Swimming Finals at the World Championships in Barcelona, Spain

Originally posted by Bert Bergen ... 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. ... It's a list of three-peat and repeat Olympic winners. Popov repeated winning in 1996 what he won in 1992. Perkins repeated winning in 1996 what he won in 1992. Anyone on my list repeated or three-peated. Originally posted by Bert Bergen ... 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. ... I don't distinguish between the 1980 Olympics (boycotted by the West) and the 1984 Olympics (boycotted by the East). I stand by what it is accepted today about them: the absentees are wrong. The Olympic medals in 1980 are as legitimate as in 1984. Regarding Salnikov (Rus.) himself, his win "...in the 1500 at the 1980 Commie Olympics..." is the first sub 15 minutes performance in history, unmatched by anyone for years. Years later only, in 1989, Glen Housman (Aus.) was the second 1500 free racer under 15 minutes, and in 1992 Kieren Perkins (Aus.) broke Salnikov's world record for the 1500 free. So, to the contrary of what you claim, Salnikov's win is historic. I repeat that Salnikov's times were unmatched by anyone for years, and Salnikov peaked in 1984 -when Russia boycotted the Olympics instead of getting him another gold medal-: .) Salnikov was available for racing in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 across East and West, and no one was keeping up with him in the 1500 while he was improving his 1500 time even further; .) for example Salnikov's 14:54.76 in 1500 free in 1983, while Russia boycotted a few months later the 1984 Olympics, make the 1500 free winner of the 1984 Olympics, Michael O'Brien (U.S.), at 15:05.20, kinda out of shape and chubby.

Ion, If you want to argue over what your definition of a Flash in the pan is fine, I'll give up, because your criteria of what is and isn't a flash in the pan is so skewed it gives you only about 10 swimmers that are not a flash in the pan (appears to be a pretty ridiculous small number). I would bet most people would believe that Biondi was not a flash in the pan (3 Olympics, gold medals in all of them, some from relays, but still 8 or more years spent at or near the top of his game- how can you call that being a flash in the pan). If you want to say Popov is a better swimmer (fine, to each his own), as stated earlier I would argue differently (once again my opinion). The fact that Biondi didn't win in 92 makes him a Flash in the Pan (He took second for crying out loud) but at least he tried, the way you make it sound he tucked his tail and took off. Lastly, Lance tried hard twice - so I guess his 1992 Olympics was just a joyride.

This comes from the thread 'USMS Ad on ESPN World Swimming Championships': Originally posted by Frank Thompson ... Jim, I don't think that is Ion Beza wearing disguises. I don't want to say anything here because he is being pounced on in the other threads namely the World Championships Swimming one. I am not aware of being "...pounced on...". I guess the confusion has to do with a culture of local stereotypes: not being "...pounced on...", locally means to be a servile 'yes man'. To me, not being "...pounced on..." means to assert what I think, to discuss at the level of what I think (not below this level, so I weed out what comes below this level), and to build further on this level. It works: it generates progress. As opposed to the make-believe polite but stale and servile in action, 'yes man'.

If I may, let me be blunt and fine tune my point. When any swimmer talks or writes about a past swimmer like Matt B., I think it is vulgar to mention the term "Flash in the pan" when talking/writing about swimmers of his ability, class and standing! Gosh, a zillion of us swimmers couldn't carry that guys lunch pale, let alone talk about "flash in the pan" type nonsense....or worse yet, write it...

Ion , " the pain continues", for me as I have to clear all these messages out of my email tray daily !! Seriously, I have enjoyed this discussion. I have not commented on the discussion of ranking them as i am not really into statistics etc. My focus tends to be on the great technique of the best swimmers , and of what I can learn from that for my Coaching and for my own swimming. Popov & Tournedeski created a " new paradigm " to how we swim freestyle and whenever a swimmer ( with his coach ) breaks new ground then I feel that they deserve special emphasis. I never saw Biondi swim, so I cannot comment on him. I wish I saw the swims of Janet Evans, her records have stood up for a very long time.

For what it's worth, there is a list of the top male swimmers of the 20th century on page 221 of Colwin's Breakthrough Swimming. The list was compiled by a panel of seven judges based upon criteria proposed by Dr. Phillip Whitten. Biondi was number three, behind Spitz and Weissmuller.

The last post, by Craig, has the trappings that I repeat to avoid for the "...top male swimmers of the 20th. century...". The latest times I repeated it in this thread, are nine and six posts ago. So, not long ago... This thread (and another thread 'comparing' Thorpe (Aus.) with Phelps (U.S.) after a challenge by Don Talbot (Aus.) to Phelps), is full (as in at least five posts by me alone in this thread) of: stay away from lists of criteria of "...top male swimmers...". Other than times comparing them in the same event, anything else is subjective. In this case, the list of criteria is subjective to Whitten, Colwin, etc.. (When I read the ranking in 'Breakthrough Swimming', I started smirking). Each criteria, like 'longevity in the Olympics' -which I bring up here-, can be discussed based on its data. The set of different criteria, is a set of apples and oranges, and judging how many points do apples rate and how many points do oranges rate, that's nil.

Originally posted by Tom Ellison ... ...I think it is vulgar to mention the term "Flash in the pan" when talking/writing about swimmers of his ability, class and standing! Gosh, a zillion of us swimmers couldn't carry that guys lunch pale, let alone talk about "flash in the pan" type nonsense....or worse yet, write it... Swimmers "...of his ability, class and standing..." are Olympians, so talking about them is talking about the Olympics and the Olympians. Like Matt Biondi (U.S.), Shirley Babashoff (U.S.), Sandra Neilson (U.S.), Shane Gold (Aus.), Vladimir Salnikov (Rus.), Alex. Popov (Rus.), Inge de Bruijn (Ned.), Tamas Darnyi (Hun.), Kieren Perkins (Aus.), etc., all discussed in this thread.

Originally posted by kaelonj Ion, If you want to argue over what your definition of a Flash in the pan is fine, I'll give up, because your criteria of what is and isn't a flash in the pan is so skewed it gives you only about 10 swimmers that are not a flash in the pan (appears to be a pretty ridiculous small number). ... The criterion of the non-'flash-in-the-pan' winner in Olympics that I made, is who wins in an Olympics then wins again in other Olympics. In swimming, winning in an Olympics is being number one in the most prestigious race in the world. Winning again in other Olympics, that's longevity in being number one.

Okay, I was out of this thread but the last three posts sucked me back in. Can ANYONE (other than Ion) explain WHAT THE HELL he was trying to say?!?!?!? If a swimmers worth and place in history is based upon Olympic success along (in Ion's eye: gold medals), then that is either a tiny list or he doesn't see the big picture. I vote for the latter and I am done.