Charlotte Dujardin won 3 gold medals in dressage. That's pretty impressive.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I think Phelp's dominance is pretty impressive too.

Four Olympics, Medley and an individual event of two different lengths is somehow less of an athletic accomplishment then winning a single race of a single distance over three Olympics?

~Matt

I think you could make a strong case that it is, or at least that he is the most special athlete ever. The pool of potential competitors in the 100M is huge...from the time kids are in primary school the fast sprinters are identified and steered towards athletics. Compare that to swimming or even more cycling where you have a limited number of kids that ever take it up far enough to determine if they have talent or not. And it is a very basic skill...anyone can go out and see how fast they can run 100M. He is faster than anyone ever, and not by a little bit but completely dominant. Bolt seems to win without even trying, and it seems as if every race everyone else is running for second.

I think the 100m is seen as the gold standard for athletic accomplishments because nearly everyone on the planet has been exposed to sprinting at one point or another, the sport has a very low barrier to entry as opposed to swimming, and thus the pool of athletes you have to be better then to be champ is much larger. Everyone can relate to the 100m sprint.

Swimming the 200IM might as well be gymnastics. For most, it's an impossible, highly specialized undertaking.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

There are lots of great Olympic 1 time records that have not been broken in a long time,

- Bob Beamon's long jump (1968)
- Chistyakova in women's long jump (1988)
- Marita Koch in 400m
- Flo Jo in 200m

However, most individual records will likely be beaten at some point. It may take longer to get another Michael Phelps because he needs a strong group of swimmers to get the relay medals. There is also Ian Miller from Canada in Equestrian who competed in 10 consecutive Olympics. It's not in the same class as swimming of course, but still quite remarkable.

I think it will also be a long time until we see another person beat Bolt, particularly if Jamaica wins another 4 x 100. Not only would have have to stay injury free in a sport with lots of injuries, but he has to be on top of his game in both sprints over 12 years. Then, he also has to have 3 other world class sprinters on the team with no fumbles or miscues in the relay. I think that record is on the verge of being unbreakable.

There are all kinds of criteria you can apply to athletic accomplishments to gauge their greatness, but at the end of the day, it's all subjective. When you try to apply "objective" standards in order to make comparisons, you're not only doomed to fail, but you're going to miss a lot of athletic greatness.

The 100 is the premier track event, largely because it's the speed standard, and speed is fundamental. Also because the talent pool is so big.

But strength is also fundamental, and when was the last time you heard someone say a weightlifting victory was the greatest athletic achievement ever?

Longevity is impressive, but I don't know that it makes any single athletic feat more impressive in and of itself. Makes the athlete more impressive, maybe. Personally, I think Mike Tyson's utter destruction of the boxing world was at least as impressive, brief as it was. He was on a totally different level than anyone else in his prime.

I read an article the other day arguing that Phelps can't be considered the greatest athlete ever because he never faced a defender. I don't particularly buy that argument, but there it is.

Are specialists more or less impressive than generalists?

Lots of things to consider. As I'm sitting here thinking about it, I think the biggest thing to me is the degree to which an athlete dominates his/her field. How far ahead of everyone else are they? Sometimes that translates to longevity, sometimes not.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

is this supposed to be in pink? that shouldn't even be an olympic sport

Ashton Eaton, Bob Mathias and Daley Thompson just yawned.

---

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man

Either that, or is the feat greater to beat someone like that. US v USSR hockey, Douglas over Tyson, Rulon Gardner over Karelin. As you said, all subjective.

That was right after they said the same for Phelps and right before they said the same for Ashton Eaton. If I could listen to an all British commentary of the Olympics, I would.

Is Charlotte Dujardin the horse?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Nope, not pink.

Whether you like dressage or not, or think it belongs in the Olympics or not, winning an Olympic gold medal 3x is a very impressive feat. It's not like her competitors just sit back and let her win it. There are a ton of hours that go into preparation, you need to have talent and dedication to get there.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Either that, or is the feat greater to beat someone like that. US v USSR hockey, Douglas over Tyson, Rulon Gardner over Karelin.

Depends. Are you beating someone like that at their prime? Or have they dissipated? Or was that particular victory a fluke? Etc.

I don't give much credit to Buster Douglas here, for example. Impressive win? Sure, and more power to him, nobody saw it coming. But beating that Tyson was nowhere near in the same category as the wins Tyson racked up before then.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

What he’s done has never been done before, and it’s without question amazing. That said I don’t see it as the greatest sports achievement. I don’t even think it’s the greatest achievement of this Olympics. I was a sprinter in high school so I respect what goes into it, but sprinting is primarily genetics. Putting your head down and running as fast as you can for 100 or 200 meters isn’t nearly as hard physically or mentally as decathlon, swimming IM or winning metals in several different strokes. I think playing a playing a complete game of football or basketball took more out of me than sprinting for 10 or 20 seconds.

Phelps' swim accomplishments are amazing, but swimming unlike running is restricted to a much smaller group of people. There are facilities and opportunities to swim in the west, Europe and developed parts of Asia but the vast majority of the world's population has no chance to test how good they are. Almost all of Africa, India, most of China, central Asia, & Latin America does not get the chance - so Phelps' completion is dramatically reduced. For all we know the greatest swimmer of all time is herding cattle in Kenya and will never get a chance to swim.

Running on the other hand is universal. The Kalari Bushmen run, the Inuit in the Arctic run, everybody runs. And if you're REALLY fast you have a reasonable chance to compete on the world stage.

That's why for me, Bolt's accomplishment trumps Phelps'. Bolt is the greatest in a sport where everyone on the planet is a potential competitor.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

ST has short memories. Two words: Iron Cowboy.

Julie Miller...

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

The three gold medals is something nobody else has done in the Olympics marquis event. Then you gotta throw in that he won the first in a WR 9.69 while relaxing over the finish line, and the next was done in 9.62.. well, that's pretty damn impressive.

sprinting is primarily genetics. Putting your head down and running as fast as you can for 100 or 200 meters isn’t nearly as hard physically or mentally as decathlon, swimming IM or winning metals in several different strokes.

Fair point, but on the other hand, is genetic talent less impressive than mental toughness?

Is Babe Ruth a less impressive athlete or a more impressive athlete because of his lifestyle?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I think it's absolutely silly that people keep repeating this notion that everyone in the world runs. Almost nobody in the world runs like these guys run. The fact that you ran a sprint in a middle school field day meet doesn't make anyone a potential competitor with these guys. Their sport is nearly as specialized as swimmers. Tons of people swim. Tons of people run. Relatively few do so competitively, and even fewer do so at the top levels. And one of the major reasons fewer people swim is because it's harder than running.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You don't think there's a much bigger talent pool of runners than swimmers?

Everyone has run. Not everyone has swam. Even in America, there are plenty of people who've never been in a pool and who can't swim. I'd bet there's hardly an able bodied person alive who hasn't been in a footrace at some point in their life.

Just from an infrastructure standpoint, you're going to have a bigger group of potential runners than swimmers.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I was a sprinter in high school so I respect what goes into it, but sprinting is primarily genetics.

There is genetics involved in Michael Phelps too, as there is in every Olympic athlete.

If it was primarily about genetics, there would have been other sprinters who won both the 100 and 200 in 3 consecutive Olympics. No one has ever come close.

Swimming the 200IM might as well be gymnastics. For most, it's an impossible, highly specialized undertaking.

Which is kind of my point. Everyone can run. Phelps is doing something that most people can't even do. He did it in more olympics and he did it in more actual events...and several relays as part of a team. I honestly don't even see how the two are in the same ballpark.

Same goes for Gymnastics. Be on the winning team, win two Individual events and do it in four olympics is a far greater accomplishment then winning a single event for three.

~Matt

There's a bigger talent pool, but that's kind of irrelevant. The talent pool in both swimming and running is big enough that there is almost no appreciable difference in the talent levels at the top.

Phelps isn't Phelps because he's the most talented swimmer in the world. We have no way to actually measure talent, but if we did, I can guarantee that he beats other athletes who are physically more "talented" than he is.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

The fact that most everyone moves their feet faster than a walk at some time in their lives doesn't make them part of the competition pool for elite sprinting. And the fact that there are more people who do run competitively doesn't make it harder. It just makes for more competition. Part of the reason there are fewer swimmers than runners is that it's a harder skill to master.

Yes, there is a bigger pool of competitors. However, for guys like these, most of that pool isn't really in play.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

 

If it was primarily about genetics, there would have been other sprinters who won both the 100 and 200 in 3 consecutive Olympics.

??

What makes you say that? If anything, I'd think it was the opposite- if it was primarily about hard work, we'd have seen other sprinters with Bolt's success. Surely there have been other sprinters who work as hard as Bolt does, no?

I'm not discounting his commitment and hard work. I just don't know if he's the only one who works that hard. Bolt is unique because he's big, but also manages to get up to speed relatively quickly. Seems like genetics is a big advantage for him.

On the other hand, I could be wrong about that. There are other athletes who I do think dominate they're field because they work so insanely hard. (I do mean insanely, to the point of being unbalanced.) Maybe Bolt is one of them.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

For all we know the greatest swimmer of all time is herding cattle in Kenya and will never get a chance to swim.

I think you're making the false assumption that everyone has a path to the Olympics. I would agree you are more likely to get to the Olympics via running for obvious reasons then for swimming, but to assume that just because you can run, run fast that you will have the opportunity, training and resources to get to the Olympics is simply false.

The Kenyan cattle herder has nearly no more chance of getting to the Olympics as a runner then as a swimmer no matter how good he is at either. This is even true for many people that simply never even realize their talent in developed countries. Most people just don't get a chance or are never even noticed. They may never try out, may be in a school, program etc that doesn't get them into the right places, right coaching etc etc.

Yes more people are being seen for running then swimming but it's not like it's a pool of 100% of the population compared to the small population that swims. It's more like relatively small populations of people in both cases, one being a bit larger then the other.

~Matt

The fact that most everyone moves their feet faster than a walk at some time in their lives doesn't make them part of the competition pool for elite sprinting.

Sure it does. Not directly, maybe, but ultimately, the effect is the same. If everyone on earth races at some point, and half of those people live in a country where competitive running is a thing, that's a lot of people who are candidates for the competition pool. Versus, let's say 25% of the world's population can swim (totally made up figure, obviously), and only half of those live in countries with an infrastructure for competitive swimming. That's a much smaller talent pool to draw from.

And the fact that there are more people who do run competitively doesn't make it harder. It just makes for more competition.

More competition generally means harder competition.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

My point is that every able bodied person has the opportunity to run. Most of the world does not get the opportunity to swim, and even fewer to swim in a pool.
I agree that vast majority realize by the time they are 10 years old that they are not much faster than the average guy but those that are much faster than average, they usually get opportunities to see how far their talent can take them.


I disagree. Swimming is a far more technical. Pretty much every able bodied person, from a 4 year old to a 75 year old, can run 100m (some very slowly). But most people on the planet can't swim a 2 meters, let alone a lap. Swimming is not innate but a learned technical skill. This 'barrier to entry' dramatically reduces the pool of competitors.



I disagree again. Probably every high school in China, India, or Kenya makes kids run during P.E. classes. Those with extreme talent (i.e. the top 0.001%) are easy to identify, and promote.
But only kids in wealthy nations get the basic training to swim a pool lap. Heck, even then the segment is bifurcated by social status & income. Have you noticed how few blacks represent the USA in swimming. Its not because blacks can't swim as well as whites.


Harder how? Are you not contradicting your earlier statement on running being as specialized as swimming?

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

What makes you say that? If anything, I'd think it was the opposite- if it was primarily about hard work, we'd have seen other sprinters with Bolt's success. Surely there have been other sprinters who work as hard as Bolt does, no?

I don't think anyone wins Olympic gold or dominates the world on hard work alone so when I hear people say a swimmer, or runner or TDF winner is so dominant because they worked harder than anyone else it's ridiculous. There is always a combination of genetics, mental ability, hard work and good fortune, etc.

I was responding to the poster who said Bolt won primarily because of genetics and I don't think that is any different than Michael Phelps. There is a genetic component to all sports at that level. There aren't many swimmers under 6' or 100m finalists with predominantly slow twitch muscle fibers. However, if Bolt's accomplishments were primarily because of genetics, you would think someone in the last 100 years would have come even remotely close to what Bolt has done. Carl Lewis is the closet, he repeated in the 100m only, so that leaves him far behind.

Bolt clearly has genetics in his favour in the same way as Phelps. Both have also had the good fortune of having world class swimmers or runners on their teams at the same time. Both have also managed to stay away from injuries. Sprinters tend to have a lot of injuries so that makes what Bolt has done very impressive.

I don't know that that's true. More competition means more competition, that's all. For the top guys, more competition just means more guys who can't actually run as fast as them. I could add 500 swimmers to the Olympics, and it wouldn't make it harder for Phelps, because he'd still only be really racing the top guys.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

And nearly every person has the opportunity to write. That doesn't make them all competitors with Hemingway or Dickens for greatest writers.


I don't disagree that swimming is more technical. But elite sprinting is very specialized, which is part of why those guys don't long jump anymore, or triple jump, or do decathlon, or shot put, etc.

The mistake I think you're making is putting "everyone runs down the street" in the same category as "not everyone can swim competitively." Swimming itself is not a learned technical skill (swimming in the specific competitive strokes is). It's a natural survival skill. Trust that your body will float, and move your arms or feet. Similarly, trust that you won't fall down, then move your feet, suddenly you're running. Both are very similar in that, if you've never done them, you'll fall/sink the first time you try.


No. There's no contradiction. Specialized and hard are not synonyms.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Counts only if they are clean, which they are not as we all know... :-)

That's just it - if you can write you ARE a potential competitor with Hemingway or Dickens for greatest writer. Its just that 99.999% of people lack the talent to be good enough.
But Mr. Hemmingway or Dickens can rest easy that they were the greatest writers (sic.) because they competed against almost early every person on the planet.

But if we are comparing greatest computer nerds / programmers - Bill Gates or Steve Jobs may be the greatest (???) in their fields but because their field of competition is so much more limited, I would struggle to say their achievements can be considered greater than those of Dickens or Hemmingway.


BTW: only 84% of the planet is actually literate...http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...read/article4528932/
That leaves 775M people who can't read & write. Including many girls in places like Afghanistan - so maybe we'll never know of the greatest writer on the planet because she's herding sheep in the Afghan hills.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

I think that the 1976 Olympic men's decathlon being won by a woman might rank right up there.

Potential competitor is not the same as competitor. Competition isn't more difficult for Bolt because 3 million American fat out of shape video game playing 30 years olds ran in school footraces when they were kids.


What about Mozart or Bach? Surely relatively few men ever wrote music. We don't claim Mozart really didn't accomplish much because he had little competition.


If she never writes, then she is not the greatest writer. I think you should not mix potential with actual accomplishment.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

More competition means more competition, that's all. For the top guys, more competition just means more guys who can't actually run as fast as them. I could add 500 swimmers to the Olympics, and it wouldn't make it harder for Phelps, because he'd still only be really racing the top guys.

Yes, but you'd have more top guys.

Not if you just added 500 random guys to the Olympics, and not even if you took the 500 guys who just missed qualifying for the Olympics. But if instead you built swimming pools in every neighborhood in the world and taught everyone to swim from an early age, you'd have a LOT more swimmers to select from, and you'd find a lot more people who are capable of swimming at the highest level for Phelps to compete against. Maybe Phelps would keep dominating just as he had, maybe he'd have a harder go of it, and maybe some other guy would simply surpass him.


And nearly every person has the opportunity to write. That doesn't make them all competitors with Hemingway or Dickens for greatest writers.

No, but if three quarters of the population is illiterate, it's easier for Hemingway and Dickens to get ranked as great writers than if 90% of people can read and write- because somewhere in that 65% spread, there are likely to be some people who are capable of great writing, perhaps better than Dickens.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

wait for the 800 m women's final tomorrow..

That's because Brits are genetically predisposed to be excellent at eventing........

This.

• Al Oerter: four straight Olympic gold medals in the discus (winning by 1.5m, 2.9m OR, 1.7m OR (with torn rib cartilage), 1.7m OR)
• Edwin Moses: 122 straight victories in the 400m hurdles, over nearly 10 years, including two Olympic gold medals
• Saori Yoshida: 13 straight world championships in women's wrestling, including three Olympic gold medals
• Jesse Owens: May 25, 1935 as a college student, set three track & field world records and tied a fourth. In 45 minutes.

Just off the top of my head.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Ok, well then I guess Volodymyr Holubnychy is the world's greatest athlete ever, because he won 2 golds, a silver, and a bronze in Olympic racewalking, and that's the biggest pool of potential competitors in any activity.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think it has to do with short attention span of the audience as much as it does, or more than, with what's been posted already (easy sport to get into, easily understood). 10 seconds and it's all over and we have a winner.

Running on the other hand is universal. The Kalari Bushmen run, the Inuit in the Arctic run, everybody runs. And if you're REALLY fast you have a reasonable chance to compete on the world stage.

Baloney.

Running may be nearly universal, but you pretty much have to be from a culture that values competitive sprint events and has the resources to provide the necessary years of training and development if you want a reasonable chance of competing on the world stage.

Just from an infrastructure standpoint, you're going to have a bigger group of potential runners than swimmers.

Probably depends where you're from.

I'd like to see a comparison for Southern California of the number of kids who swim competitively and the number who participate in some junior track program. My experience is that competitive swimming here has a much higher participate rate than track. My experience also is that high school swim teams tend to be just as large as if not larger than track teams.

To be competitive internationally in swimming, you have to start at a young age. But that's also true of running, although you don't have to start nearly as young. In both sports, you also have to have the mental toughness to stay in the sport and avoid burnout. The fastest kid in 5th grade most likely won't be running track in high school.

they usually get opportunities to see how far their talent can take them.

Disagree with this. I'd say 90% of the population that "Realizes they are faster then most other people", don't even connect that to organized sports of any sort. This is especially true for kids and most of the time it's only when an adult sees some kid blazing all the other kids you hear "Hey you should be in track"/"Play football" etc etc.

Typically the fast kids are just out there being fast and beating all their friends.

[note to the anal the 90% was a PFA for symbolic reasons only to mean "Most" or "A very large percentage". This number is not backed nor supported by any quadruple blind study that has been peer reviewed]

~Matt

here is an article that sides with either athlete, Bolt and Phelps.
http://www.nydailynews.com/...ps-article-1.2754861

Is there much difference between the 100 M sprint and the worlds tallest man competition?

Ok, evolutionarily being a fast runner is better than being super tall.

And sure a well trained Usain Bolt, might be 5% faster than an untrained Bolt?

But who cares if Usain Bolt was a faster runner 3 times in a row?
Not much more surprising than - some dude was really tall 3 times in a row?

Also come on.....
the "greatest athlete" should be skillful, AND hard working AND talented
Not just not inept, not terribly lazy and super-duper-talented."

Running may be nearly universal, but you pretty much have to be from a culture that values competitive sprint events and has the resources to provide the necessary years of training and development if you want a reasonable chance of competing on the world stage.

Exactly the point I was making earlier. The "Kenyan Sheep herder" may be the fastest dude on the planet outrunning the local cheetah's, but if his father is screaming "Quit your playing around and get back to tending sheep"...he's not going to the Olympics.

~Matt

Ok, well then I guess Volodymyr Holubnychy is the world's greatest athlete ever, because he won 2 golds, a silver, and a bronze in Olympic racewalking, and that's the biggest pool of potential competitors in any activity.

Touche!

But seriously, only losers compete at racewalking. If it was actually a legit competitive event, yeah, the big pool of potential competitors would actually be a huge deal. But while everyone walks, virtually nobody competes to see who can walk the fastest. When people want to see who's fastest, they run.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I agree, that all these Olympians and pro athletes are genetically gifted, and most likely, very hard working. My opinion about sprinting is anchored on the idea that they only race for 10 or 20 seconds. Yes, they train hard, and their is form and technique but on the scale of athletic greatness I don't place them as high as a decathlete who has to learn 10 different disciplines, or a swimmer who has to excel in four different strokes. I think hitting a baseball is probably the single hardest thing to do in all of sports, but I don't consider baseball players as the best athletes in the world. If I had a gun to my head like Lockte and had to chose who the greatest athlete is I think I'd go with NFL QB's. They have go into the play knowing everyone's responsibility on that play drop back, read a defense, and make a throw in 2-5 seconds. On the other hand I'd hate to watch a 100m race between the greatest QB's of all time so I acknowledge that it's all very subjective.

I'd also add that MMA athletes are highly underrated except for 99% of the heavy weights. If you've done any boxing, muy thai, or jiu jitsu you see how technical MMA is, and how physically demanding it is.

This one had me laughing out loud!

It's really interesting. I agree with you about MMA fighters, but that does get back into questions about specialists versus generalists again. MMA fighters aren't generally on the same level as those who specialize in more limited sports, like boxing or Muay Thai. What's more impressive- being well rounded, or truly excelling at one specific thing? Same goes for decathletes- they might be stellar all around athletes, but compared to specialists, they're pretty sad. What's the winning 1500M time in the decathlon was 35 seconds slower than the winning time in the stand alone 1500. Which is more impressive?

I don't think I can get on board with NFL QBs as the best athletes, though. I don't think they're usually even close to being the best athletes on their own team. Yes, they have a lot to process mentally, but the athletic demands can be relatively small.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I add Apollo Ohno, speed skating, to the list of the greatest athlete's. He has multiple athletic achievements in many sports, one of the best athletes EVER. Can Phelps or Bolt dance?

Yet we have the butterfly, the backstroke, the breaststroke, and the IM? I gather those swimming specialists are all losers, too.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Because running a 1500m at the end of a decathlon is just like running an open 1500m well-rested. A 4:1x 1500m at the end of a decathlon is really amazing. The WR for the decathlon 1500m is 3:58, by the way.

Start the timer and have those 1500m specialists do five pull-ups and then start running, and see how long it takes them (if they can get through the five pull-ups).

Which is more impressive, the TdF green jersey winner or the yellow jersey winner? The latter typically can't sprint worth crap, compared to the real sprinters. But don't hold your breath waiting for the sprinters at the finish of a mountain stage.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

If I had a gun to my head like Lockte and had to chose who the greatest athlete is I think I'd go with NFL QB's.

I think the winner of the decathlon has to be the top athlete. They combine more technical events like hurdles, high jump and pole vault with speed in the 100, endurance in the 1,500, a combination in the 400 and strength with the throwing events.

Maybe if Eaton wins a 3rd gold in 2020, he can join this conversation.

2 decathlon > 3 sprints

---

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man

But it's not all genetics. As you recognized, training plays a big part. Add in circumstances, etc., we have no idea if Bolt being the fastest is comparable to being the tallest. And that's true for Phelps too.

Going back to my post, the fastest kid in 5th grade is unlikely to be running track in high school. If he is talented at other sports too, which is likely, that's where he'll likely be. I'd argue that, in the United States, the fastest kids are playing football. Sure, it's not uncommon for a fast receiver to also run track in college (e.g., Willie Gault), but at some point early on, most will make a decision to train for one of the sports to the detriment of the other.

I'd agree that there are barriers of entry into swimming that don't exist for track. But at the same time, kids that are fast swimmers tend to stay in the sport, which adds to its competitiveness. And while track may be just as if not more competitive, the kids that are really good are also more likely to gravitate to other sports.

Not if you just added 500 random guys to the Olympics, and not even if you took the 500 guys who just missed qualifying for the Olympics. But if instead you built swimming pools in every neighborhood in the world and taught everyone to swim from an early age, you'd have a LOT more swimmers to select from, and you'd find a lot more people who are capable of swimming at the highest level for Phelps to compete against. Maybe Phelps would keep dominating just as he had, maybe he'd have a harder go of it, and maybe some other guy would simply surpass him.

Then why do we see such a concentration of elite level sprinters from Jamaica, and we don't see anything close to that from China or India? f it were as simple as identifying the fastest kids, with the cream always rising to the top, then you'd expect a lot more kids from India competing at that level.

I get that there a barriers of entry to competitive swimming and that if you were to eliminate those barriers, you just might find a few faster than Phelps. But I think you're largely ignoring that there are also significant barriers of entry into competitive sprinting.

Then why do we see such a concentration of elite level sprinters from Jamaica.

The U.S dominated sprinting until Bolt showed up.

But weren't a lot of US and Canadian sprinters born and raise in Jamaica?

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

But weren't a lot of US and Canadian sprinters born and raise in Jamaica?

They were Jamaican only if they tested positive...

---

Not true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...aica_at_the_Olympics

 
Because running a 1500m at the end of a decathlon is just like running an open 1500m well-rested. A 4:1x 1500m at the end of a decathlon is really amazing.

Geez, Ken, relax.

I know running a 1500M at the end of a decathlon is not the same thing as running a pure 1500M. More to the point, though, decathletes are generalists, and they wouldn't be running competitive world class times in a straight 1500M, either. That was the point of the question- what's more impressive, someone who can run a truly fast 1500M, or someone who can run a pretty fast 1500M, but can also throw a javelin and a shot put pretty well and can jump pretty high, and can sprint decently, too? It's unanswerable. It's not a slam on decathletes, so you can stand down already, OK?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Triple triple for Bolt.

Japanese relay team was awesome.

---

"You can never win or lose if you don't run the race." - Richard Butler

I'm curious why the Japanese team was not disqualified. He clearly stepped on the lane marker and I thought that meant disqualification. Then I heard that both the U.S and Trinidad teams were DQ'd.

The relays always have drama.

this:



bannister was also a remarkable human being off the track, and contributed a lot to sport. something that a lot of the other "greatests" can't say.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

I heard the explanation for the relays.

You are only disqualified if you step on the line when you race a curve as that could mean taking a short cut, no disqualification if you step on the line on the straightway. As for the Americans, Gatlin touched the baton in advance of the pass zone and the passing of the baton starts as soon as it is touched.

For Olympians, I'd put in a vote for Eric Heiden. 5 individual gold medals in one Olympics, at distances from 500m to 10K. The original "all-twitch".

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

No. I'd say everyone who has walked has also run at one point in their life. In fact walking is just slow running. So the pool is the same. Thus 9 gold medals trumps 2.

If it's a choice between Bolt and Phelps it's Bolt for me. But for his one event at Athens, when he was injured, he's won everything he's been in at every Olympics since. He's done the same triple at 3 of the last four WC's also, and 2/3 at the other (don't know what happened with the third event). He hasn't been beat at the Olympics after he arrived as a mature athlete.

Running simply doesn't have the same number of events as swimming, at least insofar as ones where the same body type also works. If they introduced 100m skipping and hopping he'd prob have as many golds as Phelps.

Plus he and his relay team mates have prob not had the same access to cutting edge technology as Phelps and his countrymen. Not for the same career durations anyway.

I can view them both with an unbiased view.

Really? The same body type works for 100, 200, and 400m races, plus 110 and 400m hurdles, and long jump, and triple jump, and the 2 relays. It certainly seems like someone could do all those events.


Uhuh, and everyone else must be biased, huh?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I guess Phelps could dominate the 400 and 1500 free too given his body type is identical.

It's far easier to bridge events like free and butterfly than things like hurdles and jumps. By all accounts numerous swimmers through history have been dominant across more than one stroke. No runner in modern times has done hurdles too and only Carl and Jesse have successfully added the LJ. TJ has never been bridged.

There is no realistic equivalent to a medley in track. Not where you can dominate at individual events at the same time (decathletes do not excel at their individual events).

I don't know that any modern era track athlete has excelled at 100 and 400. Bolt is not great at 400 though 300 I believe only one man has gone faster. But of course that's not an event.

Phelps has had more opportunities to collect medals. 12 relays to 3 for starters. He is also not the dominant team member in all of those (4x100 free etc) and he hasn't dominated his opponents as convincingly as Bolt across all his events in the same manner as bolt.. No disputing he is a freak and swimming's GOAT but Bolts dominance for me gives him the edge.

Yes, as your greatest Olympian I'd say your biased towards him. It's a US based forum where people here can relate to what Phelps does far easier than they could to Bolt. But I'm just another asshole with an opinion.

Bolt with Pietro Mennea of Italy few years back.

Thanks for that - I had no idea who Mennea was.

If that is the case we should be talking about the horse...

And if we're talking Horse, Secretariat has to be in the conversation. Won the Triple Crown in 1973, and at the Belmont Stakes, won by a mere 31 lengths. Of course then
he was sold to a stud farm to spooge every hour for a year...which isn't a bad deal either.

He was a decent age group swimmer.

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

nothing like Lance Armstrong winning the TdF 7 times wink/wink