What does it mean when we look at the performance of the US men's swimming team at Beijing without Phelps....... i.e. without the man carrying the team? Is he merely the "Vince Young" of a slightly above average football Team?
We essentially lose the 400 free relay, 100 fly (Ian moves form 4th to 3rd), 200 IM and 400 IM (Lochted moves to silver), 200 free and 200 fly. That's makes 6 less golds and one extra bronze.
The US would effectively only win 2 individual events...... the 200 and 100 back.
Is Phelps a true representation of the state of US men's swimming or and exception?
www.nbcolympics.com/.../index.html
Parents
Former Member
I got the latest "Outside" magazine in the mail today. W. Hodding Carter has a "memo to Michael Phelps," where he asks Phelps to "save swimming." A quote from the article:
"....Aside from your eight wins, U.S. swimmers grabbed only four other individual golds in Beijing, continuing our sport's steady spiral down to Davy Jones's locker. This is happening because our farm system has been eroding for years, especially where boys are concerned. Compared with female swimmers, the number of males competing in amateur meets at every level has been dwindling for a while now. And since the '70's, at least 64 colleges have dropped male swim teams from their varsity lineups, claiming they don't have enough money because of the funding demands of Title IX. (Meanwhile, some of these same broke universities can afford plenty of football scholarships for players who warm the bench on perennially losing teams.) Why would boys want to excel in a sport that can neither help them get into college nor even allow them to compete at the intercollegiate level?
This matters because, as you know, swimming is the greatest participatory sport in the world. Think about it. There's hardly any other (somewhat) popular athletic activity in which boys and girls train together day in and day out, share the same lane, do the exact same sets, and work to exhaustion side by side, starting before they can read, even. Through proximity and repetition alone, swimming teaches gender blindness. And except in your case, Your Neptunitude, girls beat boys in practice on a daily basis. I can't begin to count the number of times a female beat me in a distance set when I was a kid or in college. (It happens still.)...."
I got the latest "Outside" magazine in the mail today. W. Hodding Carter has a "memo to Michael Phelps," where he asks Phelps to "save swimming." A quote from the article:
"....Aside from your eight wins, U.S. swimmers grabbed only four other individual golds in Beijing, continuing our sport's steady spiral down to Davy Jones's locker. This is happening because our farm system has been eroding for years, especially where boys are concerned. Compared with female swimmers, the number of males competing in amateur meets at every level has been dwindling for a while now. And since the '70's, at least 64 colleges have dropped male swim teams from their varsity lineups, claiming they don't have enough money because of the funding demands of Title IX. (Meanwhile, some of these same broke universities can afford plenty of football scholarships for players who warm the bench on perennially losing teams.) Why would boys want to excel in a sport that can neither help them get into college nor even allow them to compete at the intercollegiate level?
This matters because, as you know, swimming is the greatest participatory sport in the world. Think about it. There's hardly any other (somewhat) popular athletic activity in which boys and girls train together day in and day out, share the same lane, do the exact same sets, and work to exhaustion side by side, starting before they can read, even. Through proximity and repetition alone, swimming teaches gender blindness. And except in your case, Your Neptunitude, girls beat boys in practice on a daily basis. I can't begin to count the number of times a female beat me in a distance set when I was a kid or in college. (It happens still.)...."
