Professionals register now to create your own content and profile, and gain other potential financial, networking and marketing benefits.
Consumers (athletes, enthusiasts) use our quick registration to enhance your experience of the site
Michael Phelps: The Debate
Today, the world's media reported Michael Phelps as the "Greatest Ever Olympian'. The debate that exploded on message boards all over the web meant that by the evening the words were toned down somewhat, at least in some courts, so that he was simply "statistically, the most successful Olympian" or "the most medalled Olympian".
It's been really odd guaging people's responses to this great achievement. Part awe, part incredulity. To some, he's the greatest athlete to have lived. To others, simply evidence that there are too many medals to be won in swimming.
Some of the arguments, on both sides, have been ridiculous. I've read that if in athletics, they created more ways of running inefficiently over the same distances (referring to the different strokes) the likes of Carl Lewis (a controversial choice anyway) would have won more medals. I've read that the fact that track athletes specialise in one or two events means that swimming is just swimming - there's no real specialism involved.
I've heard that (and a lot of the debate has focused on swiming versus athletics or rowing) because rowers race over 2000m, that it must be harder (surely that's dependent on the intensity over time, not distance).
On the other hand, I've heard that athletes and rowers are soft for not doing more events. That their specialisation is down to their limitations, or perhaps the belief system within their sport.
What is apparent is that Michael Phelps' achievements seem to have devalued the sport of swimming in some people's eyes. He makes it look too easy, therefore everyone else must be rubbish. Someone can't stand out like that unless there's a weakness in the competition, can they?
That's what gets me. Yes, Phelps has more opportunities to win gold than most other athletes at the games. That's partly down to the structure of the sport, with different strokes and distances. But it is also down to the man. He's been blessed with physical attributes that suggest that he was born to swim, but he's also a 365-day-a-year trainer. He's focused his attention on events where the competition is greatest (choosing the 200m freestyle when Thorpe was stil dominant). He's ironed out the weaknesses in his repertoire - such as his breakstroke.
We've seen some remarkable swimming this week. From Kosuke Katijima in the 100m breastroke, to Stephanie Rice in the 400 IM, there have been a number of barrier-breaking swims. I'm not talking about the suits, either, which haven't helped by taking the focus off the quality of the swimming. I think that in part Phelps has helped to raise the bar, not just in his own events, but for all. I think people's beliefs about what is possible have been shifted, in part because of his performances. The fact is that, new suits or not, just when he looks like he must have reached his peak (or his competitors think they are closing the gap), he keeps pushing on.
It's ironic. Before the games I was talking about how swimming has so much depth. It is a sport that is really competitive on a global level. There are no weak finalists. I'm not going to compare apples with pears, and as tempting as it is to suggest that that the eighth placed performer in many events will be way off the pace, that would be unfair and maybe inaccurate.
However, we are in the ironic position that people are suggesting that it is too easy to win medals in swimming. Try telling that to the many swimmers who have come away with national, even continental and world records (or at least have beaten the old mark) and no medal....
So who is the greatest ever Olympian?
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
It's been really odd guaging people's responses to this great achievement. Part awe, part incredulity. To some, he's the greatest athlete to have lived. To others, simply evidence that there are too many medals to be won in swimming.
Some of the arguments, on both sides, have been ridiculous. I've read that if in athletics, they created more ways of running inefficiently over the same distances (referring to the different strokes) the likes of Carl Lewis (a controversial choice anyway) would have won more medals. I've read that the fact that track athletes specialise in one or two events means that swimming is just swimming - there's no real specialism involved.
I've heard that (and a lot of the debate has focused on swiming versus athletics or rowing) because rowers race over 2000m, that it must be harder (surely that's dependent on the intensity over time, not distance).
On the other hand, I've heard that athletes and rowers are soft for not doing more events. That their specialisation is down to their limitations, or perhaps the belief system within their sport.
What is apparent is that Michael Phelps' achievements seem to have devalued the sport of swimming in some people's eyes. He makes it look too easy, therefore everyone else must be rubbish. Someone can't stand out like that unless there's a weakness in the competition, can they?
That's what gets me. Yes, Phelps has more opportunities to win gold than most other athletes at the games. That's partly down to the structure of the sport, with different strokes and distances. But it is also down to the man. He's been blessed with physical attributes that suggest that he was born to swim, but he's also a 365-day-a-year trainer. He's focused his attention on events where the competition is greatest (choosing the 200m freestyle when Thorpe was stil dominant). He's ironed out the weaknesses in his repertoire - such as his breakstroke.
We've seen some remarkable swimming this week. From Kosuke Katijima in the 100m breastroke, to Stephanie Rice in the 400 IM, there have been a number of barrier-breaking swims. I'm not talking about the suits, either, which haven't helped by taking the focus off the quality of the swimming. I think that in part Phelps has helped to raise the bar, not just in his own events, but for all. I think people's beliefs about what is possible have been shifted, in part because of his performances. The fact is that, new suits or not, just when he looks like he must have reached his peak (or his competitors think they are closing the gap), he keeps pushing on.
It's ironic. Before the games I was talking about how swimming has so much depth. It is a sport that is really competitive on a global level. There are no weak finalists. I'm not going to compare apples with pears, and as tempting as it is to suggest that that the eighth placed performer in many events will be way off the pace, that would be unfair and maybe inaccurate.
However, we are in the ironic position that people are suggesting that it is too easy to win medals in swimming. Try telling that to the many swimmers who have come away with national, even continental and world records (or at least have beaten the old mark) and no medal....
So who is the greatest ever Olympian?
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Tags:
,
beijing,
debate,
gold,
greatest olympian,
medals,
michael phelps,
olympic games,
olympics,
record,
swimming
Post A Comment
You need to be signed into istadia.com to post comments
If you are not a member yet, registering is quick and easy! Click here for Quick Registration and keep up to date with what is happening, engage in some networking and access to iStadia’s expert community.
However if you are a sport & exercise professional or business and would like to promote yourself by building a detailed, search-engine friendly profile and posting content to attract potential clients, customers or employers, we recommend Full Registration.
Comments
Vasundhara Nangia
Sport Psychologist
www.nangiaconsultants.com
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com