Greatest Olympian?

[tazinib1]

Oh, and did someone say hottest olympians?

 

 

My goodness. I think I wanna go to Brazil.

[Flip_Side]

 

She has the biggest forehead I have ever seen...not sure I would put her up there with the hottest! That thing is a 5 head! Look back a few posts...I think detlef summed the hottest olympians up, no doubt. det!

 

 

 

So was Ben Johnson...

You picked the absolute worst picture of her on google, believe me I've seen them all. She does have a big forehead though but she is definitely still doable!

 

Check this pic out...

 

http://profile.ak.facebook.com/object3/144...912970_3286.jpg

Edited August 18, 2008 by Flip_Side

[wildcat2334]

Bolt smashes MJ's 200m WR today - this dood is off the charts and his double WR's in the 100 and 200 is the story of the Olympics in my book.

 

Phelps is great, no doubt- probly the best Olympian in history, but at the end of the day it is swimming, and the best athletes are not in the water- they are on the track.

 

swimming is kind of a different animal IMO - kind of a specialized skill, but as far as overall athletic ability??? negative -

 

A bunch of my friends were elite swimmers in college, and a few swam in the Olympic trials- and for as great as they are in the water= as bad as they are out of it. I have yet to meet a swimmer who is a stud athlete on land- i.e. running, jumping, hand-eye coordination, it just does not translate.

 

 

Bolt just pulled off the impossible, and I can't believe he is not getting more credit.

[Azazello1313]

Phelps is great, no doubt- probly the best Olympian in history, but at the end of the day it is swimming, and the best athletes are not in the water- they are on the track.

 

swimming is kind of a different animal IMO - kind of a specialized skill, but as far as overall athletic ability??? negative -

 

A bunch of my friends were elite swimmers in college, and a few swam in the Olympic trials- and for as great as they are in the water= as bad as they are out of it. I have yet to meet a swimmer who is a stud athlete on land- i.e. running, jumping, hand-eye coordination, it just does not translate.

 

dumb argument. how do you think usain bolt would fare in the pool?

 

edit: oh and thanks for the spoiler, dickwad

Edited August 20, 2008 by Azazello1313

[budlitebrad]

Bolt smashes MJ's 200m WR today - this dood is off the charts and his double WR's in the 100 and 200 is the story of the Olympics in my book.

 

Bolt just pulled off the impossible, and I can't believe he is not getting more credit.

 

+1

 

A lot of people thought Phelps was going to win 8 golds, but how many thought Michael Johnson's record would be broken?

[KSUChiefsTarheelFan]

Oh, and did someone say hottest olympians?

 

I just felt like thanking you again det!

 

You picked the absolute worst picture of her on google, believe me I've seen them all. She does have a big forehead though but she is definitely still doable!

 

Check this pic out...

 

http://profile.ak.facebook.com/object3/144...912970_3286.jpg

Just because her hair is covering up that 8 head, doesn't make her a hot olympian. You said she was doable, and I agree...not too many gymnasts aren't....but the sub-topic was "hottest olympians" detlef. Not olympians that have enormous foreheads and are doable.

 

She is no Leryn Franco...

 

carry on

[wildcat2334]

dumb argument. how do you think usain bolt would fare in the pool?

 

edit: oh and thanks for the spoiler, dickwad

 

it is?? I don't think ANY swimmmer is ever in any conversation on best overall athlete......

 

right, because you aren't online and dont watch ESPN, and NBC delays it until tonight anyway- slapd1ck

 

do you bury yer head in the sand until the TV coverage comes on???

[detlef]

The best argument in favor of Phelps besides the fact that he is obviously better at his very demanding sport than everyone else is that he, quite simply, has refused to "choke". Hell, choke isn't fair because he wasn't even the prohibitive favorite in all his events. The thing is, one of the marks of a great champion is to win when you're supposed to. It's easier said than done.

 

Because this is not titled, "Greatest Athlete ever to compete in the olympics" then remarks about how well he could run or do anything besides swim are just plain stupid. If someone completely dominated archery they way he has swimming, then you'd have to consider them as well, even if they looked like Mike Holmgren.

 

That said, it is slightly unfair to compare swimmers to other events because the events are so much more similar. The types of bodies it takes to excel at, say the 100, 200, and 400 meters on the track are just vastly different. Not quite as much so for swimming. Plus, there's the different strokes. Now, before any of you hardcore swimmers (or rather people who pretend they know more than they do) try to say that's not the case. Understand that, quite simply, you are flat out wrong if you don't agree.

 

It may take a very special swimmer to dominate all these strokes and distances at the elite level Phelps has, but enough are pretty damned good, enough so to dominate, say NCAA D-II level swimming, etc. You just don't find that in track after, say HS, where the same kid could win races that aren't either all sprints, all mid distance, or all long distance.

 

Hell, the fact that the record Phelps just broke was also held by a swimmer is also testimony of this.

 

So, in short, I think Phelps deserves more credit than being thought of as a freak but also that his accomplishments should be discounted against other athletes who compete in sports that don't lend themselves to so many chances to medal.

 

Right now, I'm more impressed by Bolt than anyone else in these Olympics in terms of athletic amazement and more impressed by Phelps than anyone else in terms of nutting up time and again.

[Flip_Side]

I just felt like thanking you again det!

 

 

Just because her hair is covering up that 8 head, doesn't make her a hot olympian. You said she was doable, and I agree...not too many gymnasts aren't....but the sub-topic was "hottest olympians" detlef. Not olympians that have enormous foreheads and are doable.

 

She is no Leryn Franco...

 

carry on

WOW......Leryn Franco. That tops them all

[wildcat2334]

Right now, I'm more impressed by Bolt than anyone else in these Olympics in terms of athletic amazement and more impressed by Phelps than anyone else in terms of nutting up time and again.

 

 

agree with this 100% -

 

I just personally put alot more stock into Bolt shattering the 100 & 200 WR - which is OFF THE CHARTS IMO

 

Phelps is a phenom, I just think the 100 and 200 are much higher on the totem pole than swimming - dat is all

[Azazello1313]

The best argument in favor of Phelps besides the fact that he is obviously better at his very demanding sport than everyone else is that he, quite simply, has refused to "choke". Hell, choke isn't fair because he wasn't even the prohibitive favorite in all his events. The thing is, one of the marks of a great champion is to win when you're supposed to. It's easier said than done.

 

Because this is not titled, "Greatest Athlete ever to compete in the olympics" then remarks about how well he could run or do anything besides swim are just plain stupid. If someone completely dominated archery they way he has swimming, then you'd have to consider them as well, even if they looked like Mike Holmgren.

 

That said, it is slightly unfair to compare swimmers to other events because the events are so much more similar. The types of bodies it takes to excel at, say the 100, 200, and 400 meters on the track are just vastly different. Not quite as much so for swimming. Plus, there's the different strokes. Now, before any of you hardcore swimmers (or rather people who pretend they know more than they do) try to say that's not the case. Understand that, quite simply, you are flat out wrong if you don't agree.

 

It may take a very special swimmer to dominate all these strokes and distances at the elite level Phelps has, but enough are pretty damned good, enough so to dominate, say NCAA D-II level swimming, etc. You just don't find that in track after, say HS, where the same kid could win races that aren't either all sprints, all mid distance, or all long distance.

 

Hell, the fact that the record Phelps just broke was also held by a swimmer is also testimony of this.

 

So, in short, I think Phelps deserves more credit than being thought of as a freak but also that his accomplishments should be discounted against other athletes who compete in sports that don't lend themselves to so many chances to medal.

 

Right now, I'm more impressed by Bolt than anyone else in these Olympics in terms of athletic amazement and more impressed by Phelps than anyone else in terms of nutting up time and again.

 

I would say that phelps' 8 gold medals is about the equivalent of carl lewis' 4 in 1984. lewis won the 100, 200, 4x100 and long jump. they both surpassed what anyone else did in either sport. (of course, lewis was doing it against a depleted field due to boycotts, but he probably would have won all 4 events anyway). usain bolt's 100/200 double is far more typical, it's happened a number of times in the past. people who excel at one of those more often than not are also pretty good at the other. bolt's accomplishment is more on the level of michael johnson, the year he destroyed the 200 and 400. a phenomenal accomplishment, but not as unique as what phelps did, winning 8 gold medals with 8 olympic records and 7 world records, or what lewis did winning in 4 pretty diverse events.

[budlitebrad]

Purely as a spectator, I'd rather watch Bolt compete over Phelps every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[detlef]

I would say that phelps' 8 gold medals is about the equivalent of carl lewis' 4 in 1984. lewis won the 100, 200, 4x100 and long jump. they both surpassed what anyone else did in either sport. (of course, lewis was doing it against a depleted field due to boycotts, but he probably would have won all 4 events anyway). usain bolt's 100/200 double is far more typical, it's happened a number of times in the past. people who excel at one of those more often than not are also pretty good at the other. bolt's accomplishment is more on the level of michael johnson, the year he destroyed the 200 and 400. a phenomenal accomplishment, but not as unique as what phelps did, winning 8 gold medals with 8 olympic records and 7 world records, or what lewis did winning in 4 pretty diverse events.

First off, I absolutely agree that Lewis winning 4 on the track is on the same level as Phelps' 8.

 

The thing about Bolt that needs to be remembered is that not only did he blow away the field in the 100, it was the fastest field ever in the Olympics. It was the first time that 6 of the 8 runners broke 10 seconds.

[Azazello1313]

First off, I absolutely agree that Lewis winning 4 on the track is on the same level as Phelps' 8.

 

The thing about Bolt that needs to be remembered is that not only did he blow away the field in the 100, it was the fastest field ever in the Olympics. It was the first time that 6 of the 8 runners broke 10 seconds.

 

well, obviously, the same is true of phelps as well. I mean, "the field" in pretty much every race of every olympics is "the fastest ever". it isn't really saying much in this day and age.

[Caveman_Nick]

That said, it is slightly unfair to compare swimmers to other events because the events are so much more similar. The types of bodies it takes to excel at, say the 100, 200, and 400 meters on the track are just vastly different. Not quite as much so for swimming. Plus, there's the different strokes. Now, before any of you hardcore swimmers (or rather people who pretend they know more than they do) try to say that's not the case. Understand that, quite simply, you are flat out wrong if you don't agree.

 

This is really off the mark.

 

If the events were so similar then you would keep hearing the same top names across all of the events and all of the strokes.

 

I don't know what your background is Detlef, but I was in competitive swimming (and diving) AND competitive track and field for 8 years each. It takes a different skill set to excel at running sprints, running mid-distance, and running distance. It also takes different skill sets to swim sprints, swim mid distance, and swim distance. It also takes different skill sets to swim different strokes, which is a reason you don't see many top swimmers being serious competitors in more than one stroke (there is some fair amount crossover from butterfly to freestyle, but not necessarily true in the reverse). Body type is especially important when it comes to being competitive in different strokes, and training style is especially important when it comes to being competitive in different length events.

 

Would you care to back up how I am flat-out wrong with this?

[whomper]

Eddie Van Halen

[wildcat2334]

This is really off the mark.

 

If the events were so similar then you would keep hearing the same top names across all of the events and all of the strokes.

 

I don't know what your background is Detlef, but I was in competitive swimming (and diving) AND competitive track and field for 8 years each. It takes a different skill set to excel at running sprints, running mid-distance, and running distance. It also takes different skill sets to swim sprints, swim mid distance, and swim distance. It also takes different skill sets to swim different strokes, which is a reason you don't see many top swimmers being serious competitors in more than one stroke (there is some fair amount crossover from butterfly to freestyle, but not necessarily true in the reverse). Body type is especially important when it comes to being competitive in different strokes, and training style is especially important when it comes to being competitive in different length events.

 

Would you care to back up how I am flat-out wrong with this?

 

Hijacking yer beef with Det a bit here, but

 

wow, Bo Jackson is that you?? I have never met an athlete beyond pee-wee level that has competed in swimming AND track - care to elaborate?

I grew up in a swimming-rich area with a ton of guys swimming for Pac 10 schools, NONE of them was ever confused with a track athlete

 

Just isn't reall a good cross-mix of skills

[Azazello1313]

Hijacking yer beef with Det a bit here, but

 

wow, Bo Jackson is that you?? I have never met an athlete beyond pee-wee level that has competed in swimming AND track - care to elaborate?

I grew up in a swimming-rich area with a ton of guys swimming for Pac 10 schools, NONE of them was ever confused with a track athlete

 

Just isn't reall a good cross-mix of skills

 

again, how many track guys are good swimmers? how is this relevant in any way?

[wildcat2334]

again, how many track guys are good swimmers? how is this relevant in any way?

 

 

well, for starters, Chad Johnson and his homies at the Johnson City Pool can take Phelp's any day of the week- just ask him

[budlitebrad]

Phelps isn't that impressive.

 

Spitz didn't need no NASA designed suit or a special "water cube". He was doing it with long hair, a porn stache, and an old school banana hammock like God intended it.

Edited August 20, 2008 by budlitebrad

[Caveman_Nick]

Hijacking yer beef with Det a bit here, but

 

wow, Bo Jackson is that you?? I have never met an athlete beyond pee-wee level that has competed in swimming AND track - care to elaborate?

I grew up in a swimming-rich area with a ton of guys swimming for Pac 10 schools, NONE of them was ever confused with a track athlete

 

Just isn't reall a good cross-mix of skills

 

I ran distance. Started in HS when my parents put the kybosh on football. I needed a fall sport and didn't enjoy soccer. I'm not saying I was a terrific runner, but I held my own. I always came into the swimming season in excellent cardio shape And then back at the spring season for running, I stayed in excellent physical condition but didn;t have the wear and tear on my joints. It took a few weeks to adapt back across sports, but it was fine.

 

I wasn't a star at either sport. I was a pretty good diver, though, once I got learned.

 

My point is more about being in a position of close observation of the two for a long time.

[detlef]

This is really off the mark.

 

If the events were so similar then you would keep hearing the same top names across all of the events and all of the strokes.

 

I don't know what your background is Detlef, but I was in competitive swimming (and diving) AND competitive track and field for 8 years each. It takes a different skill set to excel at running sprints, running mid-distance, and running distance. It also takes different skill sets to swim sprints, swim mid distance, and swim distance. It also takes different skill sets to swim different strokes, which is a reason you don't see many top swimmers being serious competitors in more than one stroke (there is some fair amount crossover from butterfly to freestyle, but not necessarily true in the reverse). Body type is especially important when it comes to being competitive in different strokes, and training style is especially important when it comes to being competitive in different length events.

 

Would you care to back up how I am flat-out wrong with this?

Well, where to start...

 

For starters, look at the athletes. Look at the guys who run the 400 and 800 compared to the guys who run the 100. Major, major difference. Now, I'm not saying that middle distance and sprint swimmers are identical, but the visual test shows that they're not as different.

 

Hell, take, for instance one of the things that was so amazing about Michael Johnson doubling up on the 200 and 400. It's a really uncommon double at that level. At lower levels? No big deal because you can get by on talent alone even if you're completely the wrong body type to excel. You just run faster than everyone. So, if you're good enough to win the 100 in the olympics, there's pretty much exactly 4 events that you stand a chance in. 100, 200, long jump, 4x100. End of story. If you're good enough to win at the 400, there's 2 or maybe 3. 200, 400, 4x400 (I suppose the 800 would not be totally unheard of but that's a major, major stretch.

 

I'm also not implying that there's nothing to the different strokes, just less so than track. Well, in terms of the other strokes, the very fact that there is other strokes is enough. I mean, they don't have the 100 backwards dash, for instance. Thing is, anyone who's swam at an elite level has spent years and years in swim practice doing all the strokes. So if you're an amazing swimmer, you're going to be an amazing swimmer who's just happened to have swum miles and miles of all four strokes. You might hate butterfly and you might get your ass kicked by someone who's just as talented a swimmer as you but just happens to be better at that stroke.

 

None the less, the proof is this:

 

36 years ago a swimmer set what was an amazing record of 7 golds at the same olympics. In the 36 years that followed, nobody had really come close or even bothered to attempt to go for it with the exception of... you guessed it, another swimmer. Now, finally, after all that time, somebody finally broke the record. A swimmer.

 

So, one of two things is going on here. Either 1) There just happen to be more events that one person can excel at in the pool or 2) The two athletes that just happened to be so amazing that they could excel at vastly different events that should require completely different body types and skill sets both happened to be swimmers.

 

Further, I would hazzard to guess that swimmers are also rather well represented on the all time list of most medals won at a single olympics. So that would mean that not only are the two single greatest and most versatile athletes ever both swimmers but also that swimmers in general are all among the most talented and versatile athletes in the world.

 

Gymnasts are probably up on that list as well, but there's more of a cap on how many they can win at a time. So, while there's likely plenty with 4 or so, You'd pretty much have to win gold in every single apparatus, plus win the team, and the overall to get 8 (+ or - a few, I'm guessing on that one).

 

Edited to add: It should be noted that Phelps really only swam 2 strokes against anyone who could be considered a specialist in either. He swam fly and free. The only time he was swimming breast or back, he was doing so against others who had to do all four as well.

 

So, perhaps the point is more that the pool allows someone more chances to medal within a somewhat limited skill set than any other events.

Edited August 20, 2008 by detlef

[Ursa Majoris]

I would say that phelps' 8 gold medals is about the equivalent of carl lewis' 4 in 1984. lewis won the 100, 200, 4x100 and long jump. they both surpassed what anyone else did in either sport.

J Owens of Berlin 1936 fame will probably be spinning in his grave right now.

[Caveman_Nick]

Well, where to start...

 

For starters, look at the athletes. Look at the guys who run the 400 and 800 compared to the guys who run the 100. Major, major difference. Now, I'm not saying that middle distance and sprint swimmers are identical, but the visual test shows that they're not as different.

 

Hell, take, for instance one of the things that was so amazing about Michael Johnson doubling up on the 200 and 400. It's a really uncommon double at that level. At lower levels? No big deal because you can get by on talent alone even if you're completely the wrong body type to excel. You just run faster than everyone. So, if you're good enough to win the 100 in the olympics, there's pretty much exactly 4 events that you stand a chance in. 100, 200, long jump, 4x100. End of story. If you're good enough to win at the 400, there's 2 or maybe 3. 200, 400, 4x400 (I suppose the 800 would not be totally unheard of but that's a major, major stretch.

 

I'm also not implying that there's nothing to the different strokes, just less so than track. Well, in terms of the other strokes, the very fact that there is other strokes is enough. I mean, they don't have the 100 backwards dash, for instance. Thing is, anyone who's swam at an elite level has spent years and years in swim practice doing all the strokes. So if you're an amazing swimmer, you're going to be an amazing swimmer who's just happened to have swum miles and miles of all four strokes. You might hate butterfly and you might get your ass kicked by someone who's just as talented a swimmer as you but just happens to be better at that stroke.

 

None the less, the proof is this:

 

36 years ago a swimmer set what was an amazing record of 7 golds at the same olympics. In the 36 years that followed, nobody had really come close or even bothered to attempt to go for it with the exception of... you guessed it, another swimmer. Now, finally, after all that time, somebody finally broke the record. A swimmer.

 

So, one of two things is going on here. Either 1) There just happen to be more events that one person can excel at in the pool or 2) The two athletes that just happened to be so amazing that they could excel at vastly different events that should require completely different body types and skill sets both happened to be swimmers.

 

Further, I would hazzard to guess that swimmers are also rather well represented on the all time list of most medals won at a single olympics. So that would mean that not only are the two single greatest and most versatile athletes ever both swimmers but also that swimmers in general are all among the most talented and versatile athletes in the world.

 

Gymnasts are probably up on that list as well, but there's more of a cap on how many they can win at a time. So, while there's likely plenty with 4 or so, You'd pretty much have to win gold in every single apparatus, plus win the team, and the overall to get 8 (+ or - a few, I'm guessing on that one).

 

So what you are saying is that you don't really know but just wanted to call people with an opposite opinion "flat out wrong"? You're proof that excelling in different events is that there happens to be enough events in swimming at short distances so that a swimmer can win more medals than in another area?

 

Now, if Phelps won a medal in the 1000 meter freestyle, the 200 meter backstroke, the 200 breaststroke, the 200 fly, and a bunch of freestyle events that would certainly (from a competitive swimmer's standpoint) be an amazing feat. His versatility across the strokes is apparent in his record breaking 400M individual medley, but even as he was the most dominant athlete in that regard he can't compete against specialists in breaststroke and backstroke. If your point is that it is easier for a swimmer to win 8 medals than any other athlete, I might be inclined to agree with you on that. But that was not what I took issue with. It is that somehow different envents take different body types and/or skills in track, but not in swimming. That's just not close to being the case, and the proof is in the results.

 

You won't find many (if any) swimmers that won medals in both the sprint events and the distance events (say the men's 1500 meter freestyle). Drum up as many olympics as you like. I can only speak from my experience that the same swimmers, even the best swimmers that I ever had on my teams, did not compete at these same events. Different technique, different training, different mindset. The same goes for medalists in breaststroke and backstroke. You won't generally find them medaling in freestyle evets.

 

Your premise for what I quoted aboveis what is "flat out wrong" and shows a lack of understanding of what goes into competitive swimming.

[Caveman_Nick]

One more note....and I am not trying to lay this down as gospel it is just my observation....

 

The swimmers that were always the "best" in the individual medley events were almost always ones that competed in butterfly. This was because Butterfly was typically the most demanding stroke and it took a particular combination of body type, strength, wind, and swimming technique to not be exhausted after swimming a butterfly event. I saw more kids/guys in the pool looking like they were about to drown trying to finish a butterfly event than any other stroke. Really it never happened with any other stroke.

 

In the IM events, Butterfly comes first. If you can;t make it through that without feeling wasted, you are screwed no matter how good you are at the other strokes. Dead in the water is just that. Phelps ability in the IM is more of a testimony to his butterly start and freestyle finish than it is to his ability to "muddle" (no offense Mr. Phelps) through the backstroke and breaststroke.