Swimming War : US vs Australia

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Fri, 04 Jul 2003 06:46:22 GMT

He, he, he, Cynthia. I hope from reading 'Not feeling that great', that you are getting better. Allow me to polish the post: Popov is at a disadvantage in relays because Russia doesn't have the depth that the US does. It's true that Blondi did the 200 meter freestyle and the 100 fly in his earlier international career. On that note he is better than Popov. But relays depend upon 4 swimmers not 1 swimmer. Also, the new rules make it difficult for swimmers to win multiple events-there are three rounds instead of 2 like in Spitz's day. And the real competition on the international scene is the ladies. In Spitz's day he won the 100 meter fly swim in 54.27. The ladies winner from Japan (i.e.: Mayumi Aoki) only posted a 1:03.34. In the last Olympics Lars Frolander won the 100 fly in 52.00, while Inky won the ladies event in 56.61. So, the ladies have become a lot more competitive than even the men since their times have dropped more in the past 31 years.

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Fri, 04 Jul 2003 05:03:31 GMT

Popov is at a disadvantage in relays because Russia doesn't not have the depth that the US does. Its true that Blondi did the 200 yard freestyle and the 100 fly in his earlier international career on that note he is better than Popov. But relays depend upon 4 swimmers not 1 swimmer. Also, the new rules makes it difficult for swimmers to win multple events-there are three rounds instead of 2 like in Spitz's day. And the real competition on the international scene is the ladies. In Spitz's day he won the 100 yard swim in 54, some odd seconds. The ladies winner from Japan only posted a 1:03 something. In the last olympics Lars F. won the 100 fly in 52 while Inky won the ladies event in 56 something. So, the ladies have become a lot more competitive than even the men since their times have dropped more in the past 32 years.

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:45:10 GMT

If we can't "compare" across distances/strokes then it would make no sense to have "athletes of the year" and that sort of thing. Besides, it IS fun to argue endlessly about the most idiotic details (sounds like marriage, in that regard). Track & Field News does a pretty good job every December of ranking within events and even across events. Mantle vs. Snider? Mantle, clearly. See Bill James' "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract." God, I love that book. -LBJ

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Thu, 03 Jul 2003 14:11:09 GMT

Lefty's got it "right". All of the above was meant in the spirit of the Mantle vs Snider or Bonds vs Mays, etc. The whole point is to have fun with the sport and to generate some interest. In fact, many in USA swimming are trying to create JUST SUCH AN INTEREST (see Duel in the Pool) and Tablot's comments are great in that they stoke such a very good rivalry. And let's face it--swimming fans (and the greater American public) will be comparing Thorpe and Phelps right after the World Championship and into the Olympics. I see nothing wrong with that if it increases the popular interest in our sport. BTW on a somewhat unrelated note we (that means NEM) routinely use "performance measures" to "compare" One Hour Swim performances for precisely the purpose that you worry about above. It's a TREMENDOUS motivated for "older" swimmers. The vast majority of our members think it's "neat" that we compare a 25 year old 5,000 yard performance to a 75 year old 3,875 yard performance because it gives the latter his only chance to "compete" against the former. I do admit that this "performance measure" is only a "model" with all the usual flaws that one finds with such assumptins. It's fun nevertheless.

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:49:30 GMT

So Matt, you "don't care" as you said, but you write two of the longest posts in the history of the forum? Take it easy pal - it is, as someone wrote, just a Mickey Mantle vs Duke Snider debate. Seltzer and I already know that this debate doesn't mean anything, and doesn’t accomplish anything, it was just meant to be fun. I suppose that is the difference between our posts and yours...

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Thu, 03 Jul 2003 06:43:00 GMT

O.K. Mantle over Snider BUT Mays over Mantle. Biondi over Popov (same reasons as Kaelonj) BUT Popov's story not completely written. If he can win gold in Athens then he might triumph due to longevity AND fact that he did beat Biondi And Jager head-to-head 13 years ago! (A case of another dynamic duo upset by a youngun and as P. Cruise points out it could happen again!) BTW, can't make it to Olympics in Athens then go to Olympic Trials. In some ways, even more exciting and definitely more dramatic because if you finish third you walk away with "nothing". On the other hand, once you've made the team you are an Olympian for life and don't even need to final. In other words the real agony of defeat is at trials not the Olympics. Can still buy tickets at: http://www.longbeach2004.com/

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Thu, 03 Jul 2003 06:34:38 GMT

Now you've done it Ion, Popov better than Biondi - no way, true Popov may post faster times than Biondi, but that's common as science and understanding have increased performance abilities. My measuring stick would be the comparison that both dominated the 50 & 100 free in their respective olympics but Biondi also swam and medaled in the 200 free and the 100 fly plus numerous relay swims. So if you go by medal count Biondi leads Popov, which IMHO is a better way to determine how good of an athlete is because it shows where they stood against a similiar field, as time passes things change. BTW Mighty Mouse would take Batman any day, for the simple fact batman only has fancy gadgets no real superpowers and of course as much as it pains me taking a Yankee over a Dodger, Mantle is/was the better player than Snider both in hitting and fielding, just by looking at the Stats. Lastly of course Phelps over Thorpe (though I admit I am somewhat biased - but then again its my opinion). Jeff

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Thu, 03 Jul 2003 05:49:23 GMT

I agree that these sorts of discussions are for fun and no one can "win" one of these arguments. I will point out to those who are projecting Thorpe/Phelps for Worlds & then Olympics next year: watch out for spoilers esp. in the Olympics. There is the rest of the world to consider, as well as up and coming young swimmers from both US & Australia who just might jump up & bite the Dynamic Duo. I just wish I could see these races from the stands!

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Thu, 03 Jul 2003 05:14:38 GMT

Originally posted by Leonard Jansen If we can't "compare" across distances/strokes then it would make no sense to have "athletes of the year" and that sort of thing. ... -LBJ It doesn't. Polls for 'athlete of the year' are subjective and done by outsiders of participation in the race itself, by bureaucrats. There is an attempt at objectivity when an athlete crosses events, or lasts longer, or etc., but after all is said, everything that is untimed in swimming is subjective. Insiders are competing in each event, and are being objectively measured by the clock. I have seen Biondi (US) historically ranked higher than Popov (Rus) in a poll done by 'experts'. I think it is a subjective poll, and subject to longevity (like Matt allows for subjectivity), me, I rank Popov higher than Biondi. Objectively too, by the clock, Popov ranks higher than Biondi. Objectively by the clock and subjectively too, I am impressed by Hackett (Aus.). www.swimnews.com subjectively gives points to the best performance of the year in an event at around 1000 points for close to a world record. When many swimmers overtake the world record like it happens now in the 200 meter breaststroke, then www.swimnews.com gives a little over 1000 points to the new best performances. So 978 points in breaststroke in 2001 is not the same objective time as 978 points given in breaststroke in 2003: it's subjective. Similar subjectivity happens when comparing across events, 978 points in 200 meter I.M. with 978 points in 400 meter free.

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:52:59 GMT

I agree with your two posts, Matt.

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:47:00 GMT

Lefty--I agree with you that it might be difficult to settle this since they generally don't compete head-to-head except for 200 free leg of the 800 free relay and the 200 IM. I also agree that it's likely Thorpe 200 split will be faster and Phelps will be the winner in the 2 IM. Nevertheless, individual golds will count more than relay golds and world records could also be the tie-breaker. Re the ocean life-saving. It's not obvious that Thorpe would beat Phelps in such a contest. First of all he's not that much faster than Phelps--in fact, Phelps unrested 400 was faster a few weeks ago than Thorpe's. More importantly, Phelps has a "better" stroke for ocean swimming than Thorpe. That assymetrical type of stroke breathing every two is much more suited to ocean swimming. He even lifts his body a bit before each breathe. In that situation I'd put my money (life) on Phelps.

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:32:31 GMT

Thorpe vs Phelps.... Most Likely Scenario: Phelps will be on two relays for US plus do 4 individuals at the next Olympics. Thorpe will do 3 relays and 4 indys. Phelps: 4 Individual gold, 1 relay gold, and 1 relay silver. Thorpe: 2 Individual gold, 1 relay gold, 2 relay silver, 2 individual bronze (IM and 100 free) When you look at it that way, it is pretty clear who is the better swimmer. Of course, I have posted this before, if your child is drowning a quarter mile out of the ocean you don't want someone to swim an IM out to them! I think the only way this COULD be setteled is if the USA wins the 800 free relay with Phelps splitting 1:45 or if Thorpe beats Phelps in the 200 IM.

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:15:49 GMT

Matt, I am a little unclear about your point . . . is awesome better than fantastic which is better than unbelievable, or is unbelievable > awesome > fantastic? *which* swimmer do you think is better? Can you clarify? :D :D :D (my first three-grin post)

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:22:27 GMT

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

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:40:12 GMT

Matt: There are measures to compare swim performances across different events (see the Canadian swim news website for one example). This measure let's you compare Phelps 400 IM to Thorpe 400 free. Hardly a Batman vs Mighty Mouse type of comparison. And frankly I don't think it's demeaning to debate such an issue--rather like the old Duke Snider vs Mickey Mantle debates it's good for the sport. I do agree that Hackett does not get the credit he deserves. His record in the 1500 approaches Salnikov (though he will have to hang in a bit longer to match Salnikov--in my mind still the best distance swimmer ever). And like Salnikov he's racing pretty much by himself these days. That means he's also pretty much training by himself also. Also I agree that all three of these swimmers (now I should include Hackett) have a single performance that is truly outstanding (Thorpe-400 free; Hackett's 1500 free and Phelps 400 IM). But in this era of so many great swimmers (I think we are enjoying a golden period) Phelps is on the verge of breaking away from such elite company based on his tremendous range of abilities. Tablot, the Aussie propaganda meister may have been mis-quoted. Maybe what he meant was that "you haven't seen anything yet" when it comes to Phelps.

RE: Swimming War : US vs Australia

Former Member — Wed, 02 Jul 2003 06:10:24 GMT

Fellas, This is all entertaining, but in terms of "proving" anything, we might as well debate whether Batman could take Mighty Mouse. With two swimmers entering largely dissimilar events, deciding who is "best" is all subjective opinion. Even where their events overlap, any comparison that relies on those events alone is lacking. Is the 200 IM really the measure of Ian Thorpe and the manner in which he has dominated the middle distance freestyle events these past several years? Does the 200 IM fully take into account how good Michael Phelps' butterfly is? Having dissed these comparisons, let me speak in praise of another swimmer worthy of this discussion: Grant Hackett. If Thorpe had not been overshadowing him in the shorter events that command more attention here in the U.S. (different story in Australia, where the 1500 really matters in the court of public opinion), we would all be marveling at the breadth of his range. Consider, he is not just the Olympic Champion and World Record Holder in the 1500, he made us all rapidly forget two recent giants in the event: Vladimir Salnikov and Kieren Perkins. We in the U.S. fancy ourselves the dominant swimming nation in the world (justifiably, I might add), yet we have not yet produced a 1500 swimmer faster than Salnikov, whose record Perkins substantially lowered, whose record Hackett substantially lowered. Hackett is two breakthroughs ahead of the best swimmers the best swimming nation can offer. AND... he is a hair's breadth away from Thorpe's records in the 800, the 400, and the only swimmer really close to Thorpe and Hoogie in the 200. When Ian Thorpe first had the records in the 200 and 400, and considering what new world's to conquer, he took a long, hard look at the competion in the 1500, and decided to train for the 100 and the 200 IM (!!) instead. Consider how different is the training regimen for the 1500. Grant Hackett is the best 1500 swimmer, ever, by a substantial margin, and the second best in the world at the 800 and 400, and among the best in the 200! Just look at the times and compare them to track and field events. Has there ever been a 5k Olympic champion who could also make the finals in the 800? I think conversations as to who is "the best" can be demeaning. However, talking about who is among the best can be much more interesting. Matt