What a bunch of bunk. O.k., having competed in both sports, I can agree that running pounds your joints more, but it takes so much more time to be tops in swimming.
Isn't part of the big deal in getting a medal how hard one has had to work to get it? I suspect Phelps has put far more time into training than the track folks mentioned in this article. One thing I loved about the track season was how short the workouts were compared to swimming, and I competed in the one mile and two mile! The amount of time the folks spent training that specialized in running the 200 and 100 was a joke and it wasn't because those events beat you up.
Even if the body could recover to do a ton of running events, training for the 100, 200, 400, 800, the hurdles, the long jump, and the relays could never compare to the amount of time required to be tops in the events that Phelps swam. The lack of respect for swimming in Hersh and in the running community (as evidenced by the commentary that started the thread about Phelps and running) has got to go. There needs to be respect for hard work in addition to natural talent. Swimmers are awesome athletes that work hard to get where they are. That is why so many of them can kick the living you-know-what out of runners on triathlons. (For you triathletes in the SE - think Bruce Gennari.)
The risk of a false start on swimming relays is minimal? Right.
I posted the following comment about Hersh's column on the Tribune's website:
It's of course impossible to compare athletes across sports or across generations. I don't know if Michael Phelps is better than the people in your top five any more than you do. I do want to quibble with two of your top five though.
Paavo Nurmi competed at a time when distance running was not the worldwide phenomenon it is today. For example, in 1920 the Boston Marathon had a whopping 76 entrants. In 1930 that had ballooned to a staggering 218. In contrast, 20,453 people ran in 2005.(These figures come from the BAA website.) Given the far greater competition today it's highly unlikely that Nurmi could compete in such a wide range of distances at the elite level. Today we are rightfully awed when a distance runner can double in the 1500 and 5k or in the 5k and 10k. It's not because they are somehow less capable than Nurmi was. It's because the level of competition is so much higher.
Carl Lewis fails my test on a different axis. He probably knowingly used performance enhancing drugs during at least some of his career.(See the Wikipedia entry for Lewis and Ben Johnson.) That he tested positive yet was not banned from the team probably speaks more to the compromised ethics of the USOC than to Lewis's claim of inadvertent use. In comparison, check the Wikipedia entry for Rick DeMont, who lost his 400m free gold medal in the 1972 Olympics and lost other opportunities to compete at those same games. By the admission of the USOC this was their fault, not DeMont's. Approximately twenty years later Lewis gets a pass for the same stimulants (pseudoephedrine). Today we snicker when an athlete tests positive for a banned substance then claims "inadvertent use".
Skip
My email to the columnist (PHersh@tribune.com):
"Appreciate one point of your article. That Phelps is the best Olympian ever because of his medal count is a silly assertion. This is not something most people in the swimming community would argue. Rather, it's something you in the mass media have been asserting. As if you can truly rank athletes in completely different disciplines objectively. That's absurd.
Your article sounds like it was written by someone who has never seriously attempted the sport of swimming. I would guess you are writing out of ignorance when you assert that swimming is any easier than track and field. Why don't you try them both at the elite level and then make your decision.
As a former Olympic Trial qualifier in swimming, I can tell you I worked just as hard as any athlete out on the track in my prime. Two hours of swimming every morning (starting at 5am), an hour of weights, and two more hours of swimming every afternoon all through high-school and college. Six days a week all year round. To say this kind of training isn't hard on the human body is absurd.
I'd like to see if your track and field superstars are training that hard. Perhaps they are, so I won't assert that my sport is MORE demanding. I will say, though, that within the sport of swimming Phelps has accomplished just as much as Carl Lewis did within the sport of track. Both deserve a place in the pantheon of the super-elite. To say one is better seems kind of silly. But you in the media do love to promote the "silly"..."
Hey, everyone cool out.
Sure, it's assinine, like a lot of what's in the Los Angeles Times. But not that many people read The Times, and even fewer take it seriously.
The readers' poll that accompanies this essay suggests The Times exerts only weak influence over the opinions of its shrinking base of readers. Here are the poll results, as of early afternoon Sunday:
Who is the greatest athlete in the history of the Summer Olympics?
1.1 % - Birgit Fischer-Schmidt, Germany, kayak
2.3 % - Larisa Latynina, Soviet Union, gymnastics
24.6 % - Carl Lewis, U.S., track and field
3.9 % - Paavo Nurmi, Finland, track and field
2.8 % - Steven Redgrave, United Kingdom, rowing
52.0 % - Michael Phelps, United States, swimming
13.4 % - An athlete not listed here
I guess controversy sells ...
"Track and field is so much more physically demanding ..."
Michael Phelps is not the greatest Olympic athlete in history
What kind of crack is this reporter smoking?
