So silly to compare, and instead, just be inspired by the lot of them.
Yes, I was impressed by the "stars in the shadows" who had their opportunity and came through.
I am curious how you make the assumption that just because Phelps is a swimmer that Bolt would "most likely have an edge in pretty much every land based competition"?
I'd make that assumption not because Phelps is a swimmer, but because I've read in several articles that Phelps is a bit clumsy out of water.
A quick google search turned up:
“I’m a fish out of water. I’m a clumsy person,” Phelps said in response to how he hurt his wrist," www.timedfinals.com/.../
"Out of the water, Phelps admits, he is not the most graceful of athletes. He's clumsy enough to break his wrist while getting into a car, as he did last year. His coach, Bob Bowman, doesn't require Phelps to run to train because, well, Phelps isn't very good at it." www.tampabay.com/.../article768247.ece
"However his long torso and double jointed ankles make Phelps’ 195 frame clumsy and surprisingly delicate on dry land." www.thefemaleview.com/.../
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.
Agreed. There are a lot of shoulders and knees that would disagree with Lindsay.
Now, point me to Bolt taunting anyone, I watched all his events and didn't see it.
Check the last 20M of his 100m sprint. He pulled up and had his arms out. Some may call that celebration. I think that (especially pulling up) was taunting the rest of the field.
Check the last 20M of his 100m sprint. He pulled up and had his arms out. Some may call that celebration. I think that (especially pulling up) was taunting the rest of the field.
I guess if any of the other 3 legit contenders were whining about getting their tails kicked, I might care about what Bolt did. One thing I really respected about the track and field athletes, as a general statement, is that they did not make excuses, even when you knew they were obviously disappointed.
Agreed. There are a lot of shoulders and knees that would disagree with Lindsay.
Actually "that would disagree with the swimming promo literature", I usually roll my eyes every time the promo lit skips over the shoulder issues in swimming.
Which is not to say that the injury rate isn't higher in running, that would be an issue for empirical data rather than debate. During the marathon coverage on CBC the commentators were saying that marathoners generally have at most five or six truly outstanding marathons in their careers before the wear and tear puts them out of contention at the highest levels. Marathons are clearly the extreme case of course.
(Maybe we need a new thread?)
While I, like many people, have shoulder issues of varying degrees, one thing that's nice about swimming is that the variety of strokes means I can generally find some stroke which doesn't hurt. Running doesn't offer that kind of variety.
Skip
A long time ago, there was the argument that the 3 toughest (strenuous?) sports were water polo, (Australian rules) rugby, and Greco-Roman wrestling. I don't remember anyone arguing for track.
I played water polo once and was sore for 6 months. Lots of respect to those guys.
Is the numbers of injuries caused by a particular sport really the best way to evaluate how "tough" that sport is? The idea that swimming is easy because swimmers have less serious injuries compared to some other sports, thus making gold medals in swimming somehow less impressive, is about the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
