Now by the time most of you read this the finals will be over but ... Keller had the slowest split, OBVIOUSLY Phelps (& I'm guessing Lochte) are a done deal ... Vanderkaay put up a 1:46.67 leading off followed by Jayme Cramer's 1:47.97, David Walters 1:47.75 & Keller's 1:48.60 ...
Do you take a total rookie? Slightly more experience with Cramer, or a struggling but veteran Keller? Personally I say give the rookie a shot, who knows what he'll put up next year.
My prediction: Phelps, Lochte, Vanderkaay, & Cramer
I'd like to see ... Phelps, Lochte, Vanderkaay & Walters ...
If track events (closest Olympic comparison to swimming I can come up with in term of format) get 3 people in each event from each country, swimming should too. The rule was changed from 3 to 2 because the US men were so dominant in the 76 Olympics... the power of swimming is much more balanced around the world now and I would rather see the fastest competing against the fastest.
I totally agree ... you get guys like Shanteu who are the third or fourth ranked IMmer in the world and he doesn't get to compete because Phelps & Locthe are so freakin' dominant ... that doesn't seem quite fair ... of course then why draw the line at three? How about as many swimmers as a country as ranked in the top 5 in an event in the world (or 2)?
Jim, granted, the logic doesn't apply if you allow all countries to bring three competitors per event, but it does if you allow countries to bring extra athletes if those athletes are top ranked.
In the same spirit as Peter's proposal, perhaps we should allow corporate teams? One would guess that that would lead to better financial support of the athletes. I wonder what the average cost would be to convince an athlete to swim on Team Speedo instead of Team USA.
The way I interpreted the proposal was that any country that has the top 3 swimmers in a particular event can qualify all 3 swimmers for that event....so that it was not necessarily a U.S. specific rule change.....but I agree with you that the fairest thing to do along these lines is to just change it from having only 2 qualify from each nation in each event to having 3 qualify from each nation in each event. One of the pros to this change would be that each nation can have more qualifiers for the Olympics (especially when there are 3 very deserving swimmers from the same nation in the same event....like the top 3 swimmers in that event for example)....One of the cons to this change would be that all 3 medals could potentially go to the same nation ina given event (thus leaving out the other nations in that event). ...Which ever way, I think it was suppose to be a rule change that would somehow be impartial to all nations....Problem is, either way, the U.S. would gain advantages over other nations ....more so than any other nation would right now.....So who knows?
Newmastersswimmer
In the words of Mark Shubert (of USA Swimming):
"We have a tremendous advantage because of the number of people who swim and are involved in swimming."
It is not too hard to come up with rule changes that aren't country specific but that favor bigger countries. Anyone who has witnessed the super-club debates has got to have some understanding of the size issue.
Basically there is a conflict between individual competition and competition between nations. Also between all the world gathering for the games versus only the biggest and best gathering. Between developing the sport worldwide versus determining who the biggest and best is right now.
And the significance of three is that is how many medals they are, no one cares about fourth place because it doesn't affect the medal count.
The truth is I don't really understand nationalism in sport and I would prefer a nationalism-free competition. Of course no one would fund that. :(
The truth is I don't really understand nationalism in sport and I would prefer a nationalism-free competition. Of course no one would fund that. :(
i agree but funding would come from the corporate world (as it is now, i believe most funding comes from cooporate donors anyway). look at the world of pro cycling, soccer, baseball, etc. of course before le mond and lance there was little american interest in the sport.
Jim, granted, the logic doesn't apply if you allow all countries to bring three competitors per event, but it does if you allow countries to bring extra athletes if those athletes are top ranked.
In the same spirit as Peter's proposal, perhaps we should allow corporate teams? One would guess that that would lead to better financial support of the athletes. I wonder what the average cost would be to convince an athlete to swim on Team Speedo instead of Team USA.
Call me whatever you like for my opinion.....but, I would like to see the top ten of each event swimming against each other....regardless of what nationality, color, race or any other category you want to throw in.
IMHO of course!
And now, I am verklempt.....discuss amongst yourselves......
Call me whatever you like for my opinion.....but, I would like to see the top ten of each event swimming against each other....regardless of what nationality, color, race or any other category you want to throw in.
It's been a while since anyone suggested that we do away with the gender catagories! :D
Oh, I'll just be contrarian as the dickens, since we have so many open-minded members of our forums: while it would be appealing to the concept of the best competing against the best to have swimmers competing against each other as individuals, we all recognize that economics prevent this. Just a concept, since we are stuck with the 'countries' model, why not just one single rep from each country? I'm not advocating this, mind you, but 2 is also a totally arbitrary number as well, so how appealing would it be be to have just one? Imagine the tension at US Olympic trials...discuss, please.
to hell with national borders! how about one rep from each time zone....each continent..............
