We're a few weeks out from the 10th FINA World Championship and the war of the words between US vs Australia has begun. As reported in swiminfo Talbot (former Australian coach and now full-time minister of propaganda) just fired the first salvo in the continung swimming war between the US vs Australia.
Commenting on Phelps recent 200 IM world record, Talbot noted that the US is looking for someone to top their Thorpe for best swimmer in the world and, in a transparent attempt to psyche the young Phelps, noted that in "Phelps had done nothing yet" and has everything to prove and Thorpe is still the best inthe world...blah...blah...blah.
The Aussies have mounted a campaign that their Thorpie will challenge Spitz for four individual golds at Athens. Too bad for them that Thorpes fourth event is the 200 IM and Phelps has just made that task much more difficult.
Meanwhile, as to Talbot's statement that "Phelps has done nothing yet" in international competition. What about his gold medal and world record inthe 200 fly at 9th FINA World Championship weeks after he turned 16? How about his performances in the 400 IM AGAINST the world's best (just happened to be the US Eric Vendt) in the 400 IM last summer? How about swimming head-to-head ALL THE TIME against the best in the world in the 200 fly (just happens to be another American Tom Malchow)? Only one of Phelps world records weren't set against the best in the world and that was his 200 IM last week in Santa Clara.
In fact, I maintain that Phelps is already the better swimmer than Thorpe. He has three world records (200 IM/400 IM/200 FLY) and will soon have his fourth (100FLY) demonstrating a range of male swimming talent not seen since Mark Spitz.
Since turning 16 he has proven unbeatable in his events in head-to-head competition against the best in the world (Thorpe's record is not good in that record especially at the big show). The only thing missing from Phelps resume is a stellar Olympics (does Thorpe really have one?
How about it--who's the best male swimmer in the world RIGHT NOW. Thorpe or Phelps?
I say Phelps no contest. It's Thorpe who's coming into Worlds
with something to prove. Is he healthy-both physically and mentally. How will the change in coaching work out? Does he still
have what it takes to win? WILL HE DUCK PHELPS IN HEAD-TO-HEAD MATCH UP IN THE 200 IM? In this contest, Phelps has the advantage before the gun goes off not Thorpe. How about that Talbot?
What do you guys think?
Parents
Former Member
Bob,
At the risk of touching off a debate about debates, I don't see either one of your points. First, the fact that pseudo-scientific statistical models exist does not imply that their results mean anything. Unless the guy swimming a 400 IM is faster than the guy swimming the 400 free, trying to compare the two is so much hocus-pocus based on subjective assumptions and extrapolations. If you want to create a model to systematically and with the aid of mathematics reflect your value judgments as to what is more significant, go ahead. But, don't jive us about how it has some kind of objective meaning. It will reflect you judgment that, for example, the IM is the best measure all around swimming ability, or distance events are more meaningful that sprints (or vice versa), or a swimmer going a slower time at an older age is actually a "better" swim than a slightly faster time (s)he did at a younger age, or whatever. Is there anything wrong with making these judgments? Not at all, and they can be VERY MEANINGFUL TO YOU, and those who share your judgments. Just don't try to tell me I have to accept the results of your model as valid without asking about the judgments behind it.
Second, I did not say Hackett was a better "distance swimmer" than Salnikov; I said he was a better 1500 swimmer. How can I say that, given the above. Simple, stop watch baby. This is swimming. Just as there is no crying in baseball, there are no French figure skating judges in swimming. The one valid comparison across eras we CAN make with confidence, is comparing the time to swim a given event in a given sized-pool. (That is, until the rules committee changes the rules on legal strokes or turns, but I digress...) If you want to argue Salnikov's career as a swimmer is more significant because he was the first under 15:00, or he did not have the benefit of modern science, nutrition, training and stroke technique, or life was harder as a Soviet citizen than it is for modern middle-class swimmers who rapidly become borderline wealthy when they become world-class, etc. etc. Feel free; make the argument; I'd not necessarily disagree with you. But, again, don't jive me that it is anything more than your subjective opinion, and that it can ever be subjected to independent verification.
Finally, what did I mean by demeaning? I am perfectly OK with anyone saying any swimmer is super-awesome-spectacular based on any criteria their little heart desires. What I think is demeaning is that if you and I disagree about who is "more" super-awesome-spectacular, we invariably turn to talking down the other person's favorite after we run out of superlatives for ours. Who is Coach Talbot to claim that Michael Phelps has not proven anything "internationally" (as selectively as he has chosen to define that turn, as you so correctly have pointed out)? Who are any of us to question Thorpe's performance at the Olympics because he "lost" the 200? Thorpe is awesome; Phelps is fantastic; Hackett is unbelievable. What interests me is the reasons why each is so good. What does not interest me is nitpicking about who maybe could have been just a little bit better at some point in his career, enlisted in the argument that someone else is just a little more supercalifragulisticexpealidotious.
Matt
Bob,
At the risk of touching off a debate about debates, I don't see either one of your points. First, the fact that pseudo-scientific statistical models exist does not imply that their results mean anything. Unless the guy swimming a 400 IM is faster than the guy swimming the 400 free, trying to compare the two is so much hocus-pocus based on subjective assumptions and extrapolations. If you want to create a model to systematically and with the aid of mathematics reflect your value judgments as to what is more significant, go ahead. But, don't jive us about how it has some kind of objective meaning. It will reflect you judgment that, for example, the IM is the best measure all around swimming ability, or distance events are more meaningful that sprints (or vice versa), or a swimmer going a slower time at an older age is actually a "better" swim than a slightly faster time (s)he did at a younger age, or whatever. Is there anything wrong with making these judgments? Not at all, and they can be VERY MEANINGFUL TO YOU, and those who share your judgments. Just don't try to tell me I have to accept the results of your model as valid without asking about the judgments behind it.
Second, I did not say Hackett was a better "distance swimmer" than Salnikov; I said he was a better 1500 swimmer. How can I say that, given the above. Simple, stop watch baby. This is swimming. Just as there is no crying in baseball, there are no French figure skating judges in swimming. The one valid comparison across eras we CAN make with confidence, is comparing the time to swim a given event in a given sized-pool. (That is, until the rules committee changes the rules on legal strokes or turns, but I digress...) If you want to argue Salnikov's career as a swimmer is more significant because he was the first under 15:00, or he did not have the benefit of modern science, nutrition, training and stroke technique, or life was harder as a Soviet citizen than it is for modern middle-class swimmers who rapidly become borderline wealthy when they become world-class, etc. etc. Feel free; make the argument; I'd not necessarily disagree with you. But, again, don't jive me that it is anything more than your subjective opinion, and that it can ever be subjected to independent verification.
Finally, what did I mean by demeaning? I am perfectly OK with anyone saying any swimmer is super-awesome-spectacular based on any criteria their little heart desires. What I think is demeaning is that if you and I disagree about who is "more" super-awesome-spectacular, we invariably turn to talking down the other person's favorite after we run out of superlatives for ours. Who is Coach Talbot to claim that Michael Phelps has not proven anything "internationally" (as selectively as he has chosen to define that turn, as you so correctly have pointed out)? Who are any of us to question Thorpe's performance at the Olympics because he "lost" the 200? Thorpe is awesome; Phelps is fantastic; Hackett is unbelievable. What interests me is the reasons why each is so good. What does not interest me is nitpicking about who maybe could have been just a little bit better at some point in his career, enlisted in the argument that someone else is just a little more supercalifragulisticexpealidotious.
Matt
