Columnist disses Phelps, slams swimming

A few years ago when I was into bike racing, a similar column about Lance Armstrong's 7th TdF win appeared on a Pittburgh newspaper website. The columnist claimed that Lance was not a "great athlete" at all, and predicted that any star quarterback could sit on a bicycle and pedal around France for a few weeks. The column circulated through cycling forums for months. I think its a known fact that calling into question the athletic achievements of a recent non-major league sports star is a great way to generate page views for news websites. This one seems to have succeeded in that regard. I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about it.

At the very least was Bolt did should be called "as impressive." We cannot measure medals to medals, Bolt's choices of events was limited by his sport. The women's beach volleyball were just a dominating as Phelps and Bolt. They got one medal. I am willing to give Phelps the edge though. Bolt did not step out of the box when he had the chance the way Phelps has. Specifically Bolt said he was not going to run in the 4x400 final (as it turns out Jamaica didn't qualify anyhow). One final thought, Bolt is the fastest human by far on land. Phelps is the greatest swimmer, but he is NOT the fastest. That matters to me a little bit.

well and not only that but Phelps had to swim each race 3 times, prelims, semi finals and finals right? it's funny when someone who actually has'nt gone out and tried it writes something like that, it's almost like saying that none of these athletes have climbed Mt. Everest, does that make them any less of a person? look at how many golf tournements that Tiger Woods has won, the Olympics are ever 4 years, I think each sport has a unique level that sets each sport apart, be it, swimming, track and field, auto racing, basketball, golf whatever it is there are individuals who excell and are really good at what they do, I think that the best thing that we can do is inspire people to set goals to achieve what has'nt been done yet.

It is also interesting that the swimming literature is full of claims that swimming is a low impact sport that is less injury prone than running, but everyone here wants to dismiss that for purposes of the current discussion. Only true for noodlers and rec swimmers.

Don't forget Bolt wins Taunting Score: Bolt -2 Phelps- 0 Was that taunting? Or immaturity? Or just cockiness?

It's possibly correct to say Bolt is a better all around athlete than Phelps - depending on how you measure better athlete. The only fair way to measure athleticism would be to have both athletes compete in some sort of all around competition involving multiple athletic disciplines. Phelps obviously had a huge edge in the water, Bolt on the land. Bolt is most likely physically stronger (i.e could bench press more, squat more, and so on). Bolt would most likely have an edge in pretty much every land based competition - as in, Bolt would most likely take Phelps in a game of one-on-one basketball. The only other way to measure who is the best all around is dominance in their respective sports. The simple answer is that Phelps did more events, won more gold, and thus was more dominant than Bolt. Getting into the technical details of which sport requires more skill or talent, or who had better competition is at best a toss up and in the end a matter of opinion. Keep in mind that any discussion of this sort is completely futile. You can't even get people to agree what constitutes a sport, or whether Lance Armstrong is an athlete (another idiot columnist). Whoever would win between Phelps and Bolt depends on large part how you select the events for the competition. So let's vote on the best Olympic athlete of all time, right? Not so fast. Other than the obvious problem of uninformed voters outweighing those who know something on the topic, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (http://tinyurl.com/6bn9tw) proves that in any situation with more than two choices, no voting system can accurately reflect group preferences in all situations. Not that this sort of debate isn't fun. It's just ridiculous to think there's a "correct" answer.

One final thought, Bolt is the fastest human by far on land. Phelps is the greatest swimmer, but he is NOT the fastest. That matters to me a little bit. Those are arbitrary distances involved in selecting the "fastest human." Are we sure Bolt is the fastest in a 25 m run? If you hold the world mark in the Marathon, you're the fastest over 26.2 miles even though you can't outsprint Bolt. But then again, Bolt can't beat you in a Marathon, either!

The comparison is pointless. Both are spectacular athletes. Bolt could have put the 100 m record out of reach for 10 years but chose to hot dog instead. Phelps could probably put any 2 or 3 of his WRs out of reach for many years if he didn't spread himself so thin. I do have a problem with the track is more demanding part. Bolt's races added up to perhaps (10 secs x 3 races) + (20 secs x 3 races) + (10 secs x 1 race) = 100 secs of racing. I bet that based on science, Bolt can recover pretty easily from a 10 second anerobic event. I hardly think Bolt's chosen events are more demanding.

Considering that World Records are worth big money on the track circuit Bolt would have been both unpopular and financially foolish to put the 100m record out of reach for 10 years. In Bolt's own words he was celebrating his Olympic gold medal. Celebration always seems to be taken the wrong way when the other side is doing it. It is also interesting that the swimming literature is full of claims that swimming is a low impact sport that is less injury prone than running, but everyone here wants to dismiss that for purposes of the current discussion. The comparison is pointless. Both are spectacular athletes. Bolt could have put the 100 m record out of reach for 10 years but chose to hot dog instead. Phelps could probably put any 2 or 3 of his WRs out of reach for many years if he didn't spread himself so thin. I do have a problem with the track is more demanding part. Bolt's races added up to perhaps (10 secs x 3 races) + (20 secs x 3 races) + (10 secs x 1 race) = 100 secs of racing. I bet that based on science, Bolt can recover pretty easily from a 10 second anerobic event. I hardly think Bolt's chosen events are more demanding.

It's possibly correct to say Bolt is a better all around athlete than Phelps - depending on how you measure better athlete. The only fair way to measure athleticism would be to have both athletes compete in some sort of all around competition involving multiple athletic disciplines. Phelps obviously had a huge edge in the water, Bolt on the land. Bolt is most likely physically stronger (i.e could bench press more, squat more, and so on). Bolt would most likely have an edge in pretty much every land based competition - as in, Bolt would most likely take Phelps in a game of one-on-one basketball. The only other way to measure who is the best all around is dominance in their respective sports. The simple answer is that Phelps did more events, won more gold, and thus was more dominant than Bolt. Getting into the technical details of which sport requires more skill or talent, or who had better competition is at best a toss up and in the end a matter of opinion.