Khan's silver or Degale's gold, which was better?

But still ****. The Premiership and Divsion One don't compare. All Olympic medals do. It's like saying the runner-up of this year's Prem is a better achievement than Liverpool winning it in 1984 when second place were Southampton.

 

:good

 

mayweather and rjj were as arrogant after winning their medals.

 

heres one Degale goes to 2012 and turns pro straight after ands still wins a a legit strap before khan? :good

 

Here's one: Whats the greater achievement:
Winning an Olympic final against someone who is good enough to qualify for it or losing to someone who is good enough to get to an olympic final.
Ok, Kindelan was superior to Correa but that doesn't take away from Degales Gold. Khan didn't win his silver medal when he got beat by Kindelan he lost out on the gold. He won his silver medal when he won his semi final. and at the end of the day, that was his achievement, winning a semi final.

 

That's the thing, why is Kindelan an issue here? He lost to him, just like, say, Ziggy Pietrzykowski lost to Clay in 1960. Only the fighters they beat should be the debate.



ps. We can probably rank Pietroykowski's silver ahead of Frazier and Foreman's golds then too.

 

the fact than khan was a year younger than any of the 8 guys we sent to beijing was an achievment in its self.

 

Yes a great achievement for a young lad.

 

the shitness or not of the analogy doesnt matter. the simple point is that competition/opponents, when ranking an achievement, does matter. which is why it's perfectly fair for someone to say khans achievement is equal or better.

the colour of the medal shouldnt really be a factor. a gold is a gold etc, just like usain bolts gold is the same as someone winning gold in a minority sport like water polo.

 

im not trying to take away from degales gold, just making the point that just because khan didnt win gold, doesnt mean that degales achievement was neccesarily greater.

 

i just had a thought. male muslim aren't supposed to wear gold which is why most "bling" worn by muslim kids is silver.

i believe that is the real reason khan allowed himself to be beaten into second place at the olympics

 

that was the thread title, if you read the opening post he clearly means what was the better achievement. just asking if a gold is better than silver is a pointless question.

 

They're two separate sports and Bolt's gold come against much better competition- of course I agree there. But Khan's and DeGale's came in the same sport so if you're going to compare try to stick to that, like I did with Thompson's silver and Carl Lewis's gold. Remember, same sport.

 

kurts analogy is a good one me thinks.

 

i dont have to stick to the same sport for a comparison to try and prove the general point of level of competition/opponent matters when ranking an achievement. it doesnt really matter, the principal is the same be it same sport or differing sports.

degale won gold in a division that was wide open with no real outstanding kindelan level fighter in it. from the outset degale had a much much better chance at gold than khan did because of that. that has to be taken into account when ranking the two achievements relatively.