I think that Johnny Weissmuller was better for his time than Mark Spitz because he was a natural. He workout not that much compared to Spitz who workout several times more yardage. Granted, Spitz did have the ideal olympics that porbably no other swimmer will do again. There is too much competition today compared to 1972 and there are few freestylers who can also won butterfly at the international level these days. This is for fun.
Parents
Former Member
Interesting "what-ifs" but at the end of the day-as many have pointed out--you cannot be sure who would have done better--Weismuller, Murray Rose, Mark Spitz, Tracy Caulkins, pick your favorite past swimmer under "equal" conditions.
HOWEVER, the various comments about Spitz's incredible 7 golds and 7 world records as "untouchable" may not seem such a sure thing as we watch Natalie Coughlin turn in some incredible performances. Coughlin has that rare talent that converts well into stroke and free and has chosen to compete at world class levels in fly/back/free. She is a legitimate threat for 7 gold and 7 world records at the next Olympics--in fact the only legitimate threat despite a lot of P.R. about Thorpe. I grant you, hoever, that Thorpe is probably the best Australian swimmer since Murray Rose and a legitmate gold medalist in 100/200/400 free. Coughlin is a legitimate gold medal threat in 100 free/100back/200 back/100 fly plus should swim all three relays. We'll have to wait to see if she can do it all in 2004 (after all Spitz's "failure" in 68 helped him win it all in 72)--her feat will be even more incredible given the trial, semi-finals, finals format for all of her events.
The other "young" swimmer with the potential to be the best in several events is Michael Phelps (shades of Gary Hall, Sr ?) who is legitmate gold medalist in 100/200 fly and 200/400 IM. However, Phelps is unlikely to make the 400/800 FR relays and the demands of swimming multiple heats of his events might make it much harder to win 4 individual events.
So, who's the best ever? I think we watching them develop right now.
Interesting "what-ifs" but at the end of the day-as many have pointed out--you cannot be sure who would have done better--Weismuller, Murray Rose, Mark Spitz, Tracy Caulkins, pick your favorite past swimmer under "equal" conditions.
HOWEVER, the various comments about Spitz's incredible 7 golds and 7 world records as "untouchable" may not seem such a sure thing as we watch Natalie Coughlin turn in some incredible performances. Coughlin has that rare talent that converts well into stroke and free and has chosen to compete at world class levels in fly/back/free. She is a legitimate threat for 7 gold and 7 world records at the next Olympics--in fact the only legitimate threat despite a lot of P.R. about Thorpe. I grant you, hoever, that Thorpe is probably the best Australian swimmer since Murray Rose and a legitmate gold medalist in 100/200/400 free. Coughlin is a legitimate gold medal threat in 100 free/100back/200 back/100 fly plus should swim all three relays. We'll have to wait to see if she can do it all in 2004 (after all Spitz's "failure" in 68 helped him win it all in 72)--her feat will be even more incredible given the trial, semi-finals, finals format for all of her events.
The other "young" swimmer with the potential to be the best in several events is Michael Phelps (shades of Gary Hall, Sr ?) who is legitmate gold medalist in 100/200 fly and 200/400 IM. However, Phelps is unlikely to make the 400/800 FR relays and the demands of swimming multiple heats of his events might make it much harder to win 4 individual events.
So, who's the best ever? I think we watching them develop right now.
