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