Swimming Finals at the World Championships in Barcelona, Spain

Neither Popov and Perkins won gold in 2000. By your own standards, even though they were repeat champions (and tremendous swimmers) in 1992 and 1996, you shouldn't consider them great based upon what they did (or didn't do) in Sydney 2000. They won as many gold medals at that Olympics as Biondi! So you are saying that part of what defined Salnikov's greatness (and inclusion to your list) was his dominance in the 1500 between 1980-1984?

OH NO ! I thought this thread was about to die but the pain continues !

Sorry, Gareth. I have a plan....(que the sinister music, please). It will die soon, I promise. (I am SUCH an sob)

The slow learners of my posts (Matt, Mark, Tom, Bert), who show listening more to themselves than to what I post, move the goalposts of what I posted to what they are familiar arguing about, instead. Like here: Originally posted by Tom Ellison Ok, I'll bite....Why would anyone NOT think Matt B was a GREAT SWIMMER? He was one of the finest the world has ever known...both in and out of the pool. NEXT! and here: Originally posted by Bert Bergen Neither Popov and Perkins won gold in 2000. By your own standards, even though they were repeat champions (and tremendous swimmers) in 1992 and 1996, you shouldn't consider them great based upon what they did (or didn't do) in Sydney 2000. ... and like Mark's 'profoundly' misapplied: "To each, his own." I posted yesterday: Originally posted by Ion Beza ... what I assert is not whose career is "...greater..." and "...better than...", but the criterion of the 'flash-in-the-pan' winning. Whose career is "...greater..." and "...better than...", could be done after making an evaluation of such criteria as: 1.) 'better' times, 2.) 'versatile' career (brought up earlier in this thread), 3.) 'flash-in-the-pan' career as a winner in one Olympics, 4.) not a 'flash-in-the-pan' career as a winner in many Olympics, 5.) how many world records one competitor set in one Olympics, 6.) etc.. These criteria bring different angles to analyze a career, each with its supporting data. It is based on criteria like 1.) thru 6.) that one asserts whose career is "...greater..." and "...better...", Biondi's, Popov's, or somone's else. I don't do it in this thread. In another thread, I stated that there is no set of criteria accepted in a standard form establishing whose career is "...greater..." and "...better...". My comparison of Biondi with Popov, is mainly in the 'flash-in-the-pan' and the not a 'flash-in-the-pan' domain. Otherwise known as longevity on the top of the world. That's what I discuss here: nothing different than what I state in my quote above, to be discussing.

Originally posted by Gareth Eckley OH NO ! I thought this thread was about to die but the pain continues ! The pain continues for you, if you choose to consider this discussion a pain and if you inconsistently choose to participate in this discussion in spite of considering it a pain. I shouldn't be accountable about what you choose. You should be accountable about choosing to participate in this discussion. You didn't know this?

Jeff's posts deal -for a while now- with what I post. See Jeff's post as soon as I posted the 'flash-in-the-pan' controversial comment, regarding other non-'flash-in-the-pan' winners, in track, Carl Lewis (U.S.) and Al Oerter (U.S.). The latest post by Jeff, also deals with what I post. Originally posted by kaelonj Ion, I think your use of the phrase 'Flash in the Pan' is where the problem lies. This term is genrally used for someone that is here one day gone the next (the music industry would call it a one hit wonder). Had Biondi won just one gold medal in one Olympic never to be seen or heard of again, then I would agree about the flash in the pan. Since he swam in 3 Olympics, several medals covering different events, I think he is not a flash in the pan. ... Biondi is not a 'flash-in-the-pan' compared to say Duncan Armstrong (Aus.), who snatched gold in the 200 free in the 1988 Olympics and run away. Compared to Popov, Biondi is: 1.a) Biondi didn't defend his 1988 in 1992; 1.b) Popov did defend his 1992 in 1996; 2.a) Biondi quit shortly after 1992; 2.b) Popov didn't quit after being defeated in 2000, but he prepares to win for 2004 by winning in 2003. Originally posted by kaelonj ... Also the fact that you are using the criteria of world records set in the Olympics (just as many records are set in meets other than the Olympics). ... I never used the criteria of world records set in the Olympics, in this thread. If you think I did, show me the quote. I mentioned that the criteria of world records set in the Olympics can be considered -among other criteria on a long list- for evaluating who is great, but that a standard list with criteria doesn't exist, and that myself I don't do this list of criteria. Originally posted by kaelonj ... Also that Olympic performances can be misleading, most people would agree that Lance Armstrong could be considered one of the best cycliest ever, after winning his fifth consecutive Tour de France (only one other rider, Miguel Indurain has won 5 consecutive titles, and 3 others have won a total of 5 tours), yet he doesn't have a gold medal after going to the Olympics 3 times. ... In swimming, the Olympics is the number one competition. In track and field, also. Because of this, the Olympics are the most significant in swimming and in track. In tennis, the Olympics is not the number one competition. Sampras got 13 major tournaments, and no Olympics. He was saying that because he is from Greek ethnicity, he will want to go to Athens next year, but I don't hold him to his word on this. In cycling, the Tour de France is the number one competition. Armstrong tried hard twice in the Olympics (1996 and 2000), came short (in 2000 against a faster time-trial teammate, Vyacheslav Ekimov (Ukr.) who won gold, and a faster Jan Ullrich (Ger.) who won silver), but the Tour de France has more prestige in cycling that the Olympics' cycling. Same thing in ice hockey, with N.H.L. being more important than the Olympics' hockey. Originally posted by kaelonj ... I can't do anything about how cheated you feel because you moved to the US to be closer to Biondi, only to have him retire rather than defend his title. ... Get over it all ready I got over it already. I live my life, implementing my values that appear here too.

So I ask again, are you are saying that part of what defined Salnikov's greatness (and inclusion to your list) was his dominance in the 1500 between 1980-1984?

Again, I don't deal with 'greatness' in my posts. I spelled three times that 'greatness' is based on a list of criteria, list that I don't do. I deal with the criteria of winning like a non-'flash-in-the-pan' in the Olympics, as I define it by who in swimming wins in one Olympics and confirms that win by winning again in other Olympics. I call this non-'flash-in-the-pan' winning in different Olympics, longevity in being number one in a swimming event. Salnikov qualifies as a non-'flash-in-the-pan' by this definition: .) Salnikov won in 1980; .) Salnikov couldn't win in 1984 when he was peaking, because Russia boycotted the Olympics; .) at the next Olympics available to him, in 1988, Salnikov won again.

Yeah, your cute little "standards" list is a bit flawed: 1. Popov and Perkins 2nd place finishes don't fit with your criterion of being "champions"; they didn't win, but because of your love affair with Popov, you include him. 2. Salnikov, though the most dominant swimmer of his generation (1978-1987) should not be on the list; his win in the 1500 at the 1980 Commie Olympics doesn't count; the Americans and Aussies weren't there. Oh, and don't say that he was so dominant that no Americans or Aussies couldn't have pulled an upset because, Jeff Float over Michael Gross, Jon Sieben over Michael Gross, Anthony Nesty over Matt Biondi (or was it Bond?), and Misty Hyman over Susie O'Neill prove that anything is possible. (Note to self, read more of that swimming encyclopedia, the Guinness Book of World Records, because if its written there, it must be gospel.)

Ion, I think your use of the phrase 'Flash in the Pan' is where the problem lies. This term is genrally used for someone that is here one day gone the next (the music industry would call it a one hit wonder). Had Biondi won just one gold medal in one Olympic never to be seen or heard of again, then I would agree about the flash in the pan. Since he swam in 3 Olympics, several medals covering different events, I think he is not a flash in the pan. Also the fact that you are using the criteria of world records set in the Olympics (just as many records are set in meets other than the Olympics). Also that Olympic performances can be misleading, most people would agree that Lance Armstrong could be considered one of the best cycliest ever, after winning his fifth consecutive Tour de France (only one other rider, Miguel Indurain has won 5 consecutive titles, and 3 others have won a total of 5 tours), yet he doesn't have a gold medal after going to the Olympics 3 times. I can't do anything about how cheated you feel because you moved to the US to be closer to Biondi, only to have him retire rather than defend his title. The fact that he decided to move on with his life and pursue interests that are also noteworthy (teacher, swim coach and dolphin research & education) seems maybe a little more important than defending some title. The fact that we will only agree to disagree is fine but why berate someone who has accomplished so much and continues to provide inspiration to others. Get over it all ready