Michael Phelps.... Deserving of the hype?

[shoju]

So, I'm a sports fan. I love football, I like baseball, Hockey interests me, I hate basketball, and every 4 years I'm enthralled by the Olympics.

Watching the fishman swim made me think that he could possibly be the most dominant athlete in a solo played sport. The only person in my mind is Tiger Woods, but even he wins less than 50% of the 'major' events that he plays. Is anyone this dominant?


On the other side of this, Does Phelps deserve the accolades, the praise, and the status? I'm curious what other people think, as my father an I had a lively discussion over lunch. He thinks it's overblown, because it's swimming (and not a sport to him).

[--Pete]

Hi,

Watching the fishman swim made me think that he could possibly be the most dominant athlete in a solo played sport. The only person in my mind is Tiger Woods, but even he wins less than 50% of the 'major' events that he plays. Is anyone this dominant?

You hear, and will hear, of Tiger Woods year in and year out. Lots of people play golf and there's a ton of money to be made for Ping and MacGregor and Titlist and so forth. You'll hear of Phelps for a few weeks (unless you're in the competitive swimming field in some capacity) and then very seldom afterward. Consider how often you hear of Mark Spitz except in Olympic years. Let him have his glory and his millions for endorsements, he'll be forgotten too soon as is.

On the other side of this, Does Phelps deserve the accolades, the praise, and the status?

Only from those whom he can out swim. The rest can consider him second rate.

He thinks it's overblown, because it's swimming (and not a sport to him).

Remind me never to consult your father's opinion on anything. What medals does he hold? What's his idea of a 'sport' and where and when did he compete? Or is he an arm chair jackass?

--Pete

[shoju]

Glad to know that I'm not alone


My dad is an old football hero. Played all through high school from 68-72. Was pretty good, but then he ended up with a couple of brain tumors, and never got to do much more with sports.


I'm not into swimming 'cept when the olympics roll around, but I think that phelps might be talked about for a while longer. 8 medals, 7 records (I know that the technology and pool helped) lead me to believe that it will at least last for 6 months.


I agree. Tiger is more world renowned, and is (IMO a great athlete) unparalleled.

[Occhidiangela]

So, I'm a sports fan. I love football, I like baseball, Hockey interests me, I hate basketball, and every 4 years I'm enthralled by the Olympics.

Watching the fishman swim made me think that he could possibly be the most dominant athlete in a solo played sport. The only person in my mind is Tiger Woods, but even he wins less than 50% of the 'major' events that he plays. Is anyone this dominant?
On the other side of this, Does Phelps deserve the accolades, the praise, and the status? I'm curious what other people think, as my father an I had a lively discussion over lunch. He thinks it's overblown, because it's swimming (and not a sport to him).

Phelps didn't start the hype. He does most of his talking with his hard work and performance. He seems to handle the attention with grace and a sunny attitude, which is good, given the media spotlight on him, and what is probably some self inflicted pressure to succeed.

Rather than ask if Phelps deserves hype, the guy is good, we might rather ask if the hype makers ever inhale. If ever there was a class of people who need to avoid caffeine, something I don't generally endorse, they are it.

Occhi

[eppie]

So, I'm a sports fan. I love football, I like baseball, Hockey interests me, I hate basketball, and every 4 years I'm enthralled by the Olympics.

Watching the fishman swim made me think that he could possibly be the most dominant athlete in a solo played sport. The only person in my mind is Tiger Woods, but even he wins less than 50% of the 'major' events that he plays. Is anyone this dominant?
On the other side of this, Does Phelps deserve the accolades, the praise, and the status? I'm curious what other people think, as my father an I had a lively discussion over lunch. He thinks it's overblown, because it's swimming (and not a sport to him).

It is difficult to compare sports,
I like Woods, he seems to be very sympathetic etc. I like golf (play a bit my self) but golf is a game. Giving big price money and having a lot of sponsors doesnot make it a sport.

Swimming, real sport....but 8 medals in all these events that are almost the same is not comparable to what Carl Lewis did.
Phelps is a great sportsman, nice guy, but to me the real heroes are people like Usain Bolt.

[Tris]

Also, don't forget Roger Bannister:)

[--Pete]

Hi,

Also, don't forget Roger Bannister:)

Don't forget Jang Miran. One Olympic and three Wold records out of six lifts. And the last two *after* she'd nailed the gold. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Olympic spirit at it's finest.

--Pete

[Kevin]

but 8 medals in all these events that are almost the same

Obviously you don't swim. The 100m freestyle is as different from the 400m freestyle as the 100m dash is from the 800m dash. Carl Lewis did not win the 100 and the 800. He won the 100 and the 200 and the Long jump.

The 100m back stroke is as different from the 100m freestyle as the long jump is from the triple jump. Lewis did the long jump but not the triple jump.

The reason why there are "so many" swimming events is because they really are that different from each other. The 50 free doesn't really have a track analog. It'd be more like a 125m run. It's all out the whole way but you have a bit of time where you are holding top speed and no longer accelerating. Most of the world class 100m runners are still accelerating at the end. The 100 free is pretty close to the 200m dash. The 200 free is pretty similar to the 400m dash. The 400m free is pretty close to the 800m not a distance event not a sprint. The 1500m free is more like a 5k run.

The other strokes are really not just "freestyle on your back or freestyle with 2 arms". The use different muscles the muscles that overlap are taxed differently. If you believe that the balance beam and the floor exercise are the same event in gymnastics I'll let you say that breaststroke and butterfly are the same stroke.

Now do I take anything away from Carl Lewis or Jesse Owens (and I consider Owens better than Lewis). Not at all. In ways they are more amazing because every healthy human being has the means to run (I'm being a bit broad with the term healthy, obviously there are quad and para-plegic individuals out there who can't run without modification. It's much harder to have access to water that you can swim in. That means that there is generally a larger pool of people exploring their potential in running than in swimming. The pressures on Jesse Owens were insane.

I still consider Jim Thorpe one of the most phenomenal athletes ever. He won gold medals in track and field he played professional baseball, basketball, and football. He won professional golf tournaments. Yes the sports universe was different in the 1910 - 1930 era, but still. We saw what happened when Jordan tried to play professional baseball. We are properly amazed when we consider what Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson did in 2 professional leagues still because it is that amazingly good.

I also am utterly amazed by people like Mark Allen and Dave Scott who each won the Ironman Triathlon 6 times and of course Paula Newby-Fraser an 8 time winner, 4 in a row. I mean swimming 2.4 miles, biking 112 miles and then running 26.2 miles all in the same day and doing it in just over 8 hours as well. Insane conditioning and while those are all endurance and not power events, it's crazy.

However I put Phelps in the same category as folks like that. And the competition in swimming now is much stiffer than it has ever been. You'll note very few swimmers swim more than 1 event. They will often swim both distances of it, but it's also not common for them to win both those distances or to hold world records in both distance. You are a breast stroker or a freestyler or an IMer (though since the IM is swimming all 4 strokes you'll see people who are breaststroke/IM or backstroke/IM). This Olympics had a few other amazing swimmers doing stuff that had Phelps not been there would have been the headlines. Ryan Lochte, Kristy Coventry, Katie Hoff, Natalie Coughlin, Laslzo Cseh. All of them swam schedules that are just normally not seen and won medals (not all golds of course) in pretty much everything they swam. Phelps had to beat these other amazing swimmers and did.


That being said, Phelps needs to do some more work in 2012 before I'll call him the greatest Olympian. He's close, he's competed in 3 (finished 6th in the 200 butter fly in Sydney as 15 year old). I will say he's had the single best Olympics ever though. 8 golds, 7 world records, 8 American records (He got the 100 free American record in the 4x100, it's just the 100 fly he didn't get a world or american in, that is held by Ian Crocker (set 3 years ago) who he beat to get the gold).

I can't name the greatest athlete in the world, but he's in the conversation. As the greastest swimmer ever he has to be. I will say right now that he is a better athlete than Tiger Woods. Gold doesn't need the same kind of athleticism. Now as a competitor, you can talk about Tiger with him, but not as an athlete. I still tend to think of the decathlon competitors as better athletes than any of the other track and field stars. They compete at very high levels in very dissimilar events as well. It's certainly a more difficult 'event' than any single swimming event. Long jumps, shot puts, sprints, hurdles, middle distance runs, etc. But again to compare what Phelps did to them, I would need to see a decathlete set a world record in one of the 10 events and set the world record in the decathlon itself for it to be in the same category.


Oh and speaking of cool Olympic things and athletes. We'll have to see how it goes in 2012, but the US womens softball team that is so ridiculously good that they aren't going to have softball in 2012 are seriously considering changing over to handball. The US doesn't have a team, but I bet those softball players have the ability to change sports and if they can get the coaching and find the teams to play against in the next 4 years have a shot at doing something real. It will be a very interesting look at how skills in on sport can translate to another.


Edit: Just realized I wasn't clear on my greatest Olympian criteria. I believe you need to win medals in at least 3 Olympics to qualify. I think that covers the criteria of longevity that I feel is needed.

[TheDragoon]

Only from those whom he can out swim. The rest can consider him second rate.

I think this just about sums up my thoughts on the matter. He's amazing. :)

[Jester]

It is difficult to compare sports,
I like Woods, he seems to be very sympathetic etc. I like golf (play a bit my self) but golf is a game. Giving big price money and having a lot of sponsors doesnot make it a sport.

Swimming, real sport....but 8 medals in all these events that are almost the same is not comparable to what Carl Lewis did.
Phelps is a great sportsman, nice guy, but to me the real heroes are people like Usain Bolt.

I don't get it. A game is different from a sport how? And because Mark Phelps races in the water and Usain Bolt races above the water, that makes the one a "real hero" and the other a "nice guy"? And Tiger Woods is just playing a "game", whereas putting on tight trunks and running for 100 meters is a "sport"? What kind of distinction are you making here? You've completely lost me.

-Jester

[Jester]

I can't name the greatest athlete in the world, but he's in the conversation. As the greastest swimmer ever he has to be. I will say right now that he is a better athlete than Tiger Woods. Gold doesn't need the same kind of athleticism. Now as a competitor, you can talk about Tiger with him, but not as an athlete.

I'm not sure I understand this any more than I understand Eppie's point. If you are making the distinction that athletes are people who do track-type sports (races, throws, etc...) and there is some other class of people who compete in games (Golf, Football, etc...) then the point is obvious, since Tiger is not an athlete.

On the other hand, if you're lumping all the sports together, then what kind of criteria are you using? Tiger can't jump in a pool and beat world records, and Phelps can't pick up the clubs and win the Masters. They just can't do what each other can do, and neither would be competitive in some third sport, like sprinting or what have you. Maybe if you had some kind of mega-thon, where every known sport was tested?

So, unless certain sports are just automatically "more athletic" than others, I don't get it. If it's about "competitor", then fine, but then all of a sudden you're competing with Gary Kasparov and SlayerS_`BoxeR` and who knows who else. That category goes far wider than just sports.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

What seals it for me was that Phelps surrendered his spot on the 400 meter medley relay team to his team-mate and rival Ian Crocker at the 2004 Olympics in Athens. That team went on to win the gold medal without Phelps.

[Kevin]

I'm not sure I understand this any more than I understand Eppie's point. If you are making the distinction that athletes are people who do track-type sports (races, throws, etc...) and there is some other class of people who compete in games (Golf, Football, etc...) then the point is obvious, since Tiger is not an athlete.

On the other hand, if you're lumping all the sports together, then what kind of criteria are you using? Tiger can't jump in a pool and beat world records, and Phelps can't pick up the clubs and win the Masters. They just can't do what each other can do, and neither would be competitive in some third sport, like sprinting or what have you. Maybe if you had some kind of mega-thon, where every known sport was tested?

So, unless certain sports are just automatically "more athletic" than others, I don't get it. If it's about "competitor", then fine, but then all of a sudden you're competing with Gary Kasparov and SlayerS_`BoxeR` and who knows who else. That category goes far wider than just sports.

-Jester

My distinction between athletic sport and athletic skill competition isn't as clearly defined as I would like. But I mostly break it down this way.

An athletic competition requires you to be highly physically active. Something that is going to get your heart rate to a high sustained level or a shorter very very high burst level (like the track and swimming sprints) OR it requires a great feet of strength. Of course things like weightlifting and shot put and discus are going to get you a big heart rate spike as well. It requires doing something that causes stress to the muscles. It also requires the competitor to have control of physical movements, or physical skill. Swimming fast requires skill in hand angle entry, stroke technique, etc. Strength and physical endurance for motion, same with track, etc.

For me for it to be a sport another person has to be able to have a direct effect on your outcome. This is why I actually considering swimming, track and field, ski jumping etc, to be athletic competitions. While your result is directly effected by others (winning or losing) and while most people in those events will perform better against other competition, you could have 10 people running by themselves on 10 different tracks and have them race because the clock is the final arbiter. This is not the case in football, rugby, hockey, baseball, etc, where another competitor is directly affecting your performance. Yes, drafting and such happens in swimming and track, but Bolt could run a 9.69 with no one else on the track or 9 other people on that 10 lane track.

Golf is certainly a competition, but again the direct effect of the other competitors is less impactful than in something like fencing or wrestling or basketball. But it's in the same level as track and swimming for sure. It requires physical skill, swinging a club at a ball like that is very difficult, it requires very good coordination. However, it fails what I call the athletic check. Strength does matter some, but there are professional baseball players and football players who are clearly much stronger, can run faster, etc but it doesn't really help them in golf, and Michael Jordan played skins games against Tiger Woods and beat him occasionally. There were professional players in the major sports who finished high in PGA tournaments in the past, but their superior strength didn't really translate to longer drives.

Golf is very borderline for me. It is definitely a physical skill competition, so it's clearly distinguished from chess and such that is purely a mental skill competition. But ther have been world class golfers who weren't "in shape" by most peoples standard. Baseball is also very low on the athletic scale in my mind. There are some positions that don't require much athletic ability (especially in the American League, where a DH may play several games in a row where they never have to do more than jog around the bases because they hit a home run or such a deep double that they could jog). But yet baseball still take very good physical skills. Some say that hitting a baseball thrown by a major league pitcher is the hardest thing to do in sports, it takes skill, I don't dispute that at all. Just like I don't dispute the physical skill required for golf.

So, yes some things are more athletic than others. Some things require you to expend more energy than others. I think that is what it comes down. How much energy to do you need expend either in a very short burst or over a sustained time. Golf doesn't require nearly the energy of swimming. Tiger Woods is certainly an athlete in my mind (John Daily was not), but he doesn't play an athletic game.

Michael Phelps is an amazing athlete but I don't consider swimming a pure sport, it's an athletic competition. LeBron James and Kobe Bryant are amazing athlete who competes in a highly athletic sport. Barry Bonds (I picked a name that most people would know from baseball) was a very good athlete who competed in only a moderately athletic sport. The more muscles you have to use the more athletic the event, the more energy you have put out with those muscles the more athletic the event. So yes if you really wanted me to break it down I could probably create a formula that would rank how athletic a 100m dash was compared to the 400m hurdles (off the top of my head I won't say, the 100 bursts a ton of energy, the 400 is lower output for a longer time).

So golf and baseball are lower than swimming and basketball as far as athletic ability goes. Baseball my require more physical skill/coordination than swimming though but I tend to seperate those.

This is why I rate champion Ironman triathletes so highly. There are 3 different physical skill sets involved and massive endurance. I think that takes more than a 100m dash does, but again when you get down to the physiology of it you are are using different muscle fibers for those events. And that is why multiple events impress me more. Someone who can run the 100, 200 and 400 at world class levels is certianly more impressive than someone who can only do one event at the level.

[eppie]

Obviously you don't swim.

I played most sports and I know what they are. What you are saying here is comparable to the 'windsurfing is the most physicallt demanding sport' remark.
Of course the different disciplines are different but you must agree that somebody that can do breast stroke can also do another stroke well. And when you have size 14 feet, relative short legs, enormously wide arm span...you will be able to do all swimming events.
Further say a basketballer, will be able to get 3 golds max. (if he plays in 3 different olympics) is he therefore a worse athlete? Or should we make 3 point contest also an olypmic sport? No of course not because we don't want to compare the different sports like this.
(this is also a reply to jester)
Every sport is different, swimming is a great sport (note my remark in the other thread about that swimming is one of the real sports) but you must agree that Bolt will never be able to get 8 medals in one olympic. The difference between 100m and 400 meter running is way bigger than 400 meter breaststroke relay and 100 meter breaststroke. Just looking at physical build of the athlete.

Golf is not olympic material period, what is next? Darts?

Emiel.

[Kevin]

Every sport is different, swimming is a great sport (note my remark in the other thread about that swimming is one of the real sports) but you must agree that Bolt will never be able to get 8 medals in one olympic. The difference between 100m and 400 meter running is way bigger than 400 meter breaststroke relay and 100 meter breaststroke. Just looking at physical build of the athlete.

Golf is not olympic material period, what is next? Darts?

Emiel.

Actually what Phelps did would be like Bolt winning the 100m, the 4x100m relay (same as the 4x100 free relay), the 200m, and the 100m hurdles. The 100 hurdles is less different from the 100 than breaststroke is from freestyle (FYI breaststroke is by far the most different of the strokes). And maybe Bolt would need to win the 400m and the 4x400m relay as well to compare the longer races Phelps did. The long jump isn't that different from sprinting either. You just add an explosive muscle release at the end of the sprint. But he wouldn't need to add that. And yes I still contend the 400m is as different from the 100m as the 200m in swimming is from the 100m. The track guys can still get 6 medals if they really wanted to do something similar to Phelps.

I do agree that Phelps has more opportunity to win medals than Bolt does even given what I said above. But Bolt would still need to win at least 4 medals and I personally think he would need to win 5 (a 400 or longer event) across those different distances and types of events for it to be equatable to what Phelps did. I didn't deny that Carl Lewis came close and if I put more time into ranking who I feel were the greatest Olympians Lewis would certainly be near the top of that list. But what Phelps did this Olympics (and nearly did at the last Olympics as well) was still more impressive than any other competitor has done in a single Olympics.

Oh and as to Phelps build. There have been other swimmers built like Phelps (all of them are somewhat similar) but you don't see them succeeding the way Phelps did either. 17 races (9 of them world records since I forget he broke 2 world records in a semi finals and prelims as well, some of them less than an hour apart. It's nutso and it's not attempted because no one else is that good. I'm mean I brought up Katie Hoff earlier. She came in with world records in 3 of the 6 events she swam. She left with a silver medal and 2 bronze medals. An amazing Olympics for sure, but it helps illustrates how hard it was. And honestly the fact that in several of the events 2 or 3 folks beat previous world records tells me that competition was HARD. Yes the suits and the pool played a part, but more world records were set in swimming at this Olympics than in the previous 2 combined. And don't forget there was new suit technology in 2000 a year in which more swimming world records were set prior to the Olympics than in all but 3 other Olympic years (this year being just in front of 2000).

And Bolt's Olympics isn't over either, he has more chances to impress me. I've been amazed at how he has dominated the competition, the fact that he shuts down his runs with 10-30 meters to go and still destroys everyone else, even in the finals. He has been extremely dominate. It's crazy, but I don't think it's quite as good as what Phelps did. I'm more impressed by him than I was of Michael Johnson a few Olympics back (and he crushed folks in the 200, things were closer for him in the 400 though). It's on par with what Lewis did, but I don't put it quite up there with Phelps.

I wasn't as good at track as I was at swimming, but I swam and ran with guys who were good enough to get college scholarships in both sports (I wasn't good enough at track to get a scholarship, I did get a partial scholarship in swimming at the division 2 level I was not good enough for NCAA D1). So not all my comparison of the events is from personal experience it's from talking with others who were better than me in both sports. I like to compare stuff when done at the same level, so talking with someone who was competitive in both track and swimming at the D2 level helped, not Olympic level, but still. I also base my opinions on some of the studies I did in the mid 90's, most of that info from reading journals and talking with folks about it. I'm pretty confident in my comparisons between the 2 sports.


As to other sports/competitions at the Olympics, there have been some other amazing single Olympics in tha past. There are others, besides Bolt and Phelps going on right now too. Heck Dwayne Wade this year in basketball is having a lights out tournament, his numbers are certainly some of the best in Olympic BBall history. I still don't think it's as impressive. Misty May and Keri Walsh are doing crazy things on the beach volleyball courts and the fact they haven't lost a game in over a year now is insane quite the performance. I'm still more impressed by Phelps. Park Sung-Hyun set 3 Olympic and 1 World record in Archery events unfortunately she didn't get the gold in the individual, I was pretty impressed by that too.

The 'it's just swimming argument' is total hogwash. Which is why I've been so wall of text, trying to explain that to people since so many don't understand. But it doesn't mean I'm blind to the other stuff. I just think Phelps has been amazing. I'd like to see him defend his 200 fly title in 2012, no male swimmer has ever won an individual event in 3 Olympics. I really rooting for Grant Hackett to pull it off in the 1,500 but well he didn't. If Phelps can do that, with what he did in Athens and what he did here in Beijing, there will be no doubt in my mind for him being the greatest Olympian ever.

What seals it for me was that Phelps surrendered his spot on the 400 meter medley relay team to his team-mate and rival Ian Crocker at the 2004 Olympics in Athens. That team went on to win the gold medal without Phelps.

I do have to comment on this. Phelps still got a gold medal for that. The same holds true this year. Crocker got a gold medal this year for swimming on the prelims. Swimming is not the only sport that does this. It happens in track with the relays. It happens in gymnastics (well it used to, not sure about with the new format) with people who participated in the team prelims had all their scores dropped and didn't participate in the team finals, they still got the team medal. You may have been aware of that, but I did want to make sure. One of Phelps 6 golds from Athens was in the 4x100 medley relay even though he gave up his spot on the relay finals to Crocker, but since Phelps swam the fly on the prelim he got his medal.

Now people arguing about those medals counting, I'll grant them. Of course since Phelps still has more individual event golds than anyone else as well, I don't think it matters. :) But it does show the Olympic spirit, and Crocker did have a faster split than Phelps (and should have beat him in the 100 fly that year anyway, I still don't know how Phelps managed to win either of his 100 fly golds:) ).

[--Pete]

Hi,

I still don't know how Phelps managed to win either of his 100 fly golds:) ).

Guts and desire?

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

Of course the different disciplines are different but you must agree that somebody that can do breast stroke can also do another stroke well. And when you have size 14 feet, relative short legs, enormously wide arm span...you will be able to do all swimming events.

I have been lurking in this conversation, but I have to comment on this one. I am the mother of a former competitive swimmer. I have watched more workouts and worked at more competitions than I care to recall.

You are mistaken. The ability to do the breast stroke well is not any indicator of ability to do the backstroke or any other stroke well - or rather, well enough to win in competition.

I will agree that Phelps is uniquely suited, by his physical make-up, to be a swimmer. But 'doing all events' and winning at all events are very different things.

[eppie]

I have been lurking in this conversation, but I have to comment on this one. I am the mother of a former competitive swimmer. I have watched more workouts and worked at more competitions than I care to recall.

You are mistaken. The ability to do the breast stroke well is not any indicator of ability to do the backstroke or any other stroke well - or rather, well enough to win in competition.

I will agree that Phelps is uniquely suited, by his physical make-up, to be a swimmer. But 'doing all events' and winning at all events are very different things.

I don't agree. We are talkign about a very special individual here. A few of the other great swimmers (Thorpe en van den Hoogeband) also had very typical body shapes. Thorpe had size 16 feet if I am not mistaken, and van den Hoogenbands torso was 'dented' giving him a perfect shape for going fast.

The biggest proof is that a 100m winner could never win a 1000m as well. (running I mean)

[Mordekhuul]

The biggest proof is that a 100m winner could never win a 1000m as well. (running I mean)

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

[Tal]

The biggest proof is that a 100m winner could never win a 1000m as well. (running I mean)

One does not necessarily follow the other in logic or in my experience in track and cross country events. I say this coming from the experience of having a 1km runner smoke me in the 100m and vice versa.