In the freestyle relay(s), the top 6 goes to the Olympics.
Yet, all the other events it is only the top 2.
That should change. Every athlete that makes the qualifying time should go to the Olympics. Look at the men's 100 back, the top 6 at the 2008 US trials swam faster than the 1992 Olympic Gold Medalist. Surely the 5th swimmer could have a better performance in the "big" pool.
Sending only 2 in each event "waters" down the potential performances at the Olympics, ultimately making the semi-finals less competitive. (other phrases could be used) The bottom line is, the top 16 at the Olympics should represent the fastest in the world.
each team is allowed to put two people into each individual event. how they determine which two is up to each country's governing body. we send the top two finishers as determined by the olympic trials meet.
I believe we've discussed this under a separate topic previously. I agree that it doesn't seem right that the top x swimmers in the olympics are not necessarily going to be the same top x swimmers in the world rankings, but the system today works, and any changes to this raise a lot of questions...
how many top swimmers? 5? 10? if 5, why not 10? etc...
how are the top determined? by whom?
what times are used? from what meets? what dates? do prelims/semifinal times count?
At current, changing this rule stands to give considerable benefit the US (aka Lochte in the 100 back). We have a huge talent pool from which we pull - already a huge advantage
I would like to see the limit go back to 3...
Two reasons:
1. USA does not have the world dominance it had in the 70s when the rule was applied
2. Track and field, which is similar to swimming in how it is 'run' at the Olympic venues (with prelims/finals, heats, several relatively short events, etc) is allowed 3.
If the limit of 2 stands for swimming, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a limit of 2 for track and field too.
Guess I should have clarified... the USA men's doesn't have the level of dominance it had in the 70s. The 2-person rule was implemented after the 1976 Olympics in which the US men won all but 1 gold medal, all but 1 silver medal and completely swept 4 events.
SwimStud,
I'd like to see less emphasis on country and more emphasis on fast swimming. Isn't that what the Olympics is about? The best of the best! I would like to actually see less flag waving. How about just the fastest runners, rowers, cyclists, best weight lifters, fencers, equestrians, softball players etc. Other countries dominate the "lesser" sports. Let's celebrate sport as opposed to country. So what if the US gets 1-2-3 in the 100 back, the Bulgarians will do the same in weight lifting.........good for them.
I know..............it will never happen.
Holy cow, me and commie agree. Nationalism is as much part of the Olympics in the 20th and 21st century as the sports themselves. I'd hazard a guess that some of the top sports moments of all time, having impact well beyond sports, have happened at the Olympics.
I'm really sorry it bores other countries that they stink and we are great. That should be motivation enough but it's far easier to reduce the number of slots than actually build a program that is competitive. I would think that you'd rather beat the best and be a hero than chump your way into it by locking a US swimmer out.
It's often said the US Olympic trials have far greater talent top to bottom than the games themselves.
Yeah, if you did that you could also save on the TV revenue also, cause a whole boatload of it would be missing from US broadcasters.
Union Jack or Union Flag, it's all the same, two days from now we celebrate the *** whooping we put on you and your hagis eating ways and brown teeth!
Undoubtedly the USA has a fantastic pool of talent in all sports, but the idea of the games is (supposedly) about coming together and putting the politics and nationalism aside.
Except for soccer, where we have to import our playboy talent from the UK. I'll admit he's a bit washed up though!:toohurt:
If it could be done that way Glenn, then yes I'd be in favour of that. That said, the records show who swims at what speed and the US is blessed to have such a varsity level arena to see the best go head to head....even a few non Americans sneak in there too ;)
There's no 'u' in favor. Crazy Brits! You know I'm just kidding Stud!
SwimStud,
I'd like to see less emphasis on country and more emphasis on fast swimming. Isn't that what the Olympics is about? The best of the best! I would like to actually see less flag waving. How about just the fastest runners, rowers, cyclists, best weight lifters, fencers, equestrians, softball players etc. Other countries dominate the "lesser" sports. Let's celebrate sport as opposed to country. So what if the US gets 1-2-3 in the 100 back, the Bulgarians will do the same in weight lifting.........good for them.
I know..............it will never happen.
So this is adjuticated HOW? How do you determine the fastest X unless they all compete at the same time, in the same place under the same conditions. Jeez, what a nightmare. The Olympics are _supposed_ to be about all the countries in the world (um, 5 rings, 5 continents?) getting together and competing in athletic endeavors. If you want to see the best in the world, there's the World Cup, etc...
This is the best that each country has to offer and if the USA's 10th best is better than Upper Slobovia's 2nd best, that doesn't make a hill of beans difference under the Olympic goal. While it may not be 'fair' to USA's 3rd thru 10th place swimmers, it sure as heck isn't 'fair' to Upper Slobovia's 2nd best swimmer to finish a minimum of 12th. There has to be some sort of common standard to prevent 'inequality' as difficult as that may be to prevent.
While I think it should go back to top-3 from each country, I think more than that creates too much 'inequality'
