I can understand non-swimmers calling the Men's 400 Free Relay the "best swimming relay ever", but I even hear many long time swimmers calling it that too. I'm not saying it isn't (especially in the context of being part of Phelps' 8 gold's quest), but there are others to consider.
Does anyone remember the 1984 Olympic Men's 800 Free Relay in Los Angeles, in particular the anchor leg of USA's Bruce Hayes versus West Germany's Michael Gross? Gross was the 200 LCM Free WR holder, winning the 200 by 1.7 seconds and highly considered not just unbeatable, but untouchable (West Germany also had the 200 Free 3rd place finisher on their relay). Gross was a touch behind Hayes at the start, but quickly made up the difference, with Hayes fading even more. Some how, some way, with the same inner resolve that Lezak displayed, he came back and overtook Gross for a win by .04. I found several references to the final times on the internet, I wish I could find the splits from that race. Here's one result I found: www.databaseolympics.com/.../gamessport.htm
It's easy to say the current relay was a better win, but I think a lot of that is just because it's so fresh in our minds. And I still might pick the current relay as the best myself, but considering that 800 Free Relay, it's not the obvious hands down choice that people make it out to be.
Just my opinions, just my thought. Either way, the USA won them both, and I couldn't be happier!
Joe (joemagiera at ameritech dot net)
joemagiera@ameritech.net
How soon we forget? No one under 30 y/o has any specific recollection of the event, which makes is difficult to really forget in the first place. Part of the issue with the "best ever" title is that it is relative to those whom experienced the event. It is hard to have an emotional connection to an event that you did not experiece first hand, and get the full impact of the event.
Watching the USA men take on, catch, and ultimately catch the French team (making it all the sweeter) will certainly be a "for all time" event in my mind.
Other factors that make the 2008 relay so special:
1. smack talk by the French
It wasn't smack talk by "The French," it was smack talk by Bernard. I didn't hear about any comments by other members of the French relay team.
Another thing to remember is we're looking at this from an American perspective. I bet if you polled, for example, Australians on the subject of best swimming race ever they'd come up with an entirely different list.
I'd be very interested to see that (and I'd still like to see their splits from that race if someone can find them).
Most of the splits are mentioned in this SI article: vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/.../index.htm
Bruce Hayes split 1:48.41.
The 1984 4x200 freestyle relay was one of the greatest races I have ever seen. I remember as boy, jumping up and down! Bruce Hayes was just stunning - I think his anchor leg was something like a 1:48.5, about 1.5 seconds faster than his best.
Lezak did the same thing in the 100 - about 1.5 seconds faster than his lifetime best.
Someone else mentioned the 2000 4x100 relay which the Aussies one by a touch. As an American I will always favor our relays, but looking at it objectively I must say that one could maek a case for that relay being the greatest of all time.
So far as I can remember, however, no one has run down a world record holder as Lezak did. Simply superhuman.
Former Member
In both relay examples, the anchor leg of the winning team dove in first. They were resilient to hold off the other team, but the 400 free relay in 2008 was an exact reversal.
In 1984 and in 2000, the winning anchor-leg swimmers (Bruce Hayes and Ian Thorpe) were not considered to be faster than the men chasing them (Michael Gross and Gary Hall Jr.). So, yes, the winners dug deep to hold off the superior swimmer (just as Klete Keller did in 2004).
But in this case, Lezak was chasing down the world record holder (at least before te race started), a man who had swum the fastest split in history in the prelims. No one at the elite level can chase down someone that's a body length in front -- unless the man they are chasing splits 21.6 and hugs the lane line. It was sheer triumph of the will.
Well said!
I am annoyed I don't remember that 1984 relay since I must have watched it.
Other factors that make the 2008 relay so special:
1. smack talk by the French
2. French were favored by most and had the better sum of flat start times
3. five teams broke the WR for the fastest field in history
4. USA had lost the 4x100 FR in two consecutive Olympics
I wonder what kind of boost Lezak got from riding Bernard's wake? In the 400 free relay Lezak split 46.06. In the medley he split 46.76. In the individual event he went 47.67.
It wasn't smack talk by "The French," it was smack talk by Bernard. I didn't hear about any comments by other members of the French relay team.
Irrelevant who said it. When one person of a team talks smack, it falls on the whole team to back it up. What was so special about this colossal blunder was that not only did he doom his whole team but he also doomed himself personally.
Lezak got a much bigger boost from Bernard's talk than he did from his wake.
It should be well known that you don't talk trash to MJ, Tiger Woods, Phelps or LT. Many have done it, few, if any, have succeeded.
Former Member
I've never seen a race that compares to the 2008 relay. What Lezak did was theoretically impossible.
Former Member
A few things:
The most recent event is often given priority in these sorts of debates. That's just how it is. Memories are short.
How much did Lezak PR by in that race? The fact that he swam so completely out of his mind has to factor in? How much did the guys in those other races PR by?
One of the things that made this relay so incredible is that they'd lost the race and Phelps had lost his quest for 8 golds until Lezak came from behind to win. I really don't think that the comeback would have had the same magnitude if Phelps quest didn't depend on it.
The smack talk by the Bernard, and the fact that he was the anchor and had it shoved up sideways, also made it special. A lot of people like to see cocky, arrogant people get their due.
I don't put a whole lot of stock in that "fastest field in history" thing. Yes, it was, but so much of that is technology (suits and pools) that the comparison is unfair. How much of the "five teams beating the world record" is because they were better athletes and how much was the suits? I think a lot of it was the suits.
