michael phelps--how many thing he will do it?

Originally posted by Tom Ellison Spitz did it “once” but that was “then”….and a whole lot has changed since “then”…. NOT in today’s times.........Not going to happen…..Now, doing that is as close to an exercise in futility as it gets.....and again..I HOPE I AM WRONG.... I disagree with your tone. He has a shot, however improbable. And it's a worthy pursuit because it brings wanted publicity to swimming as a sport. I also diagree with Evans and others who claim that if he fails to get 7 golds he'll be painted a "failure" ala Biondi. First , Phelps get's to start off with the 400 im certain gold and a likely world record rather than the immediate disappointment of Biondi's first race. Second, I'm sure that the Olympic commentators will prepare the US public for Phelps likely loss in the 200 free. In fact coming in predicted to win bronze Phelps will likely win silver and exceed expectations. The key will be whether Phelps, Keller and Lochte can step up in the 800 free relay to beat the Aussies. That will provide more than enough "exceed expectations" to keep the Phelps medal watch train on track even if he eventually loses to Crocker in the 100 fly.

Of coarse it is a worthy pursuit because it brings wanted publicity to swimming as a sport. My tone has nothing to do with that fact….I simply wanted to express my thoughts on how improbable it really is. As to your thoughts on Biondi....I 1 Zillion % agree with you, Biondi is ANYTHING but a failure….Heck, the guy is a swimming ICON and anyone who refers to Matt Biondi as a failure is either a moron or knows absolutely NOTHING about swimming! I believe anyone who even gets to the big show (Olympics) is a serious winner in my book….A lowly swimmer like me couldn’t carry 99% of our Olympic Swimmers goggles….

Originally posted by Tom Ellison Of coarse it is a worthy pursuit because it brings wanted publicity to swimming as a sport. My tone has nothing to do with that fact….I simply wanted to express my thoughts on how improbable it really is. As to your thoughts on Biondi....I 1 Zillion % agree with you, Biondi is ANYTHING but a failure….Heck, the guy is a swimming ICON and anyone who refers to Matt Biondi as a failure is either a moron or knows absolutely NOTHING about swimming! I believe anyone who even gets to the big show (Olympics) is a serious winner in my book….A lowly swimmer like me couldn’t carry 99% of our Olympic Swimmers goggles…. Hey, not just olympians. Anyone who is up at the crack of dawn to swim thousands of yards several times a week (or more) has a very big chunk of winner in them. Contrats to all of you!:cool:

I want everyone here to know I am a very positive guy...MOST of the time....Having said that.....I just cannot see 7 Gold Medals around ONE swimmers neck in the same Olympics happening as things stand in swimming today. I seriously admire Michael Phelps and HOPE like heck he proves me dead wrong....and...I will eat public crow if he proves me wrong....but I do not think it is going to happen....

Originally posted by Sam Perry So who here thinks Natalie could have had a very legitimate shot at the 7 golds? I for one think she would have had a better shot than Michael had she decided to swim these events: 100 Fly 200 Back 100 Free 200 Free All three relays Not me, and more to the point she would have been less likely than Phelps for the following reasons: 1) The key to winning multiple medals at the Olympics is to train and race at big time international meets with a program that emulates the Olympic program. That was the lesson that Spitz took from 1968 and Bowman/Phelps used 2003 Worlds as their Olympic laboratory. Coughlin did not have a similar opportunity at Worlds so she did have the confidence/experience to try it in Athens. Also her performance at Trials suggests she does not have the physical/mental make-up for multiple INDIVIDUAL medal attempts. NB: NCAA does not count since it is short course a very different sport than long course. 2) The supposed "relay" advantage of the US women is not real. Both US men/women medley relays are odds on favorite. However, this year's US women's team is relatively weak (compared to 2000) on paper and the US women cannot be considered odds-on favorites in the 400/800 free relay.

Again, I HOPE I AM WRONG because Michael Phelps is one of life’s good guys and I would love to see him win 7 Gold Medals in Athens….BUT, it is so far off the planet tough these days to accomplish a feat such as this in swimming…. that is akin to….Whizzing in the Ocean to raise the tide……Not going to happen….

I think that NBC should be given kudos for improving coverage of the 2004 OT trials. Isn't this the first time that the trials were covered LIVE? Can't judge the quality of the live coverage since I attended the Trials but the taped coverage the following weekend did seem like an improvement. Also the comment about taped coverage during Track and Field Trials was well publized both in CA and NE so no complaint there and I'm not under the impression that Track received more coverage than Swimming. And isn't NBC doing a great job with those commercials that feature Phelps, Coughlin, et.al? Furthermore they promised 70 hours of DAILY coverage once the Olympics start and, while the TV coverage for the Olympics is supposed to be posted at the end of this week, I've been told that we can expect to pick-up live coverage on NBC affiliated cable during the Olympics. While for me, having every race TIVO'd would the ultimate coverage let's give NBC some credit for doing a better job covering the Trials this year. Now let's see how much of the Olympic swiming will be in HDTV.

Originally posted by Fitswimmer04 NBC has taken a lot of flak for the time they spend on personal stories instead of showing events-from people like us who are interested in seeing the events themselves. Most people who watch the Olympics are not runners or swimmers themselves, so the personal stories give them a connection that keeps them interested. Without NBC and their affiliate media constantly driving home the 7 gold thing, nobody outside the swimming community would know who Michael Phelps was-not to mention the other amazing members of USA swimming. NBC needs to engage the non-athletes in order to get the number of viewers that advertisers want. It's all about the money..... I've complained about NBC's soap opera-like coverage in the past, but in fairness to NBC, getting viewers interested in the personalities doesn't only get them to watch their coverage, it may also get them interested in OUR sport. :)

I thought NBC's coverage of the Olympic Trials was not as good as previous Olypmpic trials of the past. They showed 15 completed swimming events with highlights in the other events. Comparing this with the 2000 trails they showed 23 completed swimming events. They showed 22 in 1996 and 20 each in 1988 and 1992. Those other Olympic Trials were not live feeds but were 4 hours tape delayed. The biggest dissapointment was not seeing Michael Phelps swim the World Record in the 400 IM at the start of the competition. Instead we see wasted time on his SUV, what he eats for breakfast, interviews after every race about his medal expectations by the press, walking on the deck throwing his silver medal to female fans in the stands, and having his picture taken with Cindy Crawford. That kind of stuff I can see on ET. Then with a half hour left in the telecast they show one event the women's 50 Free. Then we hear from Bob Bowman and Ed Reese about Michael Phelps quest for 7 golds and what relays he may swim and how the relays will be determined. Again wasted time. Then we see Rowdy Gaines and Dan Hicks with the telestrater like John Madden does in Football diagraming the strategy for 7 golds that we have already heard about so many times. Then we see the VISA commerical that talks about the 7 golds so that message just keeps pounding in our heads. Again wasted time on something we already know. Instead of hearing Bob Bowman and Eddie Reese I want to see there swimmers swim the races. Another dissapointment was not seeing Brenden Hansen's World Record in the 100 ***. I want to see the race not the highlights. Being the 1st American to go under a minute and the second person to do it would have been great to see. How about seeing Katie Hoff in the 200 IM. One of Bob Bowman stars and a lot like Michael was in 2000. Had a great race with Amada Beard and would be nice to see Beard swim the IM since we only see heer swim breastroke. Also lets take a break on talking about Harold the teddy bear. Show some of the American Records races like Keller's 400 Free and Jason Lezek's 100 Free in the semi finals. This was the most successful Olympic Trials as far as records and we did not see a lot of them. Also I noticed they showed a lot of the same highlights repeatedly when they could have shown more races. There were two event finals shown during the Track&Field Olympic Trials ( M 200 Fly W 100 Free) but who is going to know about those unless you happen to tune in. Also how does Track&Field get 3 times the coverage that swimming has? I noticed that when I watched the T&F trials they showed a lot more of the races and had a lot less personal stories. With all the hype that Michael Phelps had I thought he swam one of greatest trials ever. To swim 17 events and swim as well as he did was something that I have never seen. I don't know of any swimmer that has ever done that many events and put up the places and times that he did.

NBC is absolutely NOT in the business of trying to provide coverage for the very tiny group of viewers that REALLY CARES about the competition minutiae of the different Olympic events and seeing every last second of every competition. And we should hope they never GET into that business. Why? Cuz they'd be OUT of business in a hurry and there would be NO coverage. We are not a big enough market to interest the kind of advert $$ needed to support such a coverage effort. Failing to provide a healthy dose of human interest and failure to edit with an eye toward providing good competitive drama without big nap gaps would simply drive off the audience that really pays the bills. Think of it a different way - how much would you be willing to pay-per-view for precisely the "afficianado" coverage we'd really like to see? I wouldn't be surprised if such an offering would cost WAY more than watching PPV football or boxing (by an order of magnitude?). How many people in the US would be willing to pay such a price? Seems to me that what you get right now for FREE represents a far greater value than what you'd get with a PPV that only had 500K viewers (and I think THAT would be a very optimistic number of PPViewers - mebbe more like 100K). So, yes it IS all about the money - thankfully.