. I am just wondering what all of you think the most important gold medal one can have.

Such as, a water polo medal or a wrestling one?
or a basketball gold or the 100 meters.

An Olympic gold medal is the highest honor a wrestler can achieve, that probably applies to many sports, but probably not the 4 major sports - basketball, baseball, hockey and football.

For example, I would think most baseball players would rather win a World Series title than an Olympic gold medal. Some NBA players would rather rest in the off season than play in the Olympics.

All y'all make some good points. For me, it depends on your perspective, i.e. which sport type (individual vs. team) you came up in. For me, having come up with football and track, it really doesn't matter. Gold is gold is gold.

I will, however, differentiate between an individual event and an all-around event. I would place the decathlon/heptathlon gold over the 100m because the winner is more of an all-around athlete. The same would go for the all-around event in gymnastics. That's why I've always liked multi-position players in football. I'll put Danny White over Joe Montana because White punted. I would put Paul Hornung over Emmit Smith (ouch, that hurts) because he punted, too. I'll take Lou Groza over any 300-lb tackle because he place-kicked. I know that we're in a specialization era in football, but multi-position players give one a lot more flexibility than having all specialized players.

BTW, the anti-American sentiment vis-a-vis softball and baseball just went by the boards. We've only won ONE gold the entire time baseball has been a part of the Olympics (Cuba has won the others), and we just LOST the softball gold to Cuba 3-1. So anyone claiming that the sports don't deserve to be in the Olympics strictly because they're supposedly dominated by the USA had better shut up. It's not true anymore. Heck, by that argument, hoops would have been gone before the bogus CCCP "win" in 1972.

The only reason I asked was I was watching some replays early this morning before I went for a run and they were showing some of the 15m air pistol, some bow and arrow, ping pong, and badmitten. I just thought a Gold medal in 15m air pistol doesn't have the same pull as a 100m Gold or even a basketball Gold. Maybe not, I mean it probably depends on the individual. IF I spent my life dedicated to shooting pistols it might mean the greatest thing ever to me and all of the other games at the olympics could be meaningless.

Even within the individual/team argument, a trap gold is going to be better than an air pistol gold. Heck, a modern pentathlon gold is going to be better than ANY shooting gold since there are more events involved (see the decathlon argument). But I WILL grant you that the 100m IS going to take down any individual shooting gold in almost ANYONE's mind. In addition, any TENNIS medal is going to trump a ping pong or badminton (yes, that's the correct spelling) medal. The court is bigger, therefore, one must be more of an athlete to score big. Heck, I wouldn't even count ping pong as a sport at all. May as well put in ballroom dancing as was speculated some years back.

(Well, that wouldn't be such a bad deal if the immortal Stacy Keibler won gold for USA. )

After I typed the badminton word, I thought about it and knew it was wrong and being in the same thread as you, you would take it upon yourself to correct me. Thank you

grizzaholic wrote:The only reason I asked was I was watching some replays early this morning before I went for a run and they were showing some of the 15m air pistol, some bow and arrow, ping pong, and badmitten. I just thought a Gold medal in 15m air pistol doesn't have the same pull as a 100m Gold or even a basketball Gold. Maybe not, I mean it probably depends on the individual. IF I spent my life dedicated to shooting pistols it might mean the greatest thing ever to me and all of the other games at the olympics could be meaningless.

I agree. I think that definitely depends on what country you are from. For example, there are some countries where badminton is a big deal, I imagine that winning the gold in badminton is one of the best sports accomplishments someone from that country can acheive. If an American won a badminton we probably wouldn't care as much.

I think it's got to be hockey.

I would say for team events it has to be Men's Hockey because aside from soccer its the most widely played team sport in the world, so winning is a real accomplishment. With baseball and basketball there are very few good teams. For instance, between the 1998, 2002 and 2006 games the gold medal hockey game featured 6 different teams.

If not for the World Cup, Soccer probably would top the list.

For individuals I have no idea.

UNHWildCats wrote:Mens ice dancing.

FIFY

SuperHornet wrote:That's why I've always liked multi-position players in football. I'll put Danny White over Joe Montana because White punted. I would put Paul Hornung over Emmit Smith (ouch, that hurts) because he punted, too. I'll take Lou Groza over any 300-lb tackle because he place-kicked. I know that we're in a specialization era in football, but multi-position players give one a lot more flexibility than having all specialized players.

Any examples of players you like who weren't kickers?
(Mike Furrey perhaps, since he has played both WR and DB)

And what is your opinion on running/mobile QBs vs. pocket passers? That is in some ways, playing both runningback and QB. (or perhaps you only like them if they also do the occasional quick kick. )

UNHWildCats wrote:I would say for team events it has to be Men's Hockey because aside from soccer its the most widely played team sport in the world

I have to kind of doubt that ice hockey is the 2nd-most widely played team sport in the world. Though I'm not sure which sport would be.

JayJ79 wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:I would say for team events it has to be Men's Hockey because aside from soccer its the most widely played team sport in the world

I have to kind of doubt that ice hockey is the 2nd-most widely played team sport in the world. Though I'm not sure which sport would be.

Maybe baseball.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JayJ79 wrote:
I have to kind of doubt that ice hockey is the 2nd-most widely played team sport in the world. Though I'm not sure which sport would be.

Maybe baseball.

I wonder how rugby would rank.
And I actually don't even know how one would measure how widely played a sport is.

JayJ79 wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:I would say for team events it has to be Men's Hockey because aside from soccer its the most widely played team sport in the world

I have to kind of doubt that ice hockey is the 2nd-most widely played team sport in the world. Though I'm not sure which sport would be.

ok I should have been cleared, I meant widely played competitivly and in terms of widely player I mean counties having national teams, not total players.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JayJ79 wrote:
I have to kind of doubt that ice hockey is the 2nd-most widely played team sport in the world. Though I'm not sure which sport would be.

Maybe baseball.

in terms of total players yes, but in terms of quality national teams... doubtful...

It depends on the country.

For the US, I think the basketball gold medal is the most important medal. That is our sport, and we have always proclaimed dominance in it. That medal should always be ours.

UNHWildCats wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Maybe baseball.

in terms of total players yes, but in terms of quality national teams... doubtful...

That wasn't the question. The question was which sport is more widely played. I think more people play baseball.

basketball is more of a global sport than hockey.

DJH wrote:basketball is more of a global sport than hockey.

Agreed. I'm not sure that hockey ranks ahead of cricket.

BlueHen86 wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: in terms of total players yes, but in terms of quality national teams... doubtful...

That wasn't the question. The question was which sport is more widely played. I think more people play baseball.

i made the fucking comment that started the argument about it so I can define what the fuck i meant by widely played.. so fuck it bitch.

JayJ79 wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:That's why I've always liked multi-position players in football. I'll put Danny White over Joe Montana because White punted. I would put Paul Hornung over Emmit Smith (ouch, that hurts) because he punted, too. I'll take Lou Groza over any 300-lb tackle because he place-kicked. I know that we're in a specialization era in football, but multi-position players give one a lot more flexibility than having all specialized players.

Any examples of players you like who weren't kickers?
(Mike Furrey perhaps, since he has played both WR and DB)

And what is your opinion on running/mobile QBs vs. pocket passers? That is in some ways, playing both runningback and QB. (or perhaps you only like them if they also do the occasional quick kick. )

1. Not familiar with Mike Furrey, but that's a good example. Bob Waterfield is mostly famous for being QB-K, but he was also judged to have done the best cover job ever on Packer HOF WR Don Hutson. (Naysayers, though, note that Hutson was at the end of his career at the time.) Chuck Bednarik is another two-way guy who comes to mind rather quickly (C-LB).

2. Back in the day, running backs were prized if they were triple threats; that is, in addition to running and kicking, they could also throw. Frank Gifford was probably one of the last true triple threat running backs, at least until he was literally knocked into next week. (LOL.) As far as playing the position of quarterback, I prefer a QUARTERBACK vice today's SIGNAL CALLER. To me, you can't trust a guy to adequately call an audible if you can't trust him to call his own plays ON HIS OWN (barring certain special situations, maybe) consistent with the OC's philosophy and the game plan. I'm absolutely SICK of quarterbacks getting credit for doing nearly NOTHING. I realize that the game has become immensely complex, so perhaps it's time to scale offenses back. For playing style, I do like a mobile player. I like rolls, waggles (yes, they look similar but they're technically different), and option. I like to see the "goose" play. I like the QB draw and the old Pop Warner QB sweep. I even like to see toss throwback on occasion. To me, plays like those are more fan-friendly than even the Al Davis bombs-away offense.

3. Back to the triple-threat running back. On most teams, the defense can tee off on the QB because he's the only guy who can throw. If he extends the ball to a back, unless they're running play action, he's just told the defense what he's doing: a running play. If one or two RBs can reliably throw, all of that teeing off goes out the window. The same thing with kicking (as I'm sure you've seen in some of my other threads).

I guess the whole thing boils down to having fun. The more people you have that can do cr@zy things on the football field, the more fun the players will have doing them and the more fun fans will have doing it. You can only run the FB Dive or the Jerry Rice Slant so many times before people gag.