What's more impressive, setting or breaking a record?

Thats a tough question, I never thought about that, but I would have to go with Breaking a record because when you set a record that doesnt exist there is no pressure.

But when somone like Cy Young wins an astronomical number of games, isn't there recognition that he's breaking whatever record book wide open to the point of being under pressure?

Originally posted by plunge
But when somone like Cy Young wins an astronomical number of games, isn't there recognition that he's breaking whatever record book wide open to the point of being under pressure?

Your right but I would think setting a record is still easier, I mean Mantle lost all his hair from stress when going after 61 and Big Mac and Sosa were pressing big time in that fabolous HR Chase!!
When you are that much better then everyone else like Cy Young was whats there to worry about?? You know you've got the record 'cuz it doesn't exist!! JMO

So it sounds like you're saying it's not only breaking a record but handling and dealing with all the pressure that comes with breaking a record.

Which sport has the least pressure to break a record? I may be able to answer my own question: Arena Football

Originally posted by plunge
Which sport has the least pressure to break a record? I may be able to answer my own question: Arena Football

CFL or NFL Europe also, I mean besides Fluties who plays in those leagues!! lol

Possibly soccer in this country, even indoor football.

Setting a record is the impressive part (as long as it's an impressive record). Records are made to be broken while setting a record is doing something never been done before.

I think the whole craze about records--I'm talking baseball here--and statistics all started I think in the seventies or early eighties thanks to Bill James. I'm sure records were being made and broken that weren't even noticed back then (i.e., slugging percentage and now pitch count).

well if say you set the record of most points in a game ... arent you breaking the record too?

True, it's always a comparison to others, current and past.

o ok

I'd say both are equally great. In order to set a record, you'd have to be the first to do whatever it is in the first place. To break it, you simply need to do more than the people before you. Both can be big accomplishments, however, a record for the most hours staring at your computer screen isn't as impressive as the most HR's.

Sounds like one of those Which came first the chicken or the egg type questions. I mean you can't have one without the other and strong arguments can be made for both!!

I think setting a record is more impressive, but it all depends how long the record had been standing. Ex: Babe Ruth's Home run record stood for a very long time

Yeah, I think when setting a record you never know how long it will stand. Some you can tell it'll take awhile and some are surprises. I prefer the surprises. :)

Setting and breaking a record is basically the same because the whenever some breaks a record you have to realize that when you go back to say the first home run, that guy broke the previous record of 0 which was a shared record so i think they are the same

i hink setting a recor is more inportant

i would have to go with breaking because its proably alot harder to break a record then to set one.

ya but look at this taken from goirish48 with the whole ruth record. These days there are longer seasons and muscle enhancers and other (steriods etc). Ruth did it without those luxeries. even maris needed an extra number of games to beat ruths record.

Jerry Rice took 19 years to set all the receiving records -- and this is extremely impressive.

Assuming Randy Moss has the desire and passion to play football for about 16-17 years total, he will break all of Rice's records, in the regular season. I think this is still extremely impressive, if it does happen.

My guess is: Randy "I play when I wanna play" Moss won't get to Rice's records