126 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

I'd say she was the best female swimmer of this era, and potentially the best female athlete.

 

Ok, but the question is greatest Olympian ever.  Who gets the nod?

 

And, assuming you say Phelps because of the better times, what if the woman had a slightly better resume?  Either more margin of victory or more golds or total medals or something.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Ok, but the question is greatest Olympian ever.  Who gets the nod?

 

And, assuming you say Phelps because of the better times, what if the woman had a slightly better resume?  Either more margin of victory or more golds or total medals or something.

 

Well, that gets back to my point that discussing best athlete, and best career are two vastly different things.

In your example, I'd have no problem saying that woman could possibly have had the best career ever.

[mweb08]

Not really. There are other ways he can sprint and jump, but not other ways to just sprint.

He could run a longer distance.


But of course, it's still just running, which is why I'm going to discount it and him as the best ever.

He runs the same distances Phelps swims.

Running and swimming are comparable imo in athleticism so that's not a factor to me.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Yeah, I'm not buying swimming as being a more difficult athletic feat than running... and if it is, then that's balanced out by the fact that more people are runners (can run anywhere) vs. swimmers... so in that sense, runners should have greater levels of competition. 

[SportsGuy]

I would be willing to bet than most on here can't swim a continuous 100 meters but they could run a continuous 100 meter. (and I think that's the case of any random sampling of people that you do)

Swimming is harder to do.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I would be willing to bet than most on here can't swim a continuous 100 meters but they could run a continuous 100 meter. (and I think that's the case of any random sampling of people that you do)

Swimming is harder to do.

 

That doesn't make it harder. That speaks only to the idea that everyone has the ability and access to run, and less people swim.

 

Running 100 meters and 200 meters in the times Bolt does... when there are that many more potential competitors (to your point, that more people can run) isn't any less impressive than what Phelps does sprinting in the pool imo.

 

One thing that I like in Phelps favor is his success with the 400M medley. Different techniques, bit of a longer distance... 

[SportsGuy]

That doesn't make it harder. That speaks only to the idea that everyone has the ability and access to run, and less people swim.

 

Running 100 meters and 200 meters in the times Bolt does... when there are that many more potential competitors (to your point, that more people can run) isn't any less impressive than what Phelps does sprinting in the pool imo.

 

One thing that I like in Phelps favor is his success with the 400M medley. Different techniques, bit of a longer distance... 

Of course it does.

 

None of us have to train to run 100 meters.  You go outside and run.

 

Anyone here can go to a pool and jump in and swim as well.

 

Just learning how to properly breath in the water makes it harder.

 

You have access to either rather easily(for example, you pay taxes and can go us the facilities at a community college).

 

To be able to swim that distance, you need to train and get your endurance up.  To be able to run that distance, you just have to be able to move.

 

Even the most out of shape person can run/walk 100 meters.  I don't think most could jump in a pool and swim the whole time and get there.  And when I say swim, i don't mean stop and tread water or float on your back to rest or anything like that.  I mean continuous movement towards the wall doing an actual freestyle stroke( we aren't doggie paddling either although I doubt they could do that either).

 

I mean shit, most people have to take swim lessons just to learn how to do it.  Walking/running comes far easier.

[SportsGuy]

In terms of more competition...That is true.  I mean, you see they have a lot more runners than swimmers.  

 

However, its also more watered down IMO.

[mweb08]

What about the difference between men's and women's sports?  That's similar to the comparison between eras that has been discussed.
 
If there was a female swimmer with the exact same resume as Phelps in terms of medal count (and even in terms of winning margin if it needs to be that specific) but her times were all 3-5 seconds slower per lap, how would you compare the two?

That's not a distinction that would matter to me. I also don't think it's fair to say so and so is better because they put up a better time or performance many years later compared another athlete. I think athletes should mostly be judged within the context of their time. There are some extenuating circumstances that can lead to adjustments in that thinking though, for instance it's a lot easier to dominate a sport when it's in its infancy.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Of course it does.

 

None of us have to train to run 100 meters.  You go outside and run.

 

Anyone here can go to a pool and jump in and swim as well.

 

You have access to either rather easily(for example, you pay taxes and can go us the facilities at a community college).

 

To be able to swim that distance, you need to train and get your endurance up.  To be able to run that distance, you just have to be able to move.

 

Even the most out of shape person can run/walk 100 meters.  I don't think most could jump in a pool and swim the whole time and get there.  And when I say swim, i don't mean stop and tread water or float on your back to rest or anything like that.  I mean continuous movement towards the wall doing an actual freestyle stroke( we aren't doggie paddling either although I doubt they could do that either).

 

I really don't get the logic here.

Lets go through your points...

 

1) Anyone can run.  Sure, I agree.... the fact that anyone can, means there is more competition, and Bolt is dramatically faster than anyone ever.

 

2) Anyone can swim. No, this isn't true. There are lot of people in the world without access to a pool, or water for that matter.

 

3) To be able to swim that distance, you have to train.   For the people that have access to water, and learn to swim... those people don't have to work any harder on their craft (in this example 100M) than a runner has to work on theirs.

 

4) Even the most out of shape person can run/walk 100 meters.  All that speaks to is the idea that more of us spend more time walking / running, than we do swimming. Even if the running is more natural, that doesn't make swimming more difficult. 

[SportsGuy]

I really don't get the logic here.

Lets go through your points...

 

1) Anyone can run.  Sure, I agree.... the fact that anyone can, means there is more competition, and Bolt is dramatically faster than anyone ever.

 

2) Anyone can swim. No, this isn't true. There are lot of people in the world without access to a pool, or water for that matter.

 

3) To be able to swim that distance, you have to train.   For the people that have access to water, and learn to swim... those people don't have to work any harder on their craft (in this example 100M) than a runner has to work on theirs.

 

4) Even the most out of shape person can run/walk 100 meters.  All that speaks to is the idea that more of us spend more time walking / running, than we do swimming. Even if the running is more natural, that doesn't make swimming more difficult. 

If you go outside and run and do it but you cant jump in a pool and do it(assuming you know how to swim), I think that obviously says its harder to swim than run.

 

And yes, more people have access to run than swim...Fine.

 

Take a sampling of people(which would be a majority of the world) that have access to both and way more could run than swim.

 

Clearly more difficult to swim than run.  Its not even close.

[mweb08]

Yeah, I'm not buying swimming as being a more difficult athletic feat than running... and if it is, then that's balanced out by the fact that more people are runners (can run anywhere) vs. swimmers... so in that sense, runners should have greater levels of competition. 

Yep. It has nothing to do with athleticism, rather as you say, volume of people who run vs swim, which leads to more competition and therefore is a point that favors sprinters vs swimmers.

This is a point I've mentioned before as well. It's easier to dominate a sport with less competition. There is undoubtedly much less competition to be the world's fastest 100 or 200 meter swimmer in whatever stroke vs being the world's fastest man.

[SportsGuy]

That's not a distinction that would matter to me. I also don't think it's fair to say so and so is better because they put up a better time or performance many years later compared another athlete. I think athletes should mostly be judged within the context of their time. There are some extenuating circumstances that can lead to adjustments in that thinking though, for instance it's a lot easier to dominate a sport when it's in its infancy.

Its the only way you can do it BUT its very flawed to do it that way.

 

The Jim Brown greatest football player ever argument is a good example of this.  He dominated his era...and yet he was bigger than most DLineman.  If you could put Jamal Lewis in that era, he likely dominates at the same level because of his size.  However, Jamal will never be thought of as even a top 10 guy.  

 

Its just impossible to compare eras.

[RShack]

If you go outside and run and do it but you cant jump in a pool and do it(assuming you know how to swim), I think that obviously says its harder to swim than run.

 

And yes, more people have access to run than swim...Fine.

 

Take a sampling of people(which would be a majority of the world) that have access to both and way more could run than swim.

 

Clearly more difficult to swim than run.  Its not even close.

 

Well, according to that logic, Formula 1 drivers are the best athletes in the world... because the overwhelming majority of people (including you and me and everybody else here) could not drive those cars around the block... after they showed us how, we could not drive them slow enough to not drive off the road and crash...

[SportsGuy]

Yep. It has nothing to do with athleticism, rather as you say, volume of people who run vs swim, which leads to more competition and therefore is a point that favors sprinters vs swimmers.

This is a point I've mentioned before as well. It's easier to dominate a sport with less competition. There is undoubtedly much less competition to be the world's fastest 100 or 200 meter swimmer in whatever stroke vs being the world's fastest man.

But part of the reason for that is that its a harder thing to master.

 

But sure, there are obviously way more people who have the chance to run the 100 meters than swim it.

[BSLChrisStoner]

If you go outside and run and do it but you cant jump in a pool and do it(assuming you know how to swim), I think that obviously says its harder to swim than run.

 

And yes, more people have access to run than swim...Fine.

 

Take a sampling of people(which would be a majority of the world) that have access to both and way more could run than swim.

 

Clearly more difficult to swim than run.  Its not even close.

 

There are more people who can run vs. swim, because running is natural and swimming (being in water) is not. Also everyone can run, and not everyone has access to water or learns to swim.

 

At the Olympic level, what is more difficult about swimming vs. running?

The swimmers have spent their life in the pool. The fact that there is a smaller group of people as a whole who could potentially swim, doesn't make what they do more difficult once they've acquired basic swimming lessons and gained access to water.

Comparing the difficultly of swimming and running is completely irrelevant at the Olympic level imo... the only comparison of the two that is potentially relevant to me, is that there are a larger group of people who grow up running.

[mweb08]

That's not a distinction that would matter to me. I also don't think it's fair to say so and so is better because they put up a better time or performance many years later compared another athlete. I think athletes should mostly be judged within the context of their time. There are some extenuating circumstances that can lead to adjustments in that thinking though, for instance it's a lot easier to dominate a sport when it's in its infancy.

Its the only way you can do it BUT its very flawed to do it that way.
 
The Jim Brown greatest football player ever argument is a good example of this.  He dominated his era...and yet he was bigger than most DLineman.  If you could put Jamal Lewis in that era, he likely dominates at the same level because of his size.  However, Jamal will never be thought of as even a top 10 guy.  
 
Its just impossible to compare eras.

It's not flawed imo and I don't see the point of imagining current players in past era's for this purpose. But we've been over this before so whatever.

[mweb08]

In addition to all the points that have been made to counter Rob's logic I don't see why anyone should care if someone can jog or walk 100M. That's not close to the same as a full out sprint for 100M. That's like talking about people doggy paddling for 100M with a life jacket on.

Not a ton of people can full out sprint for 100M, but I think this is all irrelevant to what's more athletic anyway.

[DuffMan]

 
I mean shit, most people have to take swim lessons just to learn how to do it.  Walking/running comes far easier.

You know what you do when you join the track team, you learn how to run. Watch these races and look at how great their running form is. Far better than an average Joe's form. That doesn't come naturally. It takes hours of practice doing various running drills to develop proper form.

Then something else just as important, especially for sprinters is your start and learning how to use blocks. Having proper technique and good form coming out of the blocks is critical to a great time.
That's not something you just pick up.

[bnickle]

Bolt is Ledecky. He's superior at sprinting over multiple distances. Phelps was world class at 3 of the 4 strokes. Again, if the strokes were so similar there would be a lot more people with medals in multiple strokes. It's pretty rare. Freestyle swimmers win freestyle medals. Butterflyers win butterfly medals, etc. Also, the talent pool being bigger in track means little. There are as many world class athletes in track as there a lie in swimming.