Swimming Finals at the World Championships in Barcelona, Spain

Ion, I feel your pain, man. Some people here are looking to pounce on you for any reason or no reason. I got your point about Bond=Biondi. You were merely dropping a footnote because you saw a discrepancy in the reference you were using, and you wanted people to understand how you counted medals if they were using the same reference book. Technical point: got it. Somehow though, it comes across as a slur on Biondi, when you never meant it that way. Silly, very silly... Let me try to explain why I think trying to prove that Phelps is better than Thorpe, or Popov is better than Biondi is impossible, and will only lead to juvenile debates that demean everyone involved. You have stated your criteria for judging Popov better than Biondi. As criteria go, you have selected a pretty good set. They are significant, not inherently skewed towards one swimmer, and they do a good job of illustrating just how extraordinary Popov's longevity is. My point is that if I wanted to endlessly debate you, I could pick another set of criteria that would make Biondi look better than Popov. Say, how many different individual events in which they earned Olympic medals (which if memory serves Biondi has 3: 100, 200 free and 100 fly; whereas Popov has 2: 50 & 100 free). We could talk about how many world records, how many championship records in "significant" international meets, and how much weight to assign to each one. If I really wanted to play dirty, I could argue that U.S. records in SCY, where Biondi excelled, ought to be included in the mix. You have created a set of criteria that do permit you to make objective measurements and reach conclusions that are mathematically valid. BUT, the selection of criteria is inherently subjective. The only way this can have any meaning is if all interested parties agree to them BEFORE we know who we like, and what the results will be. Give you an example, at our Youth League Championships this past weekend, we gave out trophies to the kids who scored the most points in their individual events within each age group (1st, 2nd and 3rd places). We did not use relays; we did not factor in whether someone broke a Conference Record, as we might have. However, since we all agreed to these criteria ahead of time, there was no controversy, and everyone understood ahead of time that the awards only meant what we said they meant, best individual event swimmer. Relays and records were not relevant. If we had run the meet first, got the results, and then sat down to establish the criteria, there would have been a monumental donnybrook because everyone would know which method would be good or bad for his team's swimmers. As Winston Churchill said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Since this is the inevitable result of measuring first, then trying to find the criteria for judging significance later, an inevitable consequence will be putting down the achievements of anyone who is not your favorite. Imagine the reaction of our kids if they saw the "grown-ups" from other teams putting down the accomplishments of some kid that had just won two events, breaking a conference record in the process, and finished second in a third event, because another swimmer from another team won one event, finished 2nd and 3rd in two others, but was also on two winning relays? You can clearly see in this context how this nutty concept would cause more hurt feelings than any sense of accomplishment it could bestow on the eventual "winner" of the exercise. My point is we recreate this nuttiness on a smaller scale any time we try to compare different swimmers and determine who is greater. It has all the significance of arguing Mighty Mouse vs. Batman. Compare this with the significance of everything Biondi, or Popov, or Thorpe, or Phelps have accomplished (especially when you compare them to the meager efforts of you or me), and you wonder why anyone would care who is "greatest." Just enjoy them all! This past week we have been treated to a spectacle unlike any other. I question whether the Olympics could possibly equal this meet for the number and quality of world records and other great swims. It is enough. Cindy, can you help me out here with the latin phrase that translates: there is no disputing matters of taste. Matt

Ion, I feel your pain, man. Some people here are looking to pounce on you for any reason or no reason. I got your point about Bond=Biondi. You were merely dropping a footnote because you saw a discrepancy in the reference you were using, and you wanted people to understand how you counted medals if they were using the same reference book. Technical point: got it. Somehow though, it comes across as a slur on Biondi, when you never meant it that way. Silly, very silly... Let me try to explain why I think trying to prove that Phelps is better than Thorpe, or Popov is better than Biondi is impossible, and will only lead to juvenile debates that demean everyone involved. You have stated your criteria for judging Popov better than Biondi. As criteria go, you have selected a pretty good set. They are significant, not inherently skewed towards one swimmer, and they do a good job of illustrating just how extraordinary Popov's longevity is. My point is that if I wanted to endlessly debate you, I could pick another set of criteria that would make Biondi look better than Popov. Say, how many different individual events in which they earned Olympic medals (which if memory serves Biondi has 3: 100, 200 free and 100 fly; whereas Popov has 2: 50 & 100 free). We could talk about how many world records, how many championship records in "significant" international meets, and how much weight to assign to each one. If I really wanted to play dirty, I could argue that U.S. records in SCY, where Biondi excelled, ought to be included in the mix. You have created a set of criteria that do permit you to make objective measurements and reach conclusions that are mathematically valid. BUT, the selection of criteria is inherently subjective. The only way this can have any meaning is if all interested parties agree to them BEFORE we know who we like, and what the results will be. Give you an example, at our Youth League Championships this past weekend, we gave out trophies to the kids who scored the most points in their individual events within each age group (1st, 2nd and 3rd places). We did not use relays; we did not factor in whether someone broke a Conference Record, as we might have. However, since we all agreed to these criteria ahead of time, there was no controversy, and everyone understood ahead of time that the awards only meant what we said they meant, best individual event swimmer. Relays and records were not relevant. If we had run the meet first, got the results, and then sat down to establish the criteria, there would have been a monumental donnybrook because everyone would know which method would be good or bad for his team's swimmers. As Winston Churchill said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Since this is the inevitable result of measuring first, then trying to find the criteria for judging significance later, an inevitable consequence will be putting down the achievements of anyone who is not your favorite. Imagine the reaction of our kids if they saw the "grown-ups" from other teams putting down the accomplishments of some kid that had just won two events, breaking a conference record in the process, and finished second in a third event, because another swimmer from another team won one event, finished 2nd and 3rd in two others, but was also on two winning relays? You can clearly see in this context how this nutty concept would cause more hurt feelings than any sense of accomplishment it could bestow on the eventual "winner" of the exercise. My point is we recreate this nuttiness on a smaller scale any time we try to compare different swimmers and determine who is greater. It has all the significance of arguing Mighty Mouse vs. Batman. Compare this with the significance of everything Biondi, or Popov, or Thorpe, or Phelps have accomplished (especially when you compare them to the meager efforts of you or me), and you wonder why anyone would care who is "greatest." Just enjoy them all! This past week we have been treated to a spectacle unlike any other. I question whether the Olympics could possibly equal this meet for the number and quality of world records and other great swims. It is enough. Cindy, can you help me out here with the latin phrase that translates: there is no disputing matters of taste. Matt